EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would like to table the following document: Department of Health and Social Services’ response to Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s Report on Recruitment and Retention of Inuit Nurses in Nunavut.
Bill 33 – An Act to Amend the Integrity Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Iqaluit Centre, that Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Integrity Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 34 – An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Iqaluit Centre, that Bill 34, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 28 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 28, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 28 has been read for the first time.
Bill 29 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 29, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
Bill 29 has been read for the first time.
Bill 30 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 30, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 30 has been read for the first time.
Bill 31 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 31, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 31 has been read for the first time.
Bill 32 – Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 32, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 32 has been read for the first time.
Bill 36 – Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, No. 2, 2010 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, No. 2, 2010, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 36 has been read for the first time.
Bill 28 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011 – Second Reading
I was taking a break.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 28, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011, be read for the second time.
Bill 28 has been read for the second time and is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 29 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 29, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011, be read for the second time.
The motion is carried. Bill 29 has been read for the second time and is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 30 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 30, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011, be read for the second time.
Bill 30 has had second reading and is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 31 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 31, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011, be read for the second time.
The motion is carried. Bill 31 has been read for the second time and is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Bills 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, and Tabled Documents 13 – 3(2), 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2) with Mr. Okalik in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:22 and Committee resumed at 15:59
Chairman (Mr. Okalik)(interpretation): Good afternoon. I thank all members for being here in Committee of the Whole.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Tabled Documents 13 – 3(2), 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2), and Bills 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31.
We wish to review Bill 27 and once that is completed, we will continue with the review of Tabled Documents 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), 100 – 3(2), and 13 – 3(2).
We will proceed with the Department of Health and Social Services, followed by the departments of Finance, Justice, Environment, and Human Resources.
If time permits, we proceed with CLEY and the Department of Education.
Do my colleagues agree that we deal first with Bill 27?
Bill 27 – An Act to Amend the Workers Compensation Act – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): As the Chair, I will be giving my chair to Mr. Ningeongan while we’re dealing with Bill 27.
Mr. Ningeongan, if you would approach the table.
I would like to ask Minister Curley if he has opening comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide opening comments on Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.
The proposed amendments allow for the creation of a legislative presumption that firefighters with certain types of cancers are presumed to have developed the cancer from their work.
Mr. Chairman, the presumption for firefighters, full-time, part-time, and volunteer, will recognize that firefighters who have certain types of cancers after working as firefighters for specified periods developed those cancers from their work.
Eight Canadian jurisdictions currently provide for a legislative presumption for firefighters as the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly passed legislation which came into force on February 26, 2010.
Regulations will list the cancers and the required length of employment as a firefighter for the presumption to apply.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendments allow greater flexibility for appointing qualified individuals to the position of Governance Council Chairperson.
The proposed amendment will allow the minister to appoint a director to the Governance Council for a total period not exceeding nine years.
The chairperson provides a leadership role; increasing the time limit of service on the Governance Council gives the minister options to ensure the Governance Council has effective leadership. The bill does not seek to modify term lengths.
That is, the minister can still appoint a director to a maximum term of three years.
The proposed amendment allows the minister to reappoint a director for up to two additional three-year terms.
Just before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, we have earlier today, the appearance before the Full Caucus.
I would just like to remind all of you that Anne Clark, the Present/CEO, is present, Derek Dinham, Vice-President of the Nunavut Operations, and also Amy Groothuis, General Counsel from WSCC.
We also will have sitting in the Gallery Susan Hardy, who has worked hard to bring this legislative proposal before the committee and also throughout the committee process.
I will be prepared to appear and respond to the questions from the members, if any.
Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table then?
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister’s officials in.
Minister Curley, you have already stated the names of your officials, but if you would introduce them.
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Here with me at the witness stand starting with my right is Madam Anne Clark, President and CEO of WSCC, and on my left is Amy Groothuis, General Counsel of WSCC.
Mr. Okalik, proceed.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, a new Workers’ Compensation Act was introduced and passed in 2007. This legislation replaced the statute that was inherited upon division in 1999.
The standing committee recognizes that the continuation of a shared Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission between Nunavut and the Northwest Territories has created a unique situation for the legislatures in both territories.
Over the years, the passage of amendments to one jurisdiction’s statute has resulted in a need for the other legislature to take action to ensure that the Acts in both territories remain parallel with one another.
This is a unique situation in the country.
The standing committee looks forward to pursuing open lines of communication with its counterpart committee in the Northwest Territories in order to ensure that dialogue takes place with respect to any future proposed amendments to the legislation in either territory.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee is in support of the proposed amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Act.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 27, members took the opportunity to raise a number of concerns and questions.
Mr. Chairman, the committee noted that when the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly considered its version of this bill earlier this year, MLAs proposed an amendment to broaden the definition of firefighter to also include part-time and volunteer firefighters.
The bill that we are considering today in Nunavut reflects this change and members applaud the recognition of the needs of part-time and volunteer firefighters.
Members also note that Bill 27 allows the government to make regulations prescribing the minimum period of time that a firefighter must have been a non-smoker for the legislative presumption that is provided for in the legislation to apply.
