EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I am pleased to table the Government of Nunavut’s Nunavut Lottery Financial Statements, March 31, 2012.
You will note that it still has CLEY on the cover page as this was produced during the transition of reorganization of the council to CGS.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Kusugak. We will take note of that.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Tabled Document 357 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut’s Submission to the Canadian Competition Policy Review Panel (Aupaluktuq)
I wish to table today a copy of the Government of Nunavut’s January 2008 submission to the Canadian Competition Policy Review Panel concerning foreign ownership restrictions in the federal Investment Canada Act regarding uranium mining and nuclear power generation industries.
Tabled Document 358 – 3(3): Correspondence Concerning Public Housing Units in Nunavut (Ugyuk)
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I wish to table today a copy of the correspondence I received from Noah Tucktoo, a high school student from Taloyoak.
Mr. Tucktoo’s correspondence expressed the need for the Government of Nunavut to increase the number of public housing units in Nunavut. I am also including a copy of the letter he received from the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation concerning this issue.
He also included a copy of a petition he started with the support of Taloyoak residents.
At the appropriate time in tomorrow’s proceedings, I will formally present this petition in the House.
Motion 049 – 3(3): Opposition to Granting the European Council Permanent Observer Status at the Arctic Council – Notice (Ningeongan)
I give notice that on Monday, May 13, 2013, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Uqqummiut, that the Legislative Assembly calls on the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Canada to firmly, publicly, and vigorously oppose the European Union’s application for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council.
Bill 67 – An Act to Amend the Integrity Act – Notice
I give notice that on Monday, May 13, 2013, I will move that Bill 67, An Act to Amend the Integrity Act, be read for the first time.
Motion 049 – 3(3): Opposition to Granting the European Council Permanent Observer Status at the Arctic Council (Ningeongan)
WHEREAS the European Union has imposed a ban on the import of seal products that is unjustified, unreasonable, and unacceptable to Inuit, Nunavummiut, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly’s opposition to this ban has been formally expressed in motions that were adopted at its sittings of March 25, 2009 and March 11,  2010;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly reaffirms the measures specified in these motions, including the ongoing moratorium on the purchase of products from the European Union by the Nunavut Liquor Commission;
AND WHEREAS the General Court of the European Union has rejected the challenge to the seal import ban that was made by the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Fur Institute of Canada;
AND WHEREAS Canada assumes the chairmanship of the Arctic Council later this month;
AND WHEREAS the European Union has applied for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council;
AND WHEREAS one of the Arctic Council’s criteria for admitting observers is that parties “respect the values, interests, culture and traditions of Arctic indigenous peoples and other Arctic inhabitants”;
AND WHEREAS the European Union’s actions are offensive to this principle;
Before we proceed to debate on the motion before us, I would like to remind members of a few things. Every member has a right to speak once to the motion for a total of 20 minutes. The mover of the motion speaks first and the seconder speaks second.
The mover has the right to the last reply, which closes debate on the motion. To the motion.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to all Members of the House for standing together in opposition to the European Union’s ban on the import of seal products.
As I noted earlier, the Legislative Assembly has previously considered two motions in relation to the European Union’s ban.
Today’s motion is a firm demonstration of our collective commitment to continue to stand up on behalf of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, the Government of Nunavut issued an announcement on April 14, 2009 opposing the European Union’s application for observer status at the Arctic Council.
Today’s motion confirms the need to make it clear to the European Union that its actions are not without consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note Nunavut Tunngavik’s strong opposition to the European Union’s application.
I would also like to note that in its official reaction to the recent decision of the General Court of the European Union, the Government of Canada stated that “this ban is contrary to the EU’s World Trade Organization obligations.”
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute to the many ordinary Nunavummiut who have worked to support the “No Seal, No Deal” group, which has launched a petition to oppose the European Union’s application.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by again expressing my appreciation to all of my colleagues. I urge all members to support the motion before us today.
Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I ask for a recorded vote.
I would like to thank the mover of the motion.
I am very pleased to second this motion.
In my Minister’s Statement yesterday, I indicated my opposition to the European Union asking for observer status.
The European Union doesn’t take into consideration the hunter who harvests the seals for food and clothing for themselves, families, and their communities.
We utilize the seal as a whole, not just for food but also for economic means.
