EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Thank you for that explanation because that just brought up the other question.
This is for the testing and the evaluation of candidates for the Special Constable Program.
It makes me wonder how many Nunavummiut are not able to actually go into the RCMP in terms of applying officially because of these barriers that you were talking about.
If we’re having it for having bilingual special constables and since we have the unique situation where the RCMP does the policing for us here, will your department be letting the RCMP know this in terms of recruiting through the regular RCMP recruiting process?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliott for the question.
Mr. Chairman, we have to abide by the national standards that are in place across Canada.
There are situations where criminal records may come into play. You have to pass and write some difficult entrance exams.
There are aptitude tests, polygraphs, all sorts of medical/psychological testing and physical testing.
So it would be very difficult for us.
If we’re going to make recommendations, we will have to understand what recommendations we’re putting forward.
We do want individuals who are interested in becoming an RCMP officer or a special constable to be able to succeed and to put them into a training situation where they can’t succeed may ultimately work against us.
Mr. Chairman, the five special constables that we want to recruit or hopefully get into depot in September are part of a pilot test.
Their success will determine the future of RCMP special constables in Nunavut. We want to eventually have 32 special constables in Nunavut.
As part of a five-year plan, we put together a business case last year and submitted that to Public Safety Canada.
The five that we’re putting through the depot this year will be funded internally through the RCMP here in Iqaluit, so it’s very important that those individuals can be recruited and have a very good chance of success.
In the meantime, we will be communicating with the RCMP. Nunavut is a unique area and certain standards should be looked at in a different way.
In an earlier reference to hunting at a young age with a rifle, that should not be a barrier to becoming an RCMP officer in Nunavut.
On the Family Abuse Intervention Act, I think that I was one of the first people throughout 2007-08 to attend a community information [session] on the Act.
Whether it was passed or not, we had people from the Government of Nunavut coming to our community and held a workshop.
At that workshop, which I had the privilege to attend, there was a certain anticipation of better things to come.
My wife and I and some other people talked about it for a couple of months.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question here on this matter.
On December 7, 2009, Mr. Minister, you informed the Legislative Assembly that you will likely table the first annual report on the administration of the Family Abuse Intervention Act in the winter session.
My question is this, Mr. Chairman: what is the status of the first annual report on the administration of the Family Abuse Intervention Act?
That’s what I did say and the plan is still to table the annual report in this session.
Would the minister repeat? My ears are aching today.
I thank Mr. Ningark for asking me to repeat.
Yes, it is our intention to table that report in the winter session.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Some day you are going to have to learn to say my last name.
Once in a while, I like to get a spotlight.
(interpretation) I would like to ask the minister a question. I kept my eyes out for the Summer Constable Program to see if it was in the statement, but I didn’t find anything in regard to it.
I was wondering if this program is going to continue or if it has been cancelled.
Students have worked during the summertime in the past under this program.
I would like to know the status of that program.
Chairman: Thank you. I’m working on your last name there. Hopefully, before the next session, I’ll have it right.
I thank Mr. Ningeongan for that excellent question.
I am very pleased to tell Mr. Ningeongan that it is the intention of the RCMP to hold the summer student program again this year.
I have talked to Commanding Officer Steven McVarnock.
He feels that it’s a very worthy program and he encourages all children and youth in all Nunavut communities to consider applying for the position.
It’s an excellent opportunity and it benefits the communities and it benefits the youth who participate.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it was back in 2001 that only some of the communities received the Summer Constable Program. Do I understand correctly that all of the communities will have that program?
Chairman: Thank you. Minister Peterson.
I thank Mr. Ningeongan for that good question.
It is our intention that every community in Nunavut can participate.
We encourage community councils and schools to help the students, if they’re interested, to apply.
I think the RCMP officers in the communities and the detachment commanders will also be encouraging young people to apply.
I talked again to Commanding Officer McVarnock.
Every community is eligible and I don’t think there’s a reason why they can’t or there may be communities where there are no applicants, but it’s our intention for every community to participate.
I have no more names on my list here. We will go to E-4. Justice.
Branch Summary. Directorate. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $10,956,000.
Chairman: We will move to page E-5. Branch Summary.
Justice. Law Enforcement.
I think most members are aware that since I became a member of this Third Assembly, my concern has always been the free-flowing liquor into my dry community in Kugaaruk, technically dry, I might add, Mr. Chairman.
The funnel to bring the liquor into the community never stops flowing.
Most people like my age, obviously, should respect the vote on what we call a liquor plebiscite that was taken about a year and half to two years ago, and I’m not going to share with you how I voted.