Members questioned the minister and his officials with respect to this matter and were advised that the regulations are in the process of being drafted.
The standing committee looks forward to reviewing these regulations.
I am sure that my colleagues will have questions of their own.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 27 to all members.
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the hon. minister as well as the guests at the witness table.
I appreciate the opening comments that the minister has provided on behalf of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission.
In the second paragraph of your opening comments, as a formality, I would like to ask, as well, which eight of the Canadian jurisdictions, aside from NWT, has passed legislation for the presumption of firefighters to be able to qualify for application of coverage?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Aupaluktuq. Minister Curley.
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We spoke about the eight jurisdictions, including the Northwest Territories, that have put in place pieces of legislation that deal with fire protection, although they are voluntary firefighters.
These are: Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia.
New Brunswick is also included as well as NWT.
I believe this is what you were requesting.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Curley. Mr. Aupaluktuq.
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I would like to ask a question about your opening comments. In your opening statement, you stated that the legislation that you will be using to deal with the volunteer firefighter is sometimes classified as part-time.
What kind of requirements do they need to become classified as part-time firefighters? Will this include insurance or health and medical costs?
How many years will they have to be firefighters before they qualify for benefits?
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): As I understand your question, how many years does the firefighter have to have worked in order to qualify, with regard to the kind of stipend that they may be getting, we cannot provide details, but with regard to what you spoke of the presumption, I am not sure how to state it in Inuktitut, but perhaps they could be eligible for the insurance.
Our legal counsel can speak about the length of time that you asked about. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Ms. Groothuis
Ms. Groothuis: Thank you. It differs for each of the different type of primary site cancers and the regulations will set out the period of time for each type of cancer.
They’re draft right now, but as an example, I can tell you that if a firefighter were to develop primary site brain cancer, what we’re recommending is that they have been a firefighter for a period of time of 10 years.
All of the periods of time are based on scientific and medical literature as it dates back a considerable period of time, but it will be contained in regulations.
I guess as a formality too, I would like to ask how long of a term must a firefighter be on a brigade in order to be considered for application under this.
Ms. Groothuis.
Ms. Groothuis: I think that that follows probably from the previous question and answer.
Again, what the presumption is looking at is the total period of time that the firefighter has been fighting fires, regardless of whether they have been in the brigade or volunteer, and it will be based on, as I said in the regulations, the period of time that is set out in medical literature that draws the presumption between the type of cancer and the amount or level of exposure expressed in years.
So therefore, we will now proceed to the clause-by-clause review of the bill starting with page 1.
Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act. Clause 1. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 2. Agreed?
I am not sure if it is in clause 3, but I had a concern that there seems to be some missing coverage.
I am happy for the firefighters who will get this coverage. I recognize special needs to have that kind of coverage because of the type of occupation that they have.
I always worry about omitting or the lack of coverage for hunters who are part-time hunters, weekend hunters, whatever you call them.
These are the most active people who are working from 8:30 or 9:00 to 5:00 for five days and they only have the weekend to hunt.
If they were to get injured on a hunting trip, they would not only be able to hunt again but they would not be able to work either.
Is this somehow covered in the legislation, that they may be eligible?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation) We are concentrating on the firefighters at this point.
Perhaps you can clarify your question, Mr. Arvaluk.
On clause 3, I think it was mentioned that there would be regulations governing the eligibility criteria for fireman’s coverage, what they would be covered for, and the regulations would be prescribed instructions.
I guess my question is: is there some regulation in there that allows the weekend hunters, part-time hunters, whatever you want to call them, who supplement their income and food through hunting… is there some sort of coverage like that also in the legislation?
This is outside from what we are discussing at this time.
However, Minister Curley, I’ll leave it at your discretion if you want to respond to his concern.
Hon. Tagak Curley: Yes, Mr. Chairman, (interpretation) I can respond.
As I spoke to earlier today when we were in the legislative committee with regard to hunter support programs, they are also processed, but the Nunavut government is guided by the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Nunavut and the hunters if they got hurt while hunting.
Due to the fact that this is a separate piece of legislation that deals specifically with hunters, it’s at our discretion as the Nunavut government whether we want to change that particular application.
It is not included in this particular legislation.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) During the minister and his officials’ presentation this morning, we were told that there would be a prescribed regulation for defining a non-smoker and a person that had quit smoking and that it would be regulated on a basis of the number of cigarettes that the individual had.
I was a bit confused because I used to be a smoker and I have no idea how many cigarettes I may have smoked.
I’m sure it would be a bit difficult to enforce if that is going to be the definition, the number of cigarettes an individual may have smoked in the past.
It is something I find a bit confusing. I would like to get a further explanation, perhaps, on the proposed regulations on defining a non-smoker. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Part of it was responded but for the record earlier today, a lot of these have been studied in health studies and a lot of these schedules are based on past history.
The president will speak in more detail on how that applies.