When we talk about the hunters up here, we’re not talking about the individual going hunting twice a year.
When we are talking about hunters, they hunt six days a week all year round. There are a lot of hunters like that.
We’re not talking about hunters who go out once or twice a year.
It is their livelihood.
We still use the animals today.
We also have a hard time selling the pelts because of these bans and other negative reasons.
They’re just throwing out the skins now, but we are still hunting the same way we have hunted for millennia.
The animal rights activists think that if there was a ban on seals, we would stop hunting.
It’s not the case up here.
I fully support Inuit Tapariit Kanatami and the Nunavut government, who are supporting the people of Nunavut.
I urge the federal government to deal with this further.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support this motion.
I am pleased to take this opportunity today to speak to the motion concerning the government’s opposition to the European Union’s application for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council.
As we all know, the European Union’s ban on the import of seal products has negatively affected Inuit and harvesters throughout Nunavut.
In my community of Sanikiluaq, I have seen how the seal product ban has negatively impacted the livelihood of many of my constituents.
As a small community with limited employment opportunities, many of my constituents took the opportunity to sell their sealskins to help provide for their families.
But, Mr. Speaker, with the decline in sealskin prices due to the European ban on seal products, people of Sanikiluaq are finding it difficult to obtain the extra dollars needed to provide for their families.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that I fully support this motion and commend my fellow members for standing up and speaking out on this issue.
I don’t understand the motion at all.
If we are going to do something negative, it seems like we don’t want the European Union to have observer status because they are trying to ban sealskins.
What is the reason behind not wanting them to listen to the proceedings of the Arctic Council?
Mr. Speaker, we are taking on or adapting more and more to the European culture.
Maybe if we had understood what we should have been doing, it would have been better.
I think that with this motion, we’re trying to pay back the European Union for their banning of import of seal products and we don’t want to give them observer status at the Arctic Council because of that.
I think that if they have observer status, they will begin to understand where we are coming from or how we do it.
With that, I will be abstaining from the motion. The Minister of Environment urged all the members to vote for the motion, but I will be abstaining.
As everybody has probably been aware, in the last week in the media, the EU is planning on declaring the oil sands in Alberta as dirty oil.
Even though the EU buys hardly any of the oil from Canada, it will greatly affect the price of the oil in Alberta and that is similar.
If that declaration gets approved by the EU, it will definitely affect the price of heavy oil in Alberta.
I think that is similar to the issue we have with the sealskin ban. Even though the Inuit are exempt from it, it has greatly affected the price of sealskins.
Also, a couple of years ago when we did the motion to not import any liquor from Europe, I realize it didn’t really affect the profits of Europe, even though a few of the countries have been hurting since then, I think, having to do with banning the import.
But it was a symbolic move. I think this is similar, a symbolic move to tell the EU that what they are doing is not right and they should have a second look at it.
So I will be approving of the motion.
I think it’s about time for the motion. Inuit have been in existence for time immemorial and not once have we ever declared war on anyone. Not once have we been unkind to anyone.
Nowadays, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with international trade and international trade policies that are established by nations.
We’re not dealing with Mr. Citizen here and there and individual citizens.
We’re dealing with the European common market, a government institution that involves over 30 nations in the confederate together, established. They have a particular policy that they say they will not buy a product from Nunavut, not just Nunavut, but including Canada, primarily because they are ruled by the majority of the citizens who oppose killing of animals, which Inuit are dependent on.
They are influenced by a group of individuals, primarily animal rights groups. The European officials know that. They are in a bind.
So, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the motion because this is not personal. This is about a government policy and the government policy of European nations is not a correct one for Nunavutmiut.
It is offensive.
After all we have done for European people; a favour during the bowhead whale commercial period.
They were successful most of the time, the Scottish and the other European countries that were involved up here, in getting their share of the bowhead quotas and so on with the help of the Inuit people.
As a result of that, I think we have stood by for too long without ever debating whether or not the practices that the world is imposing on are fair or not.
The world is not getting any bigger. It is getting smaller.
Communities of Nunavut are now impacted by European nations, not only with commercial sealing; it also includes polar bears.
European nations are opposed to the killing of polar bears and they were the ones that supported the United States right upfront.
Therefore, I think it’s about time we simply say that there’s no deal in inviting them to be a permanent observer status until the policies have changed. I will be in full support of that motion.
