EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Could you give us an update in terms of what your department has been doing and when that training will be provided to the government liaison officers?
There is no question that the training of the GLOs was very important.
We have set up a committee that is dealing with the training program for the GLOs.
In November 2011, the GLOs will be coming down for training, (interpretation ends) training conference in November 2011. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Thank you, Madam Premier. Your final supplementary, Mr. Elliott.
One of the arguments for the need for government liaison officers was better communication between residents and the Government of Nunavut.
I’m just wondering: what does the minister’s department have in place for reviewing this to see if the goal of more communication between the residents and the government is achieved?
Every time we introduce any new initiative, we monitor to ensure the initiative is progressing smoothly.
We will continue to monitor its effectiveness.
During a review of Qanukkanniq, one of the priorities identified were these GLO positions in the communities that would provide updates on government initiatives to the public and, conversely, government information that the public wants primarily as a liaison position.
It seems quite obvious that you, as elected representatives, will also make use of these positions as your constituents will provide comments and concerns about the position, whether it has provided benefits, and what else is needed to ensure that all of these different information requirements can be dealt with.
Once we have the GLO positions filled in all communities, there will be a review process on the implementation as this is a very important and significant position that can benefit the communities.
We will move in the Orders of the Day, Item 7.
Written Question 009 – 3(3): Enforcement of the Environmental Protection Act (Aupaluktuq)
I have a written question today for the Minister of Environment concerning the enforcement of the territorial Environmental Protection Act.
The questions are detailed, so I ask that they be entered into the record as read.
Within the meaning of section 12 of the Environmental Protection Act, how many charges were laid between April 1, 1999 and October 31, 2011 for alleged contraventions of the Act?
What were the circumstances of each alleged contravention?
What was the final disposition of each incident?
Between April 1, 1999 and October 31, 2011, how many fines were imposed for contraventions of the Act and what were the amounts and circumstances in each case where a fine was imposed?
The member is asking that the written question be written into the record as read.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to go back to Item 5. Are there any nays?
There are none. Please proceed, Mr. Peterson.
I thank my colleagues for granting me permission to go back to Item 5.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to welcome two staff to the Gallery today from the Department of Justice sitting just over here.
The first individual is Christine Ootova. Christine was an intern with the Legislative Division during the last few years as part of her Inuktitut studies, interpreter/translator training program, which is a very difficult program.
She graduated in the spring of 2011 and now she is working in our Legislative Division as a legal translator in Inuktitut. That’s Christine.
The second individual is Mr. Phillip Grassie. He was recently hired as our legislative counsel for Nunavut.
He previously worked for the civil policy and programs branch in the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. He is a graduate of the University of Western Ontario, Faculty of Law.
I’m sure they learned a lot today by their presence and seeing us debate questions.
Welcome to the Gallery. Hopefully it has been very educational for you.
Committee Report 007 – 3(3): Bill 16, Annual Reporting Validation (Liquor Licensing Board) Act (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 16, Annual Reporting Validation (Liquor Licensing Board) Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 16 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
There are none. Bill 16 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters. Mr. Ningeongan.
Committee Report 008 – 3(3): Bill 17, Write-off of Debts Act, 2011-2012 (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 17, Write-off of Debts Act, 2011-2012, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 17 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
Are there any nays? There are none. Bill 17 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report 009 – 3(3): Bill 18, An Act to Amend Several Acts for Constitutional Validity (Spousal Benefits and Obligations) (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 18, An Act to Amend Several Acts for Constitutional Validity (Spousal Benefits and Obligations), has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 18 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 18 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
There being none. Bill 18 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report 010 – 3(3): Bill 20, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act (Court Rules) (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 20, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Are there any nays? There being none.
Bill 20 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report 011 – 3(3): Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Public Colleges Act (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Public Colleges Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 23 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 23 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
There being none. Bill 23 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Tabled Document 129 – 3(3): Procurement Activity Report for the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Kusugak)
Tabled Document 130 – 3(3): Contract Activity Report for the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Kusugak)
Tabled Document 131 – 3(3): Lease Activity Report for the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 (Kusugak)
Tabled Document 132 – 3(3): 2010-2011 Qulliq Energy Corporation’s 10th Annual Report (Kusugak)
I would like to table four documents, Mr. Speaker.
