EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
All concerns, submissions and recommendations for change were also reviewed and quite a number of clauses were amended due to the suggested changes in order to strengthen Bill 6 prior to its submission to the federal government for royal assent.
This bill serves to protect the languages in Nunavut and primarily the Inuktitut languages and this is the sole purpose of the bill.
We would like to see this bill passed and approved. We did not want to be late for submission for royal assent and boy, did we ever come close to missing the date for royal assent. However, due to the encouragement and advocacy of our residents regarding the contents of the bill, plus all of the submissions of Inuit, we heeded their request to deal with the bill and submit it to the House.
We were rushing to complete the review, and I would like to express my immense gratitude to the minister, his officials and their staff for the hard work resulting in the completion of this bill. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the commitment of our Legislative Assembly staff, who worked hard to keep the focus of the standing committee on the completion on the bill.
I am really appreciative of their efforts and were it not for their efforts, this bill would not be in front of you for the final review.
We completely support this bill and I am quite exhilarated to see this bill pass the final review in the House. This bill will protect our Inuit, especially the unilingual Inuit, who will be able to be served in Inuktitut without requiring the assistance of interpreter/translators.
I fully support this bill and I would like to see it passed today in the House.
Mr. Simailak (interpretation): Hold your horses, James.
We all know that everybody here is in a rush and that the committee would like to report progress.
In the beginning, I was not a Member of the Ajauqtiit Standing Committee, but I was an alternate member who could partake only upon the inability of one of the committee members to participate.
However, I am extremely pleased that I was able to attend the standing committee hearings in Sanikiluaq to review the contents of the proposed bill and this entailed a lot of hard work, which led me to understand more fully the work that goes into the review of bills by the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit. This opened my eyes to the level of work required within that process.
With the introduction of this bill, I, too, support this bill which has been long awaited by Nunavummiut.  I was extremely happy to note that the minister made the following statement, (interpretation ends) “That is an essential part of the dream that resulted in the creation of Nunavut.” (interpretation) Thinking about that statement makes me elated and proud to be from Nunavut, but I would like to add a small clause.
I noted from the submissions and which was said to be missing in the bill that is needed by the elders, by our parents, or the older ones is that Nunavut’s dream still has not materialized.
The bill is just the beginning and I fully support it.
Exactly which language are they going to protect - the old Inuit language or the modern Inuit language? Those are the concerns I had and I still have that concern.
There’s the old Inuit language, whereas nowadays, we modernize it by inventing new words that we come across in our daily lives. A lot of the time, we have to come up with new words because there are a lot of new things that keep coming up.
For example, quite often, we have to think in Qallunaatitut and try and say it in Inuktitut.
In this House, when we ask the ministers, even when we’re talking in Inuktitut, sometimes they can’t understand.
If I were to ask questions in my own dialect, I’m pretty sure no one would understand. That is an example of how we should protect our language.
The concerns that I have, Mr. Chairman, are the businesses.
They will be affected in the future.
How are we going to support them financially, especially when they have to produce material in Inuktitut, not now but in the future?
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am very happy about this bill and I fully support it.
We don’t speak Inuktitut all the time, even in our homes.
For example, my wife and I have an adopted child who is three and he has a hard time understanding Inuktitut, so we have to talk to him in English.
Those are the things that cause us to lose our language.
For example, how can we start thinking in the Inuit way and not thinking in the Qallunaat way?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Minister Tapardjuk, I am very proud of you to have worked really hard on this for four years and now it’s becoming a reality.
The job you did had big responsibilities and I am sure that people will not forget your name because of this bill, so I’m very proud of you and I am happy for you.
We have been reviewing this bill for about a year since the minister introduced it. The Standing Committee Ajauqtiit and our legal counsel have worked hard on this bill and that is how we have this final product.
Sometimes we didn’t seem to support it because we wanted it to be made-in-Nunavut.
We wanted to produce a bill that was solid and I am very happy that we are able to discuss this now.
As the minister mentioned, he explained why we should have to bring in a bill like that, what the purpose is.
At this time, they say the population is 85 percent Inuit, but I don’t think the Inuit language is at 85 percent.
I would like to encourage Inuit to talk to their fellow Inuit in Inuktitut and Inuit can talk to their children in Inuktitut and their grandchildren so that we will not lose our language.
We often hear that when people went to residential schools, they started losing their language.
Unfortunately, we are slowly losing our language, so we have to strengthen the usage of Inuktitut.
The bill is not protecting just one language - there are Inuktitut, French, and English.
One language will not be stronger than the others; we’re trying to balance all of the languages.
Today, the English language is used in the workplace and I believe the year 2020 was the target date for all of government to have Inuktitut as a working language.
When we were in Sanikiluaq for three days dealing with this bill, three days was not enough.