Mr. Ningeongan, would you like a last reply?
As people of Nunavut, we have to stand up to protect our rights. As Inuit leaders, it is totally different from years ago.
We are taking steps to new environments. We are not just going to stand and do nothing.
We have to take a stand and defend what’s right. It’s not only on the seal ban or political reasons.
We have to be proud of our heritage as the people of Nunavut, not just for Inuit, but the people of Nunavut.
We also have to let the rest of the world know that we can participate and take a stand. We can also send videos or others out so that the rest of the world will know what it’s like up here.
We have to take a stand on this issue. This is very serious to us.
We want the people out there to believe us.
With that, I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting this motion.
That closes debate on the motion. We will now vote on it.
As members will recall, a recorded vote has been requested.
So I will ask all those in favour of the motion to please rise and then sit down once I have called your name.
I will now ask all those opposed to the motion to please rise and sit down when I say your name. Let the record note that there is no opposition.
I will ask all those abstaining to please rise and sit down when I call your name.
I note that there are 17 voting in favour of the motion, 0 against, and 1 abstention.
As your Speaker, I will ensure that your motion gets forwarded on to the appropriate federal officials and hopefully your motion helps seal the deal.
Bill 63 – An Act Consequential to the Government Reorganization of 2013 – First Reading
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 63, An Act Consequential to the Government Reorganization of 2013, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 63 has been read for the first time.
Bill 65 – An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 65, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 65 has been read for the first time.
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), I request the consent of this House to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow the first reading of Bill 67, An Act to Amend the Integrity Act.
The member is asking consent of this House to allow for the first reading of Bill 67.
Speaker: There is an agreement. Please proceed, Mr. Rumbolt.
Bill 67 – An Act to Amend the Integrity Act – First Reading
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 67, An Act to Amend the Integrity Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 67 has been read for the first time.
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), I request the consent of this House to waive the notice required to allow for the second reading of Bill 65, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act.
The member is asking consent of this House to allow for the second reading of Bill 65.
Speaker: You have consent, Mr. Elliott. Please proceed.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 65, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 65 amends the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act to amend the Oath of Office for members of the Executive Council, allows the Management and Services Board to issue directives to independent officers respecting administrative matters, and creates the uniform Oath of Office for independent officers.
The motion is carried and Bill 65 has been read for the second time. As Bill 65 is a House Bill, it is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), I request the consent of this House to waive the one-day notice requirement to allow the second reading of Bill 67, An Act to Amend the Integrity Act.
The member is seeking consent of this House to allow for the second reading of Bill 67.
Speaker: You have agreement and consent. Please proceed, Mr. Rumbolt.
Bill 67 – An Act to Amend the Integrity Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 67, An Act to Amend the Integrity Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill revises the process of initiating and conducting a review by the Integrity Commissioner under section 36 of the Integrity Act.
The motion is carried and Bill 67 has been read for the second time. Like Bill 65, Bill 67 is a House Bill and is, therefore, referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Bills 65 and 67 with Mr. Tapardjuk in the Chair.
I would now like to call the committee meeting to order. In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: (interpretation ends) Bills 65 and 67. (interpretation) What is the wish of the committee?
We wish to commence with the review of Bill 65, followed by Bill 67.
Are we in agreement to deal with (interpretation ends) Bills 65 and 67?
Bill 65 – An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act – Consideration in Committee
Before we proceed, I would like to welcome individuals to the Committee of the Whole. Sheila MacPherson is the Law Clerk of the Northwest Territories Assembly.
She will be assisting us starting tomorrow until the end of our sitting.
Welcome, Ms. Sheila MacPherson.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, (interpretation) if you can go to the witness table to make your opening comments. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker.
(interpretation) Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, (interpretation) if you have any opening comments, you may now proceed. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to appear today before the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of Bill 65, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act.
Mr. Chairman, Bill 65 amends the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act in a number of areas.
Bill 65 clarifies the Management and Services Board’s authority to issue formal directives concerning compliance with the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Act on the part of independent officers of the Legislative Assembly.
This measure complements the board’s existing authority to approve the annual budgets of those offices and serves to strengthen the accountability framework within which the Assembly and its offices operate.
