EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The Languages Commissioner can receive submissions by way of writing or a telephone call, where someone can just submit a verbal complaint, and we have allowed for that under this bill.
The people we had in mind for this verbal submission section were our elders or the older Inuit, who are not so well versed in literature and grew up with a largely oral society, who would prefer to talk to a person as opposed to reading or writing a letter. So that’s why the Languages Commissioner can be asked to conduct an investigation on a verbal request.
I’m sure that many people prefer a verbal complaint. This can be a complaint about a service provider that is supposed to provide the service in Inuktitut and has knowingly not provided their service in Inuktitut.
Perhaps a more tangible example would be if a person goes to a restaurant and requests a menu in Inuktitut and there’s no menu available in Inuktitut. They can submit a complaint to the Languages Commissioner regarding the lack of a menu or service in Inuktitut.
The commissioner can then discuss the matter regarding the lack of service in Inuktitut if a person who went to a restaurant phoned to complain about the continuing lack of service in Inuktitut or a menu not available in Inuktitut.
Once the complaint has been lodged, the Languages Commissioner can investigate whether the complaint has basis in fact or if it’s frivolous.
After the investigation, the commissioner can work with the entity or company identified as lacking services in Inuktitut to see how they can resolve the matter and provide the service in Inuktitut.
Clause 31 outlines the process that the public can follow to submit their complaints to the Languages Commissioner and enable the Languages Commissioner to conduct an investigation, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Yes, I understand that Inuktitut is easier to work with.
Though I understand that, I would like to ask a question to the person to my right through you, Mr. Chairman. Section 31 states the Languages Commissioner... perhaps I should say this in English as it may not make sense in Inuktitut. (interpretation ends) Section 31 states that the Languages Commissioner considers, if presented with a request for an investigation, or looks into a problem of that nature.
Because all Inuit or those that are complaining may not use the word “investigation,” “but the language considered to be satisfactory,” can I get some explanation of what satisfactory means?
In other legislation, it normally also includes other wordings that if there were grounds for investigation.
It appears to give the Languages Commissioner some discretion to look at all of the requests for investigation or applications for investigation, so I need a bit more information on whether or not the Languages Commissioner needs to act upon receiving one or more requests. Is there a bit of a discretion that he or she would also have to, as Languages Commissioner, review all of the evidence presented or submitted?
Although I can respond to that, I believe Susan Hardy will respond to that.
This discretion is as to the form of the concern. So for example, if the Languages Commissioner has found it useful, in dealing with oral complaints, to ask the person if they were willing for the discussion about the person’s concerns to be recorded, then the complaint might take a recorded form, a digital recording or a tape recording, or it could take another form that satisfies the commissioner. For example, if the person was more comfortable with writing, they might use a kind of a survey form or a question-and-answer type form.
What this does though is try to open up the scope so that the Languages Commissioner has the discretion to use a form that is appropriate to the circumstances and that satisfies the needs of the Languages Commissioner to get those facts we were talking about before.
There needs to be a clear understanding on what exactly happened here and later on when we get into clause 33 and onward, the commissioner then has to make an assessment: do these facts show reasonable grounds for me to proceed?
So at this stage, the commissioner is finding a form that works for ‘this person that I have in my office or on the phone, and it will give me a good basis to proceed with this complaint and make the determinations I have to make.’ One of which is: can I take this anywhere or is it something that I should refer to a different venue?
It might actually be a labour standards concern or something like that.
So what this clause says is when it comes to the form of the complaint, it can be spoken or it can be written but that form must be satisfactory to the Languages Commissioner.
If I simply write down such-and-such company is not complying with the spirit and intent, as we were given this example, it certainly would not be satisfactory to the Languages Commissioner. The form has to comply with the commissioner’s needs as an ombudsman and possibly down the road, an investigator.
Mr. Chairman, I have another question to pose.
If there was a request for investigation and the commissioner understands it to be satisfactory that there might be a contravention, then an investigation would be initiated.
It doesn’t state in the section that we are reviewing what the length of the investigation would be.
Is there a time limit set out here as to when the report should be completed?
Is there a provision in there or is that at the discretion of the commissioner to take as much time as needed to complete their investigation?
That’s what I would like to get clarification on.
Yes, there’s a provision in there identifying a timeframe for a report.
Perhaps Ms. Susan Hardy can provide some clarification as to where the members can find the provision referring to the time limit, Mr. Chairman.