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The medical evidence sets out whether or not a person is a smoker or non-smoker and the doctors’ way that was explained to me is that they speak in terms of the number of cigarettes, cigars, or pipes smoked in a lifetime before they would consider a person a non-smoker.
I understand that when doctors examine an individual, they can tell or guess by the symptoms that person has and the way a disease develops whether or not that person is a smoker, or a recent smoker, or never has been a smoker. So they look at the medical evidence that comes along with the individual.
The regulations themselves are very specific because medical science tells us that they can speak in those terms and they can assess on those terms.
I read you some numbers this morning about how many cigarettes would be considered a non-smoker just to give you a good level of detail that the scientific evidence gives us.
The regulations that we propose here are the same regulations that we proposed in the Northwest Territories and are now in force and effect there.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Clark.
Mr. Okalik: I have no idea.
It just boggled my mind when the numbers were put forward.
I just found it rather confusing how one could perhaps be defined as a non-smoker by the number of cigarettes because I don’t know of any individual that actually counted the number of cigarettes that they may have smoked. It may be a guesstimate of some sort.
I was a light smoker for a few years and I have no idea how many cigarettes I may have smoked, so that part I just cannot comprehend.
If a doctor can tell me how many cigarettes I may have smoked by examining me, that’s great.
I would like to know that so that I can decide, “Oh, okay, I don’t meet this definition and I meet this other definition.” (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I didn’t hear a question in your comments there.
However, Ms. Clark, do you wish to respond to his comments?
Ms. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Perhaps I could add a little more information to help clarify that.
Medical practitioners or our health care providers will classify us as non-smokers after a period of time of not smoking depending on how many cigarettes we smoked when we were smokers.
So for example, if I was a smoker and I smoked less than seven cigarettes per week, so if I report that I smoked a cigarette a day, then if I go six years without smoking, then I’m the same as if I had never smoked.
So it’s that type of evidence that they will use. If I smoked on average 40 cigarettes per day, then it would take me 28 years of non-smoking to be at the same level as a non-smoker, as someone who never smoked.
So it’s that type of language that they use to describe our risk of developing these cancers and the more we smoked, the longer it will take to bring us to a point where we’re at the same risk of developing cancer as someone who never smoked.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Clark. I can just see people calculating already.
We will get back to clause 3. I don’t have any more names.
I guess my question goes into the smoking part here too because we have been told years ago that second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke was just as harmful as actually smoking. I have never ever smoked in my life, but I sure was around a lot of people who did.
How would that affect the person proving that he is a non-smoker?
I think we must keep this in perspective that if any member of my colleagues here devolve… thank goodness we have heard of anyone contracting cancer yet, but I think we’re talking about that particular type of disease and not really just trying to prove whether you are a smoker or a non-smoker unless you have a case along with your claim for compensation.
I’ll let our president comment on that further.
Whether or not you were exposed to second-hand smoke would not come into play under these regulations. I think it’s important to remember that what we’re talking about in this amendment and in the regulations is a presumption and it’s not proof. So being a firefighter doesn’t automatically prove that your cancer was work related.
If there is something else that caused the cancer, then that evidence will come into play.
What it does is that it releases an extraordinary burden from people who have worked as firefighters for a specific period of time. So all of those other things will come into play, but there isn’t any contemplation that the people will be disadvantaged because they happened to be in an environment where there was second-hand smoke.
Getting back to clause 3.
Do members agree to Bill 27 as a whole?
Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 27 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
I would like to ask Minister Curley if he has any closing remarks.
I appreciate the support for the legislation.
This is a very important legislation for firefighters, volunteer or part-time, and whatnot.
I think it gives long-term and more security for those in the unlikely event sometimes, you know, that something does happen. We want to make sure that the people who are impacted, for instance, the ones that we just dealt with, have some sort of protection for the future.
For that, we appreciate all of your support and I would like to thank all of the officials here, Anne particularly, as well as our legal counsel here. (interpretation) Thank you.
Thank you for having your witnesses here. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses.
Mr. Okalik will now be the Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
Chairman (Mr. Okalik)(interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan, for giving me a rest.
Yesterday, the Department of Health and Social Services was at the witness table.
Would you like to proceed with the same department?
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the officials, if they are here, and the minister to the witness table.
The minister is now at the witness table.
For the record, please introduce your witness, Minister Curley.
On my left is (interpretation ends) Deputy Minister Alex Campbell. (interpretation) Thank you.
I would like to remind my colleagues of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
Let’s proceed from there.
Who has further questions?
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the hon. minister for being here as well as Deputy Minister Campbell.
I want to thank you for the answers that you had provided in our sitting yesterday.
I had two questions that I wish to ask and this is specific to telehealth.
With regard to procurement activities, the government’s most recent annual report states that your department awarded $495,000 as a contract to a company for a telehealth expansion project. What specific results did this project achieve?
I will ask my deputy minister to answer the question.
It would be of tremendous help if you can clarify the contract number.
Chairman (interpretation): I apologize, Minister. The contract number is C1506.
They haven’t found the page yet.
It is contract number C1506.
You haven’t found it yet?
C1506. Does someone have a bingo?