The first document I am pleased to table is the Procurement Activity Report for the fiscal year 2010-11.
Mr. Speaker, the other document I would like to table is the Contract Activity Report for the fiscal year 2010-11.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table the Lease Activity Report for the fiscal year 2010-11.
We have been very busy, Mr. Speaker.
The last document that I am pleased to table is the 2010-11 Qulliq Energy Corporation’s 10th annual report.
Tabled Document 133 – 3(3): Career Development Strategy from 2009 (Aariak)
Tabled Document 134 – 3(3): F/P/T Report on the Western Premiers’ Conference in Yellowknife, NWT June 20 to 22, 2011 (Aariak)
Tabled Document 135 – 3(3): F/P/T Report on the Northern Premiers’ Forum in Yellowknife, April 27 to 28, 2011 (Aariak)
The first is I am pleased to table the Career Development Strategy from 2009 in response to Jeannie Ugyuk’s request back in the June sitting’s Committee of the Whole.
The second is the F/P/T report on the Western Premiers’ Conference in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, June 20 to 22, 2011.
And the third, Mr. Speaker, is the tabling of the F/P/T report on the Northern Premiers’ Forum in Yellowknife, April 27 to 28, 2011.
Tabled Document 136 – 3(3): F/P/T Report on the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment Meeting in Yellowknife June 28, 2011 (Shewchuk)
Tabled Document 137 – 3(3): F/P/T Report on the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Meetings held in Iqaluit, August 31 to September 2, 2011 (Shewchuk)
Mr. Speaker, the first is the F/P/T report on the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment Meeting in Yellowknife, June 28, 2011.
And the second, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the F/P/T report on the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture meetings held in Iqaluit August 31 to September 2, 2011.
Tabled Document 138 – 3(3): Photographs of Pond Inlet Marine Conditions (Enook)
I wish to take this opportunity to table a collection of photographs that clearly illustrate the conditions facing my constituents in Pond Inlet with respect to the lack of adequate marine infrastructure in the community. I strongly encourage the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation to review these with care.
Tabled Document 139 – 3(3): Article from the Vancouver Sun: Medical Records of 430 Vancouver Patients May Have Been Compromised (Elliott)
I wish to table today an article from the Vancouver Sun newspaper titled “Medical records of 430 Vancouver patients may have been compromised.”
This article addresses issues that I raised last week in the House with the Minister of Health and Social Services, and I encourage the minister to review this item with care.
Motion 018 – 3(3): Extended Adjournment – Notice (Tapardjuk)
I give notice that on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, I will move the following motion:
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that notwithstanding Rule 4, that when the House concludes its present sitting in Iqaluit, it shall be adjourned until February 21, 2012.
Notices of Motions. Member for Quttiktuq, Mr. Elliott.
Motion 019 – 3(3): Rejection of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner Concerning the Member of the Legislative Assembly for South Baffin – Notice (Elliott)
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hudson Bay, that the Report of the Integrity Commissioner be rejected.
Please proceed, Mr. Tapardjuk.  Motion 018 – 3(3): Extended Adjournment (Tapardjuk)
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that notwithstanding Rule 4, that when the House concludes its present sitting in Iqaluit, it shall be adjourned until February 21, 2012.
Further, that at any time prior to February 21, 2012, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
Motion 019 – 3(3): Rejection of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner Concerning the Member of the Legislative Assembly for South Baffin (Elliott)
WHEREAS the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has tabled the October 18, 2011 Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut concerning Mr. Fred Schell, Member of the Legislative Assembly for South Baffin;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly wishes to formally express its appreciation to the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut for his work;
AND WHEREAS section 48 of the Integrity Act requires that the Legislative Assembly must either accept all of the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations or reject all of the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations;
AND WHEREAS the most fundamental parliamentary privilege enjoyed by all Members of this House is freedom of speech;
AND WHEREAS one of the specific allegations submitted to the Integrity Commissioner by a senior official of the Government of Nunavut concerned the member’s participation in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, including questions that he posed during its deliberations;
AND WHEREAS this allegation was investigated by the Integrity Commissioner, an action which, in the view of this House, constituted an inadvertent breach of parliamentary privilege;
AND WHEREAS all Members of the Legislative Assembly recognize that the Report of the Integrity Commissioner concluded that the Member for South Baffin was not in breach of the Integrity Act in relation to this allegation;
AND WHEREAS all Members of the Legislative Assembly are concerned that acceptance of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner would constitute a waiving of parliamentary privilege and, therefore, an infringement of their freedom of speech in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, its committees and caucuses;
AND WHEREAS all Members of the Legislative Assembly are concerned about the implications of such an action with respect to the proper functioning of the Legislative Assembly;
It seems, at times, we get up in the morning and we think we’re going in one direction only to find out we’re spun in a different direction.