Anyways, my question to the hon. minister, Mr. Chairman, is that on the priority list in your business plan, it’s got Law Enforcement Branch to “work with the Justice department to provide input into the Liquor Act review.”
We want to work in the community along with the RCMP law enforcement agency.
The question is: what kind of input are you expecting from the RCMP on the review of the Liquor Act?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Ningark for that question. It’s a great question.
Bootlegging is a serious issue across Nunavut. Alcohol is a serious issue across Nunavut. It’s really early for me to make assumptions though on what input the RCMP are going to make into the review of the Liquor Act.
I do know that they feel that the permitting process is too liberal to make some recommendations on how to improve the permitting process. They may make some recommendations on the levels of fines for bootleggers.
It’s early. I have only announced the task force as the Minister of Finance, but we still have yet to announce the 10 members and get them out there working on consulting with the communities.
We hope to have some really good input from the RCMP, the health department, alcohol education committees, women’s groups, youth, and other members of the task force when they can get out on the road and talk to the communities.
Mr. Ningark: Thank you. I thank the hon. minister for his response.
With all due respect to the current liquor law, just about any individual who is thirsty enough will find $250 for a drink.
Any bootlegger in the community who is making $500 per 60 ounce will be fined a $250 fine.
So I’m hoping that the new Liquor Act will have more teeth than the current one.
Well, people say, “Okay, I know I have enough money to buy a drink and I have enough money to pay for the fine.”
I’m hoping that we will come up with something that will deserve a little more respect than the current liquor law, at least in penalties.
I think that was just a comment there, but if you want to make a comment, Minister Peterson.
Mr. Ningark is making a very valid comment.
Some of the bootleggers in Nunavut are very prosperous.
The fines that they receive under the Liquor Act could easy be paid for out of the proceeds of their crime.
The recommendations made may lead to increasing the amounts of the fines for the first and second offences.
There may be recommendations for civil forfeiture, which would mean that you lose your assets if they are deemed to be purchased or acquired through the proceeds of crime.
If someone’s out there, they’re not working, they haven’t inherited $1 million, they haven’t won a lottery lately, but they’ve got four or five shiny snowmobiles and a couple of new trucks, it’s probably a good indication that they are getting the money from somewhere.
They may be at a risk of losing that, but we will see.
Changes to the Liquor Act may talk about those kinds of fines that Mr. Ningark would like to see.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question, I’m not sure what to call “restraining order” in Inuktitut.
Let’s say a father is abusive at home. He is then temporarily ordered to live elsewhere.
The minister is aware of a letter from the housing association in Coral Harbour regarding this problem in enforcing restraining orders. If they have relatives, it appears to cause problems when they interact with relatives.
When an individual doesn’t have any relatives to turn to and nowhere to go, it becomes a real concern for local housing associations because there are no available public housing units.
I’m sure that the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation is listening, but we hear that it is becoming increasingly serious.
Is it really the case that an individual who is under a restraining order and prohibited from contact with their spouse and their children is just thrown out of the house without being given an alternate place to go?
Is that what happens?
I would first like clarification on that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Ningeongan for raising that concern.
He has raised it in the past with me and I want to assure him that I did receive a letter.
I gave it to one of my officials who look after that area to review and to talk to the housing board.
Yes, the concern he raises is a very valid concern.
When an individual receives a restraining order, normally, I think the Department of Justice would accommodate them in a local hotel for up to 72 hours. After that, they can’t go home, where do they go?
That has been proven to be a concern since the implementation of the Act and my officials are aware of it.
They acknowledge that it’s challenging and it’s a challenge that we have to address.
One of the areas that I think that they are looking at is talking to people in the communities and developing a pool of housing or billets where individuals can go, not just tossing them out into the street but they can go somewhere.
It is a big issue and the reality in Nunavut’s communities is that housing is short and we will just have to find a way to overcome that challenge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Have you ever considered looking at the larger communities and sending out the individuals temporarily to those communities instead?
I believe it is very hard on individuals when they are ordered not to see or speak to their spouses. Ignoring such orders only causes more problems.
When an individual is forced to live in a way that is different from what they’re accustomed to and are forced to run away from their problems when there could be dispute resolutions in place in the traditional Inuit way, it is no wonder that such orders aggravate situations and cause alienation.
Don’t the larger communities have the available facilities for those individuals who have no place to go to?
I thank Mr. Ningeongan for that question and suggestion.