When we got to Iqaluit, we had to do more work and we have been meeting because of this bill up until yesterday, and it’s the staff who worked hard.
We have worked very closely with the minister’s office and I wish to thank them very much, as well as the staff of the Legislative Assembly, researchers and our legal counsel, who worked very hard.
We often see businesses or organizations where the names of buildings or what they do, a lot of times, they are just in English and a lot of times, people who would go in won’t go in because they’re not sure.
And in restaurants, people who want to go out to a restaurant end up just leaving without eating because they can’t read English. Once this bill is passed, it wouldn’t be like that because it will apply to everyone, especially the service industry.
I support this bill and I urge the members to agree with the bill, but I don’t think it will come into effect right away even if it’s passed.
I don’t have any more names on my list. (interpretation ends) Bill 6 on page 1. Bill 6, Official Languages Act.
Reprint. Page 2.
Chairman: Page 4. Clause 3?
I would like for the minister to clarify the Inuinnaqtun subsection (3) is the application to Inuinnaqtun.
This Act shall be interpreted and implemented in a manner that is consistent with the need to give priority to (a) the revitalization of Inuinnaqtun and (b) improve access to services under sections 8 to 12 in the communities where Inuinnaqtun is indigenous.
As the minister knows, I come from the Kitikmeot and my riding is predominantly made up of residents who speak Inuinnaqtun, so I would like to, in terms of how this Act will be applied in that part of the Kitikmeot, in Nunavut, how it would be applied.
In regard to Inuinnaqtun, it’s been an ongoing concern and we have been working very hard to find out how we can improve or enhance the Inuinnaqtun language and how we can revitalize the Inuinnaqtun language. We wanted to find out what should be placed as a priority because this language is of concern.
There are very few individuals who can speak and who can translate documents from Inuinnaqtun to English or from English to Inuinnaqtun and because of that, we wanted to prioritize what was needed and what should be placed as a priority by the government.
That is the main reason why we have it under subclause 3, Mr. Chairman.
Can the minister tell me if the folks in my riding and also in Kugluktuk, when they’re receiving correspondence or information from the Government of Nunavut, will it be in Inuinnaqtun?
For example, quite often, I get correspondence from government offices in Iqaluit and it’s all in Inuktitut, and I can’t distribute or forward that to any of my constituents because, of course, they don’t understand that writing but they do understand Inuinnaqtun.
Of course, we don’t get very much information in Inuinnaqtun when it comes from the government.
So could you clarify, if there’s implementation of this Act, will the people in Kitikmeot, in the west, receive their correspondence in Inuinnaqtun from the government?
If there is a request to the government, or government departments, or government agencies, or service providers, if there is a request to have documents written in Inuinnaqtun for certain communities or hamlets, there will be a requirement to have it written in Inuinnaqtun if they’re going to certain areas.
You could use that avenue and we have identified which communities should be receiving documents that are written in Innuinaqtun, Mr. Chairman.
Could the minister, for the record, tell the committee which communities have been identified as those communities that should receive information and letters in Innuinaqtun?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): From what we understand, Kugluktuk, Cambridge Bay, Bay Chimo, and Bathurst Inlet are the communities that are identified to receive Innuinaqtun correspondence, Mr. Chairman.
(interpretation ends) Bill 6 on page 4. Clause 3?
Chairman: Page 5. Clause 5?
I would like to ask the minister, under clause 5 (2), it says, “Inuktitut version of the bill must be made available at the time the bill is introduced.”
Could the minister just clarify for the record why the bill wouldn’t be made available in Innuinaqtun as well?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you. As I stated, we have very limited resources.
For example, individuals who can translate from English to Innuinaqtun or Innuinaqtun to English because of these limited resources. The reason why we only have Inuktitut here is because the bills have to move forward.
Once there is an increase in our capacity in Innuinaqtun, then again, we would be able to provide Innuinaqtun versions of a bill, Mr. Chairman.
Could the minister indicate when he thinks that the capacity to provide Innuinaqtun versions of the bills will be achieved?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): At this time, I cannot even give you an estimate, Mr. Chairman.
(interpretation ends) Page 5.
Clause 5?
Chairman: Page 7. Clause 9?
Chairman: Page 8. Clause 10?
I would like to ask the minister if he could just clarify a bit what the head or central service office is.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have Stéphane Cloutier respond to that question.
Mr. Cloutier.
Mr. Cloutier (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The head of an office is where the main function of the service is being provided. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cloutier.
I thank the minister and Mr. Cloutier for that information.
Just to clarify further, if it’s a head office, all head offices are here in Iqaluit. Is that what you mean, the head offices here in Iqaluit?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have Mr. Cloutier answer that question.