In section 39(1)(c), there’s a provision that allows a person to go directly to court if a year has passed since they made an application and nothing further has happened.
So if the commissioner doesn’t produce a result or something that satisfies the person that’s made the application within one year, they can use this provision to go to court and get their satisfaction there.
That would be an unfortunate outcome for the Languages Commissioner and it would make everything go into the kind of adversarial proceeding that we’re trying to supplement with the Languages Commissioner’s role.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) I would like to get this provision clarified but first, I would like to thank the minister and Susan Hardy for their response and clarification.
I also would like to get clarification on a matter which I’m sure we will discuss shortly. As an example, if there was a complaint made that an entity was not complying with the provisions related to Inuit language services, are there any provisions outlining the protection of the complainant in these cases?
I’m sure that each party has certain rights, especially the ones whom are the subject of complaints. So what kind of rights do they have? Will they have protection or rights for the entity?
I know for a fact, that many organizations share this concern, especially companies that don’t want to produce materials in Inuktitut or hire an Inuk to provide services. I know that many organizations may not wish to comply with the legislation.
What I want clarified is what kind of response will be issued if an organization is being investigated. How would the commissioner deal with issues like this? I would be very pleased to hear the clarification on that issue, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, indeed they will have rights.
If I were to cite an example where an individual owns a small convenience store and cannot hire another employee based solely on their ability to speak in Inuktitut due to limited resources and size, the individual can contact the Languages Commissioner to relate their circumstances.
The owner can ask to be excluded from the application of Bill 7 for a period of time while trying to comply with the legislation.
The Languages Commissioner can also identify the problems and ascertain areas where they are able to assist the store.
The Government of Nunavut and the Languages Commissioner would then work with the company or a small store that’s experiencing problems complying with the provisions of the legislation due to their small size and the fact that this would cause financial hardship. This is their right.
If they are the subject of a complaint, they can notify the Languages Commissioner that they are unable to comply with the legislation and get together to resolve the issues.
If the company is the subject of a complaint and it’s going to create undue hardship to their businesses, then the commissioner can do his or her investigation.
There’s a provision in the Act whereby they can collaborate on how they will resolve the issues faced by the organization, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 37.1.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 38.1.
Chairman (interpretation): There is a motion in your blue motion binder.
Committee Motion 020 – 2(4): Bill 7, Clause 44 Amended by Clause 44(1)(c.1) (Tapardjuk)
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I would like to make a motion to amend the Inuit Language Protection Act.
Clause 44 is amended by deleting clause 44(1)(c.1) and adding the following after clause 44(1)(a.1):
(a.2) under subsection 3(1) as it applies to private sector bodies, in respect of a specified place, class, condition or circumstance,
(i) detail an obligation set out in section 3,
(ii) vary an obligation set out in section 3 and substitute a less onerous or different requirement for communication or services in the Inuit Language, or
(iii) waive an obligation set out in section 3;
The motion is in order. However, prior to proceeding on the matter, I would like to remind members of the following: every member has a right to speak for a time not exceeding 20 minutes and the mover of the motion has the right to speak first, followed by the seconder.
To the motion. All those in favour, please raise your hand.
Clause 44 as amended.
I would like to ask a very brief question.
This clause 28 that we reviewed and approved states, “The Languages Commissioner shall take all actions and measures within the authority of the Languages Commissioner…” The regulations listed under clause 44 are also worded that way.
One concern that I have is: hypothetically speaking, what if the Languages Commissioner was corrupt? It seems that they can make any type of judgement or decision within the parameters set out in clause 28.
Even though we have regulations listed under the legislation, will the government also be sending out guidelines or policies to be used by the Languages Commissioner?
The provisions identify that the Cabinet can make regulations but they would have to look at all of the things that could be impacted.
As I stated earlier, during the drafting of the regulations, the impacted entities and individuals will be consulted to identify what problems may surface in complying with the legislation.
It states here that other services, whether it’s the government or the municipality and others, will have to provide services in the Inuit language.
So these types of issues will need to be resolved and we will have to consult with the impacted entities and individuals once we start drafting the regulations and policies of the legislation, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 44.1.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 48.1.
I just have a couple of quick questions on this one. It says that if Bill 21 is passed and gets ascent. What happens if it doesn’t?
Susan Hardy will respond to the question, Mr. Chairman.
This clause had to be drafted carefully because Bill 21 is not in force at this time. Once it’s in force, it creates an error back in the definition section of this Act, so it’s a conditional clause.