Mr. Chairman, obviously, we would like to see the families reconciled as quickly as possible through mediation and family counselling, and ideally that would occur in the community.
Barring that, if an individual wanted to go to another community or had to go to another community, we would have to seek their consent.
It would make the mediation and family counselling very difficult if the family members were in separate communities, but it’s something we can look at.
We’re looking for ideas from anyone on how to improve, implement, and make the Family Abuse Intervention Act successful.
If MLAs or community members have ideas, or people have some practical experience and solutions at the community level, we’re open to their suggestions.
Okay, we will go to Mr. Elliott then.
On E-6 of the business plan, under the priorities for 2010-11, the second bullet talks about the beginning of the training of special constables to provide services in the communities.
You said that there are four now and hopefully six will start that training.
I had similar concerns when they were doing the mental health worker training for Nunavummiut.
The concern I have is sometimes, working in the community, you’re put under a lot of extra stress that maybe members from the south that aren’t put in certain situations, especially with language barriers.
They probably hear a lot more… I have spoken to some of our Inuk RCMP officers and they do hear a lot more and there seems to be some anger towards some of them.
Is there any extra training that’s going to be given to our special constables to help them with dealing with these kinds of situations?
It might be a relative or an in-law that they’re arresting, it could be a family friend, but it would be hard on these members.
So I’m just wondering if there’s some extra assistance that’s going to be given to them, sort of like care for the caregiver, those types of training and assistance.
Just to be clear, we have four now and they’re looking for a fifth and possibly a sixth, but more likely, there are going to be five special constables in training in September. As far as special training, I think the recruits would receive the same regular RCMP training that other members would receive.
I believe that the RCMP would be cognizant of the difficulties that you just expressed in terms of any concerns if they are being posted to communities in Nunavut. I believe that that will be taken care of.
They will ensure that officers are not placed into communities or situations where it might make it difficult for them to perform their duties.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. Mr. Ningark.
Mr. Ningark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When my colleague for Nanulik was talking about restraining orders, I believe the Hon. Minister for Justice was open to suggestions from MLAs that might help families to reconcile. That was the term he uses.
I have been fighting to get a crisis centre for my community where people and families could reconcile, work it out.
So that’s one idea that I throw in. Get me a crisis shelter or safe house and things like these so I could start working towards what the minister is looking for.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Minister Peterson.
I thank Mr. Ningark for that suggestion.
That might be the fastest responses I’ve had to request for suggestions.
In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, the issue of family violence at the community level is taken quite seriously by the Government of Nunavut as that would require various programs and services.
We will look seriously at Mr. Ningark’s request; my officials have taken note of it.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Ningark.
Just a comment. In Kugaaruk, many of the good people, residents of the community, saw that shipping people out to another community or buying a ticket for them to another community was not a way to go.
One of the better solutions when there was a misunderstanding, as I put it, family violence, what the community wanted was before something becomes serious, before people go to the RCMP, before anyone comes up with hiring a lawyer, have a place to reconcile, as he put it, was a family shelter or crisis shelter in the community.
It is not only for women but also there are times when men are literally kicked out from their homes, sometimes younger people, adults, and so on.
So I think it could work both ways for any member of the family who is not welcome but has not done any serious harm or damage and just go to a place where they can think it over, go through the program, and work it out.
I admire and acknowledge the Premier of Nunavut. In Tamapta, they saw and brought forward the idea of families working together.
If they have some differences, work it out instead of sending people to another community or out of the territory if you have to, so it’s a win-win situation.
I am not talking about dangerous offenders or anything like that, but if you have family differences, work it out, as the minister has indicated, reconcile.
So having a facility in the community where people can to a program, communicate, and talk with a professional, and so on, is a win-win situation.
I don’t have any questions. It’s just a comment.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ningark. There was no question there.
I believe this is just a comment I want to share while we’re under Law Enforcement, under E-5, under the Branch Summary.
It’s also important to note, Mr. Chairman, as well as the hon. minister that the RCMP is the policing agency in Nunavut.
It’s also imperative that the RCMP works with the Department of Justice and not just the Department of Justice but also inter-agency departments as well.
I think the one thing I would like to comment on, Mr. Chairman, is to remember that all enforcement officials must follow protocol when it comes to law enforcement in respect to dealing with Nunavummiut.
I am glad that you mentioned that there was the issue of even ensuring that there was cultural sensitivity training in one certain department, but it also applies to law enforcement officials.
Mr. Peterson has indicated in the House several times that there are working partnerships with inter-agencies, such as health centres, Health and Social Services, mental health workers, social workers, even the education system.