Bill 65 prescribes a revised Oath of Office for members of the Executive Council.
It also prescribes a standardized Oath of Office to be taken by the independent officers of the Legislative Assembly.
Bill 65 also contains a number of housekeeping measures, including the insertion in Schedule B of revised constituency work expenses to reflect the territory’s 22 constituencies that will come into existence following dissolution of the current Legislative Assembly.
Do you have any witnesses that you would like to bring to the table? Mr. Speaker.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Does the committee agree to bring in the witness?
For the record, Mr. Speaker, please introduce your witness. Mr. Speaker.
For the record, my witness joining me at the table on my right is Mr. John Quirke, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Clerk.
Do members have any comments on (interpretation ends) Bill 65?
(interpretation) If there are no comments, we will be dealing with (interpretation ends) Bill 65. (interpretation) I believe you have a copy in front of you.
An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act. (interpretation ends) Clause 1. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Clause 4. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 6. (interpretation) Please see the last item in the (interpretation ends) Schedule. Schedule B. Section 6 (interpretation) identifies the constituencies.
Chairman: Schedule B. (interpretation) Do you agree with it? Do you see it?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Clause 9. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Turn the page. (interpretation ends) Clause 10. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Do you agree to Bill 65 as a whole?
I believe we all agree that (interpretation ends) Bill 65 (interpretation) can now be read for the third time.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Bill 65 (interpretation) will now receive third reading.
Mr. Speaker, if you have any closing remarks, I give you the opportunity at this time.
I would just like to thank the Clerk and the staff and the Law Clerk for drafting this bill and also the Premier’s Office for providing some direction on the new Oath of Office for cabinet ministers. It has been ongoing for a while, so I thank everyone very much.
Mr. Speaker, we will now go to Bill 67. Do you have a witness that you would like to bring to the table? Mr. Speaker.
Bill 67 – An Act to Amend the Integrity Act – Consideration in Committee
Speaker: Yes, I would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Does the Committee agree to bring in the witness?
Do you have any opening comments, Mr. Speaker?
Before I do my opening comments, for the record, I would like to have the pleasure of introducing my witness.
To my right is Mr. Patrick Orr.
He was the drafter of this legislation, this amendment. He is the legal counsel with the Legislative Assembly.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed with my opening comments.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear today before the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of Bill 67, An Act to Amend the Integrity Act.
Bill 67 amends the Integrity Act to revise the process of initiating and conducting a review by the Integrity Commissioner under section 36 of alleged contraventions of the Act.
These amendments have been introduced to address a number of issues that emerged as a consequence of the Integrity Commissioner’s most recent review under this section of the legislation.
Bill 67 excludes a class of senior public officials from being able to make a request that the Integrity Commissioner conduct a review of a member’s actions.
Given the nature of the close working relationship that exists between the most senior levels of the public service and the elected Members of this House, it is appropriate that such officials not be placed in a position where they may have to submit such requests.
Mr. Chairman, it is very important to emphasize that such officials are free to bring any concerns that they may have regarding a potential contravention of the Act directly to the attention of the appropriate minister or to the Premier, who would determine whether the concerns warrant a formal request to the Integrity Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take a moment to speak from personal experience concerning this subject.
As members are aware, it is a matter of public record that I made a request under section 36 of the Act at the beginning of the current Assembly as a result of concerns that were brought to my attention by senior members of the public service regarding the conduct of a member.
I believe, in cases such as this, it is entirely appropriate for an elected member to accept responsibility for submitting a formal request to the Integrity Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, as elected Members of this Assembly, the trust is put on all of us. If something is brought to my attention, I think the onus and the responsibility is on me to bring that forward as a Member of this Assembly.
Bill 67 also strengthens the powers of the Integrity Commissioner to summon witnesses to a review and require them to produce evidence relevant to the review.
The Integrity Commissioner is expressly authorized to apply to the Nunavut Court of Justice for a warrant to search and collect relevant evidence.
Bill 67 also provides for the enforcement of any summons or other order, direction, and rule issued by the Integrity Commissioner during a review.
On page 1 at the bottom, it states that the last person would make a decision.
I have some questions on this issue, or would you like me to ask when we get into the subject? Can you direct me, please.
You can ask that question when we get to the clause-by-clause review. At this time, I’m just looking for general comments to the opening comments.