I have accepted the responsibility of speaking on behalf of all Members of this House with respect to this motion before us today.
Given the serious nature of this subject, it is important that the listening public be provided with a clear explanation of our decisions and actions.
Mr. Speaker, I will take some time to address in detail the points that are in the motion that is before the House.
Earlier in our sitting, the Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut concerning the Member for South Baffin was tabled in the House. This was done in accordance with the Integrity Act, which provides that such reports be laid before the House at the earliest opportunity.
Under the Integrity Act, Members of the Legislative Assembly must consider such reports within ten sitting days.
We are doing so today.
On behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly, I wish to formally express our appreciation to the Integrity Commissioner for his work.
I do not think that anyone could dispute the observation that his report is fair-minded and comprehensive.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, section 48 of the Integrity Act is extremely clear as to what options are open to the Legislative Assembly with respect to its consideration of a report of the Integrity Commissioner that has been submitted under section 36 of the legislation.
Firstly, the Legislative Assembly “may not inquire further into the matter.”
Once a report has been presented to the House, we have two choices: accept all of the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations or reject all of the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations.
The legislation is deliberately constructed to preclude the Members of the Legislative Assembly from selectively accepting or rejecting different parts of the report.
As such, we do not have the option of accepting some of the Integrity Commissioner’s findings and recommendations while rejecting others.
With respect to the Legislative Assembly’s formal response to the report, it must be dealt with as a whole.
We either accept the report or we reject the report.
We cannot partially accept it or partially reject it.
Mr. Speaker, the motion that is before us today raises the issue of parliamentary privilege.
It is important that we reflect on the nature of this privilege. Without the protection of parliamentary privilege, this House and its members could not function properly. Mr. Speaker, I anticipate no disagreement when I say that the most fundamental of our parliamentary privileges is freedom of speech.
I would like to take a moment to share the observations made by a former Speaker of the House of Commons, who stated that “There are only two kinds of institutions in this land to which this awesome and far-reaching privilege [of freedom of speech] extends - Parliament and the legislatures on the one hand and the courts on the other.
These institutions enjoy the protection of absolute privilege because of the overriding need to ensure that the truth can be told, that any questions can be asked, and that debate can be free and uninhibited… this is necessary in the national interest and has been considered necessary under our democratic system for hundreds of years.
It allows our judicial system and our parliamentary system to operate free of hindrance.”
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech is enjoyed by all members and it cannot be waived unless we, as a legislature, collectively decide to do so.
Mr. Speaker, this brings us to the central issue that is before us today. As all members are aware, one of the allegations that were made against the Member for South Baffin concerned his participation in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly.
This allegation surrounded questions that he posed to witnesses during its deliberations.
Mr. Speaker, as the motion before us today notes very clearly, the Report of the Integrity Commissioner concluded that the Member for South Baffin was not in breach of the Integrity Act in relation to this allegation. However, that is not the issue, and I believe that we would be considering the same motion today even if the report had concluded that his comments constituted a breach of the Act.
As a Legislative Assembly, we are concerned that the investigation itself of the member’s comments constituted an inadvertent breach of parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to be absolutely clear that this concern should, in no way, be interpreted as a lack of confidence in our Integrity Commissioner.
It is clear from reading the report that his interpretation of the legislation led him to believe that it gave him jurisdiction to undertake a review of what the member said in this House. However, as a Legislative Assembly, we have concluded that the freedom of speech enjoyed by all members by virtue of their parliamentary privilege is paramount.
As the motion before us today notes very clearly, we are concerned that acceptance of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner would constitute a waiving of parliamentary privilege and, therefore, an infringement of the freedom of speech enjoyed by all members.