It’s just a comment that I would like to remind my colleagues here as well as the hon. minister and his department is that there are protocols to follow in which we have to recognize in order to provide the best services to our people.
It would be nice to enforce that inter-agency partnerships are clear and defined. I think, as a government, one of the Tamapta mandates is to provide enhanced services.
I just want to ensure that this was also recorded as a formality in this sitting to ensure that there are protocols to follow and that there are respects to inter-agencies in working partnerships, as well as providing quality of service to our constituents. That was just a comment.
That was just a comment. I don’t have anybody else on the list here.
We will go to E-5. Branch Summary. Justice.
Law Enforcement. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $26,110,000.
Chairman: We will move to E-6. Justice. Branch Summary.
Lawyer Support Services. Mr. Aupaluktuq.
I just want to follow up on a comment my esteemed colleague, Mr. Elliott, had mentioned in regard to wills earlier.
I have been approached by some constituents as well as former colleagues in the region in Kivalliq and they had questions about wills.
I just want to follow up, as I said, on Mr. Elliott’s comment earlier. I think this question might clarify some of it.
Your draft 2010-13 business plan refers to priorities for the Directorate branch with respect to will kits. Mr. Chairman, in previous years, an objective for the Legal Support Services Branch was to protect the interests of Nunavummiut who have died without a will.
My question is: why has this item been removed from the list of objectives for the Legal Support Services Branch?
I thank Mr. Aupaluktuq for that question.
A simple answer to that is that the Public Trustee has been removed from Lawyer Support Services and is repositioned under Directorate and reports to the Assistant Deputy Minister, Rebekah Williams.
Are there any other questions? I don’t have anybody else. Justice.
Branch Summary. Lawyer Support Services. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $3,180,000.
Chairman: We will go to E-7.
Branch Summary. Justice. Registries and Court Services.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $9,418,000.
Sorry, Mr. Arvaluk.
I don’t have any guidance on this, but I’m just interested in how many mining permits and insurances have been issued under this registry this year. (interpretation) Thank you.
We’re not sure that mining permits are registered under this registry. We would have to check, but we certainly wouldn’t have the level of detail that he’s requesting anyway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. Are there any other questions?
Looking at E-7 under Registries and Court Services, it’s also listed that it’s to operate under the Labour Standards Board.
If this question is not appropriate, I would welcome the direction of the Chair.
I would like to ask the minister and his department that when you tabled the 2008 annual report on the minimum wage as you are required to do under the Labour Standards Act, is the government or will the government be looking at increasing the minimum wage this year or in the near future?
I’ll take that question as notice.
Under Corrections… are we under Corrections? We’re under registry?
Okay, forget it. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman: Yes, we’re under Registries and Court Services on E-7.
I have a very quick question.
As you know, I have been an advocate of men who have gone out elsewhere after impregnating especially vulnerable girls in our communities.
They take off somewhere. We don’t know where.
Is this section or page supposed to strengthen or are you planning to maybe reviewing your enforcement type of arrangement for those who are very vulnerable young women in our communities and have no means of support when their boyfriend or whatever they call them just vanish from the face of the earth?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Arvaluk for that specific question.
That’s what the Family Support Enforcement Program will do.
We have legislation currently winding its way through the various levels to put an Act in place that gives the maintenance enforcement people more powers to go after the people who Mr. Arvaluk is referring to.
I have no more names on my list here. Branch Summary.
Justice. Registries and Court Services. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $9,418,000.
Chairman: We will go to page E-8. Justice. Branch Summary.
Corrections. Are there any questions? Total Operation Maintenance, to be Voted.
I was waiting for other people to ask questions before I started asking questions.
One of the questions that I had was that we had the Minister of Health and Social Services in front of us and I know some of the extra duties that the social workers have to take on are the fact that they do probation work as well.
I noted that there are some changes that you’re planning to do with your department in terms of taking that on as a standalone.
I was wondering if you could update us on what is happening with that.
The immediate concern or plan is to get more community corrections officers in the different communities and that has been a long, festering issue, I believe, from the Second Assembly.
We’re making progress in getting more community corrections officers. We have 15 in the 11 communities.
We’re hoping, in the New Year, to add two additional positions through re-profiling of existing resources. Eventually, we won’t have to rely on social services. That’s the plan.
I have talked to Minister Curley and our officials have talked to officials in Health. Through a phase approach over three years, we’re hopeful that we will have community corrections or services available in all communities where we don’t have to rely on the Department of Health and Social Services and social workers.