Mr. Cloutier (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Head or central service office, it’s not only the offices here in Iqaluit but also in other communities where the service provided is the main function and is of benefit for all Nunavummiut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the minister and Mr. Cloutier.
So if I give you an example, I think the Motor Vehicles Branch has an office in Gjoa Haven, would that be a head or central service agency as you were describing?
Mr. Cloutier (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) To use your example, the Liquor Board office in Gjoa Haven, in Uqhuqtuuq, if that’s the head office that provides the services for all Nunavummiut, then the official language requirement applies to that office. So they have to provide their services in the official languages of Nunavut. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Cloutier. Are you done? (interpretation ends) Page 8.
Clause 12?
Clause 13?
Clause 14?
Chairman: Sorry, we skipped a number on page 12.
Clause 13.1?
Chairman: Page 13. Clause 14?
Chairman: Page 14. Clause 16?
Chairman: Agreed. Page 15. Clause 17?
Chairman: Page 16. Clause 19?
Chairman: Page 16. Clause 20.1?
Chairman: Page 17. Clause 22?
Some Members: Agreed.  Chairman (interpretation): On the same page.
Clause 22.1?
Chairman: Page 18. Clause 23?
Chairman (interpretation): Page 19. Clause 25.1?
Chairman: Page 20. Clause 26?
Chairman: Page 20. Clause 27?
Chairman: Page 21. Clause 28?
Chairman: Page 21. Clause 29?
Chairman: Page 22. Clause 30?
Chairman: Page 23. Clause 32?
Chairman: Page 24. Clause 32.1?
Chairman: Page 25. Clause 35?
Chairman: Page 26. Clause 36.
There is a motion on that clause.
Committee Motion 018 – 2(4): Bill 6 – Amend Subclause 36(1)(a)(i) Strike Out Subsection 32(4) and Substitute 32.1(1) (Arvaluk)
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I move that subclause 36(1)(a)(i) be amended by striking out “under subsection 32(4)” and substituting “under subsection 32.1(1).”
The motion is in order. Before we proceed with debate on the motion, I have a few more comments to make as to procedures.
During the committee meetings, we made a number of motions and we had forgotten.... well, we didn’t make a motion on this clause, we just set up the numbers without including the subclause numbers and we would like it to be approved by the members.
Does the committee agree to clause 36 as amended?
Chairman: Page 26. Clause 37?
My colleague for Cambridge Bay was asking questions in regard to clause 3 and 5, and when the Inuinnaqtun language will be implemented. Why do they only state Inuktitut?
He was asking why Inuinnaqtun is not included.
I would like to ask the minister in clause 37, it states here that the review of the position shall be after five years, but perhaps at that time, the Inuinnaqtun language can be implemented or where there is enough capacity built for clause 3 and 5 in Inuinnaqtun, perhaps they could make that amendment to those clauses at that time.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Stéphane will respond to that question.
Mr. Cloutier (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) This clause dealing with the review of the legislation after five years or earlier, as the Legislative Assembly sees fit, they can include in that review period that they would also look at the status of Innuinaqtun and ask the appropriate bodies that will have the information, the stats, and so on, and also work with the communities on what the status is, like where are we at in terms of human resources development, in terms of translators, availability, also in terms of revitalization of Inuinnaqtun at the community level.
When we consulted with Inuinnait in the western Kitikmeot, they indicated that they wanted to focus on the revitalization in the schools with the children at the community level so that they could increase the numbers of Inuinnaqtun speakers and during this five year review period, under this clause, then the Legislative Assembly or committee of the Legislative Assembly could look into the status of Inuinnaqtun at that time during the review. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Page 29. Clause 39?
Chairman: Page 30. Clause 43?
Committee Motion 019 – 2(4): Bill 6 – Amend Clause 49 - Coming into Force Provision (Arvaluk)
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion to delete the current wording of clause 49 and replaced with the following instead: the provision for implementation refers to a fixed date which should be deleted and replaced by stating on the day affirmed by the commissioner or fixed by the order of commissioner.
That’s my motion.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you. As I stated before, this will have to be amended and the motion is in order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Question has been called. (interpretation ends) Clause 49 as amended?
I’m sorry, I’m ahead of myself.
To the motion. All those in favour.
Clause 49 as amended?
Chairman: We’re on page 31.
Is the committee agreed to Bill 6 as amended?
Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 6 can immediately be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
Thank you, Minister Tapardjuk. (interpretation) Minister Tapardjuk, do you have any closing remarks?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I would like to thank Nunavummiut for being patient for the past eight years. I would also like to thank the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit for reviewing the bill thoroughly and I know it’s going to be beneficial. I especially would like to thank NTI, the former Languages Commissioner, and our current Languages Commissioner for providing their support and working hard to pass this bill.
I would like to thank the Francophone Association of Nunavut. I would also like to thank the Canadian Languages Commissioner, the Government of Nunavut, and private businesses and various entities, especially our elders and our young people.