If Bill 21 comes into force, this Act will be automatically amended, if you will, to align with that.
If there were another outcome, then the existing definition is in the front of this Act and it links us to the current Education Act. So what we simply don’t want to do is leave this bill adrift, referring to something that doesn’t exist anymore. That’s what this is for.
I just want to get a clarification way back on clause 8 and clause 9. They talk about the Inuit language instruction and early childhood education.
Would those two clauses require any amendments to the Education Act?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Susan Hardy will respond to that question.
Clause 8 has a kind of operation which will always have an impact on the Education Act.
The Education Bill that’s before the House, my understanding is there was an attempt to comply with Bill 7; both were in development at the same time. That will continue.
If the outcomes are not achieving what’s required under Bill 7, the Education Act is required to evolve in a way that continues the process of advancing the kind of goals that this Act is setting out. So clause 8 says that parents have the right to have their children receive instruction in Inuktitut and then it sets out the standard that needs to be achieved, and the bill before you here sets kind of the North Star goal, the highest goal.
The Education Act may use different means, from time to time, of getting there and that’s how the two bills relate.
So your answer kind of has a yes and a no. There’s no amendment to this Act or to the Education Act required, but over time, the Education Act will change as different means are used to get us closer and closer to the goals that this Act sets out.
The reason I guess is I thought these two sections might. My next question, I will ask you to make it clear why, with the right that every parent has in the education program in Nunavut and also within clause 9 with the early childhood education, do those two clauses apply to the Ecole des Trois-Soliels and the Garderie les Petits Nanooks, that any parent whose child is enrolled in either of those programs would have the right to have their child receive instruction in the Inuit language?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Susan Hardy will respond to that as well.
What the Act says is that every parent has the right for their child to receive that instruction and that is the requirement of the Act.
It says, “Every parent whose child is enrolled in an education program in Nunavut,” and they could be enrolled in a program that Ecole des Trois-Soliels or into the Garderie les Petits Nanooks, at both of the French schools.
I know when we were looking at the Education Act, it was very clear that, for constitutional reasons, the Commission Scolaire is in full control of their schools and everything.
So that’s why I’m wondering: do these provisions apply to students that are enrolled in the education program at that school or in the child care program up there as well?
I just want to know: do they have to comply with this if someone decides to exercise that right under this Act?
What we’re dealing with here is Bill 7, the Inuit Language Protection Act, and it’s obvious that it will have some impact on education, but we are strictly talking about the Inuit language at this time.
Perhaps Stéphane can elaborate on that.
Mr. Cloutier (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) The legislation, the Inuit Language Protection Act, there is a provision that says that we must respect the constitutional rights of francophones and anglophones, and it’s already in the legislation.
We know that the Ecole des Trois-Soliels or the Garderie les Petits Nanooks are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and also under the Constitution. They have control over their education system; they have control over their schools, and so on.
The standard we are setting, the goal that we are setting with the Inuit Language Protection Act is that every parent that has a child enrolled in our education program should have the right to have his or her child also receive Inuit language instruction.
Mr. Cloutier: But for the French school or the day care, they will decide on the means on how they will implement this. The legislation and the Constitution are pretty clear that we need to respect that basic right that the francophones have to control their education.
But the standard is there for everyone, for all Nunavummiut, for every parent to ensure that we all reach that goal. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Mr. Cloutier for that response. He knows our kids both go to that school.
As an Inuk parent, if I go to the school and say I want my child to receive Inuit language instruction, that request would have to be complied with?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Cloutier will respond to that question as well.
Yes, that’s true. (interpretation ends) You know, what we see right now, even francophones here in Nunavut, they are protected under the Constitution, they have constitutional rights.
But when it comes to the Inuit language and for parents that want their children to receive Inuit language instruction, there are basically no rights for parents that want to ensure their children receive instruction in the Inuit language.
What the legislation would ensure is that, yes, francophones will continue to enjoy their constitutional rights, but what we’re trying to do here is to fill a vacuum that exists for the Inuit language and those that use it or want to use it. (interpretation) That’s all.
This whole discussion of constitutional rights is something that we’ve had under the Education Act and I think everyone understands that, but I don’t think my question has been answered.
If I want my children that attend that school to receive Inuit language instruction so they won’t lose their language like I did, would the school be required, under the legislation, to provide that to them?
I will have Susan Hardy respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, you can make that request.