Mr. Speaker, the implications of doing so are troubling. We are concerned that formal acceptance of the report would inadvertently create a chilling effect on debate in this House.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that members fully recognize the complexities of the issues before us.
As a Legislative Assembly, we have passed legislation that provides for sanctions to be imposed on members whose actions are incompatible with the principles of the Act.
However, we are also responsible for protecting and safeguarding the privileges and freedoms of all members, including, perhaps most importantly, their freedom of speech, regardless of what those words might be.
The Members of the Legislative Assembly are not condoning the actions of the Member for South Baffin.
However, having weighed the options open to us, we have concluded that it is necessary to formally reject the report for the reasons that I have just given.
Let the record show that there were two opposed and one abstention. The motion is carried.
I would like to go back to Item 3 in the Orders of the Day.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to go back to Item 3 in the Orders of the Day.
There are none. Please proceed, Mr. Schell.
Member’s Statement 148 – 3(3): Apology for Conduct (Schell)
I thank my colleagues for allowing me to make this statement today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to publicly apologize to the Members of this House, my constituents in South Baffin, and all Nunavummiut for my conduct.
Mr. Speaker, although the Legislative Assembly has made a decision regarding its formal treatment of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut, I wish to exercise my right to state today that I personally apologize for my conduct as a Member of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, my actions were inconsistent with my responsibility to arrange my private affairs in a manner that promotes public trust and confidence. I apologize for these actions.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to assure you and my colleagues that I have learned from this experience.
As the Member of the Legislative Assembly for South Baffin, I am committed to upholding the trust that my constituents have placed in me. I fully accept that my judgment in this matter was lacking, and I am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions.
I would like to seek unanimous consent to go back to Item 14 in the Orders of the Day.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to go back to Item 14 in the Orders of the Day.
Motion 020 – 3(3): Censure of the Member of the Legislative Assembly for South Baffin – Notice
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Wednesday, November 2, 2011, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hudson Bay, that the Member for South Baffin be censured by this House.
Back on to the orders of the day. Item 16.
Revert to Item 16: Motions
Motion 020 – 3(3): Censure of the Member of the Legislative Assembly for South Baffin (Elliott)
WHEREAS the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has tabled the October 18, 2011 Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut regarding Mr. Fred Schell, Member of the Legislative Assembly for South Baffin;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly has, within the meaning of section 48 of the Integrity Act, deemed it necessary to formally reject the report as a consequence of concerns related to protecting the parliamentary privileges of this House, including members’ freedom of speech;
AND WHEREAS the Member for South Baffin has, nonetheless, publicly apologized for his conduct;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly has taken note of the member’s apology;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly has the prerogative to discipline its members;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hudson Bay, that the Member for South Baffin be censured by this House;
AND FURTHER I MOVE that the Member for South Baffin be ordered to pay a $1,000 fine.
I once again have accepted the responsibility of speaking on behalf of all Members of this House with respect to the motion before us today.
Given the serious nature of this subject, it is again important that the listening public be provided with a clear explanation of our decisions and actions, and I will again take some time to address in detail the points that are in the motion that is before the House.
Mr. Speaker, the motion notes that the Legislative Assembly has, within the meaning of section 48 of the Integrity Act, deemed it necessary to formally reject the Report of the Integrity Commissioner concerning the Member for South Baffin as a consequence of concerns related to protecting the parliamentary privileges of this House, including members’ freedom of speech.
I will not repeat what has already been said today on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, the motion that is now before us notes that the Member for South Baffin has, nonetheless, formally apologized in this House for his conduct.
I believe that he has done the right thing in this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the first motion that was considered and passed today by the Legislative Assembly addressed the issue of parliamentary privilege in relation to the freedoms enjoyed by members.
This motion addresses parliamentary privilege in relation to the powers of this House to discipline its own members when they fail to live up to their solemn responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, as has already been stated, the Members of the Legislative Assembly do not condone the actions of the Member for South Baffin.
The Member for South Baffin has formally apologized and stated that he is prepared to accept the consequences of his conduct.
Members will note that the penalties that are proposed to be imposed on the member are meaningful: a formal censure and a significant fine.