Bill 6 is a step forward for the Inuit language and also to the government recognizing the official languages in Nunavut. That will be utilized and they will all be at the same level with each other.
I am also grateful that we will now be able to work on Bill 7, the Inuit Language Protection Act, and it will just solely be applying to Inuit language protection.
I know that the Inuit language is valued very much by Nunavummiut, so we will be dealing with that in Bill 7. Inuit language will start being used in schools and in the workplaces in all of Nunavut.
I would like to work closely with the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit on Bill 7 during the fall. I believe that we will pass the bill and I look forward to holding meetings with the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit because I know that they will be supporting me.
I would also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Tapardjuk, Ms. Hardy, and Mr. Cloutier. (interpretation ends) What is the wish of the committee?
Mr. Curley: Not me.
The motion is carried. Now, I will report progress.
Your committee has been considering Bill 6 and would like to report that Bill 6 is immediately ready for third reading as amended and that two committee motions were adopted.
Members, I have a ruling.
(interpretation ends) On Monday, May 26, 2008, the Member for Nattilik raised a point of order in relation to the issue of quoting from the Hansard Blues.
(interpretation) On Monday, June 2, 2008, the member again made reference to this issue during the proceedings of the House.
I would first like to note that although our Rules clearly contemplate the ability of members to refer to Hansard during our proceedings, they do not specifically address the issue of whether or not it is permissible to quote from the Blues.
As members will recall, detailed Hansard Guidelines were recently added to our Rules as an appendix.
Members will also recall that the timelines within which members may submit edits to their Blues have been significantly relaxed since the initial timelines that were in place when the Assembly was first created.
All members were advised of these new timelines by way of correspondence from me in June of 2007.
(interpretation ends) Provision number five provides that:
“The final deadline for the submission of edits to the Blues is 5:00 p.m. on the third calendar day following the commencement of a period of prorogation or extended adjournment. No edits will be accepted after that time.”
The new timelines were implemented in order to provide adequate time for members to review their Blues during sittings of the House.
As the Legislative Assembly is aware, members on both sides of this House refer to, and quote from, the Hansard Blues with frequency during our proceedings. We have been doing so for a number of years.
As Speaker, I am frequently called on to review the Blues in order to render rulings on points of order and other matters. I am not inclined to prohibit myself from quoting aloud from the document in this House.
As members are aware, the turn-around time for final Hansards to be produced is not a matter of hours.
This is a reflection of both the desire of members to have adequate time during which they may review the Blues and submit corrections, as well as the logistical challenges inherent to producing one of this nation’s only bilingual Hansards.
As members will appreciate, a prohibition on quoting from the unedited Hansard during our sittings would have the effect of significantly reducing the ability of all members on both sides of the House from continuing to use the document as the primary tool which we all use to refer to what has transpired in this place.
I do not believe that this would be a reasonable approach or fair to the House as a whole.
Another approach would be to implement a much more restrictive deadline during which members may submit edits to their Blues.
(interpretation) For example, it would be possible to go back to a deadline of 10:00 a.m. on the morning following receipt of the Blues for members to submit edits.
However, this would be a matter for all members to consider.
I would also remind members that our Hansard guidelines provide that:
“A Member may not make material changes in the meaning of what was said in the House. (interpretation ends) A Member is not permitted to make any insertion as an afterthought nor to strike out a passage which he or she regrets having spoken.
Revisions shall be limited to correcting errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation; ensuring that the correct parliamentary forms are observed; and minimizing repetition and redundancies.”
Members, my point is that your edits to the Hansard Blues are only permitted to address such matters as grammar and correct Parliamentary form.
If a minister wishes to clarify or supplement something that he or she has said in the House, he or she has a number of options during our Orders of the Day in which to do so, including returns to oral questions.
Given that the House has clearly decided that it wishes to provide all members with a significant period of time during which they may submit edits, it would not be reasonable to enforce a new prohibition on the use of the Hansard Blues.
Accordingly, I will not rule any member on either side of the House as being out of order simply because they refer to the unedited Hansard Blues.
I certainly recognize that the unedited Hansard Blues may, from time to time, contain errors.
All members are cautioned accordingly.
If any member feels that his or her words have not accurately been rendered in the Hansard Blues, they may avail themselves of their ability to request a review of the transcript.
(interpretation) I would also remind all members that recent improvements in the Assembly’s audio-visual technology allows us to review the video and audio record of what was said in the House a relatively short period of time after a sitting day.
In this case, I would note that the Member for Nattilik’s own edits to her Hansard Blues did not request any changes with respect to the passage in question that was in the Hansard of March 5, 2008.
I have verified the accuracy of the transcription myself, based on a review of the video and audio record.