Depending on the degree to which you want, as a parent, to have your children educated, it may end up being something that’s very appropriate in their school program and in fact, that they have endorsed as a level of instruction in Inuktitut that is important to the identity and the healthy development of the children in their school, or your child may need a different program to achieve the level of instruction in Inuktitut that you want for your child.
We can’t really get into the Education Act here.
What we can tell you is that the Constitution sets out the rights for the francophones.
One of the rights they have is to control the educational environment in which their children are. We are not entrenching on that at all, but there are children who have an Inuit heritage in this jurisdiction and in that particular school, and they’re entitled to accommodation as well.
You pointed out a context where the balancing is much more careful.
You have gone beyond your time allotted for questioning.
As I said, I can’t seem to get a yes or a no. Would they be obligated under Bill 7 to provide that service to my children, yes or no?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I have been looking for an explanation in the Education Act, Bill 21.
Perhaps Susan can respond.
Are we responsible for that?
My understanding is that the Education Act has been drafted to comply with this requirement, with the knowledge of this requirement. My understanding is that the balancing that is precise is quite complex and it is set out there.
We’re not here to debate the Education Act and we’re not going to give you a yes or no answer because it’s not that simple.
What we’re doing here is setting out the standard and the right is the right of the parents.
The right in the case of the francophone education is the right of the parents. A parent will decide how they want their child to be educated and they will take that request to the school.
The Education Act and this Act both apply to that request.
We will be dealing with Bill 21, the Education Act, which specifically relates to education.
We are currently dealing with Bill 7, the Inuit Language Protection Act.
I just want to clarify, that’s what I’m talking about, the Inuit Language Protection Act. Clause 8 and clause 9 is in Bill 7, the Inuit Language Protection Act.
I’m not asking about the Education Act, I made that really clear.
I’m just saying that as a parent to his children who go to Ecole des Trois-Soleils, do I have a right under this Act, under Bill 7, not Bill 21, to ask and have my children receive Inuit language instruction?
That’s it. I’m not talking about the Education Act at all.
Does Bill 7 guarantee that right for my children?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): If any parent makes a request as per those provisions, then we will have to abide by that and our answer is yes, completely.
Clause 48.1.
This is the commencement and coming into force clause and it’s quite lengthy, so maybe just for the listening public out there and for the benefit of the members that weren’t in the committee if the minister or his officials could indicate, I know it says sections 1, 2, 14, 15, what comes into force now in terms that people will understand, and so on and so forth, as it goes through?
If I could just get an English explanation, instead of a legal, like this clause that clause, if I could just get an explanation as to what the section that says comes into force when.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have Stéphane Cloutier respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cloutier (interpretation): I apologize, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I’ll try to put it in plain language what these coming into force provisions mean and we have many numbers here.
First of all, these provisions will ensure that for Inuit language services to the public, the coming into force is deferred sometimes to allow governments.
It will not come into force immediately, but it will allow governments, municipalities, businesses, community organizations, and others in the public and private sectors the time they need to ensure they have the required language capabilities in place to comply with their requirements under Bill 7. It would come into force on the date fixed by the commissioner.
For municipal services in the Inuit language, it will come into force four years after the passage of the legislation. So if the legislation is passed in 2008, then that brings us to 2012.
For Inuit language instruction, what we have here is that the provisions of section 8, it will come into force for kindergarten to grade 3 on July 1, 2009, that’s next year, and gradually for all other grades until July 1, 2019. This will allow time for the standard setting, teacher training, and material preparation required to comply with section 8.
The provisions for language of work in the public service, it will come into force three years after the passage of the legislation.
So that will most likely bring us to 2011 and this will allow the territorial government time to prepare staff for the change and until training programs are in place to comply with the new requirements.
The Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit will have been established. It will be responsible to exercise its powers and perform its duties by about a year from now.
But meanwhile, implementation requirements, including like a request for nominations, like a call for nominations to the public, if they want to become board members of Taiguusiliuqtiit and the establishment of committees or selection committees required to consider those nominations will begin immediately.
For the Minister of Languages, you asked the question what comes into force immediately, the powers of the Minister of Languages, the ministerial duties to promote the Inuit language and to coordinate consultation, and implementation activities come into force once the legislation is passed.
For the Languages Commissioner, that will come on July 1, 2009. On day one, Inuit languages rights and duties will be actively enforced and the Languages Commissioner’s role and duties under Bill 7 will also come into force. In the meantime, the commissioner’s existing mandate under the Official Languages Act will continue.