EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that it is important for all Members of this House to reflect carefully on this matter and to ensure that we endeavour at all times to maintain the trust and confidence of our constituents for they have placed this responsibility upon us.
Any more comments to the motion?
Let the record note that there was one opposed and two abstentions.
Bills 16, 17, 18, 20, and 23.
In accordance with the authority provided to me by Motion 15 – 3(3), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out, with Mr. Tapardjuk in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:38 and Committee resumed at 16:03
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 16, 17, 18, 20, and 23.
We wish to deal with Bills 16, 17, 18, 20, and 23.
I forgot to shut my cellphone off and I apologize.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. I would like to remind members that if you have cellphones, please turn them off.
Does the committee agree to deal with Bills 16, 17, 18, 20, and 23?
Bill 16 – Annual Reporting Validation (Liquor Licensing Board) Act – Consideration in Committee
If the minister has opening comments to Bill 16, he can now proceed.
Good afternoon. I am here to present Bill 16, Annual Reporting Validation (Liquor Licensing Board) Act.
In 1999, the Department of Finance determined that the activities of the Nunavut Liquor Commission and Liquor Licensing Board were best managed through a contracting agreement with the Government of the Northwest Territories.
That agreement remained until November 2004.
The annual reports for the board for the period April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2004 remain outstanding.
After an exhaustive search in the Government of the Northwest Territories, Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit, the historical records for the board cannot be located.
Without them, it will be impossible to recreate the activities of the board.
In situations like this, there is a legislative solution: an act of validation. Without this legislation, these reports would likely remain outstanding forever.
Mr. Chairman, we are not pleased with events that led to this. We cannot explain why the administration of the day made certain decisions or possibly misplaced these files.
However, we believe that we need to pass this legislation and finally put this matter to rest.
To my right is Janet Slaughter, Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice, and to my left is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance.
Welcome, Deputy Minister Janet Slaughter and Mr. Chris D’Arcy.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation have any opening comments?
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I wish to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 16, Annual Reporting Validation (Liquor Licensing Board) Act.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee accepts the government’s rationale for this proposed legislation.
I would like to take this opportunity to note with approval the contents of the preamble to Bill 16, which affirms the importance of public agencies preparing and tabling annual reports in a timely manner.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 16 to all members.
Are there any general comments? Mr. Enook.
I just want further clarification on what I understood.
I understand that this agency is supposed to report regularly and that report has never been made or that it will never be found.
Is that all it is saying here?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Enook for the question.
Mr. Chairman, the period in question that we’re seeking approval for is 1999-2004. After those years, there have been annual reports filed.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Elliott.
Again, I was going to ask some of the questions that Mr. Enook was asking and the minister replied by saying that reports have been coming, but in what the Speaker of the House tabled for statutory tabling requirements, it’s been 2008-09 since his department has put in under the Liquor Act. I’m just curious if he could confirm that.
That is correct, but we’re waiting for an audit; it’s not because the documents are missing.
I have no more names on my list. (interpretation ends) In your white binder, (interpretation) under the white tab, please refer to Bill 16.
In English, it’s the (interpretation ends) Annual Reporting Validation (Liquor Licensing Board) Act. (interpretation) Please refer to that bill. (interpretation ends) Clause 1. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Are we agreed to Bill 16 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), are we in agreement that Bill 16 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Bill 16 is now ready for third reading.
Perhaps Minister Peterson has closing remarks.
I would like to thank yourself and the committee for your understanding and approval of that Act. This will certainly help us clean up our outstanding paperwork and tabling documents.
We will now deal with Bill 17.
Minister Peterson, do you have any opening comments?
Bill 17 – Write-off of Debts Act, 2011-2012 – Consideration in Committee
I am here to discuss the Write-off of Debts Act, 2011-2012. Mr. Chairman, this Act is necessary to write off $199,903 of debt that the Kivalliq Partners in Development (KPID) owes to Nunavut Arctic College.
Members will note that this write off is in accordance with section 82 of the Financial Administration Act. A debt written off under this section of the Act does not mean that it is forgiven. This Act allows the college to stop reporting the debt in the accounts receivable section of their financial statements.
However, it remains a debt owed to the government unless forgiven through a separate act of forgiveness.
Mr. Chairman, this debt arose through courses the college delivered on behalf of Kivalliq Partners in Development, which had received funding from Service Canada for these courses. The course costs were incurred up to August 2006.
Although the courses were delivered, the college encountered difficulty in properly documenting course costs and the subsequent invoicing to and collection from Kivalliq Partners in Development.
Finally, in October of 2009, the college was informed that the funds had to be returned to Service Canada. Although the college has held further discussions with Service Canada, it is not possible to regain access to the lapsed funds.
Mr. Chairman, the Auditor General noted that the debt is still recorded on the books of the college and that, for administrative, financial reporting, and audit performance purposes, it would make sense to write off the Kivalliq Partners in Development debt given its relative age and the likelihood of collection.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I wish to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 17, Write-off of Debts Act, 2011-2012.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, members took the opportunity to pose a number of questions to the minister concerning the government’s practices with respect to the write-off and forgiveness of debts.
While noting the importance of making best efforts to collect outstanding debts, the standing committee accepts the government’s rationale for this proposed legislation.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 17 to all members.
In order for us to be on the same page, it is not being left behind, but it will be temporarily set aside out there somewhere.
How exactly can we state that this debt could be returned or be put back on the books and who would make that decision to say they can now pay it off?
Who will try to collect that debt?
It stated that it’s not off the books.
So who will try to collect that debt, Mr. Chairman?
A very good question by Mr. Enook.
The college could collect the money in the future if they knew that Kivalliq Partners in Development had the money. It would be recorded as extra revenue to the college.
When we talk about Nunavut Arctic College trying to collect that debt, who at Nunavut Arctic College would find out they now have the money or that they’re now able to pay their debt?
How do they make that determination?
Would it be the debtors announcing that they suddenly have the means to pay it back?
Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be recorded in Nunavut Arctic College’s financial statements and we would see it there as being repaid.
Perhaps my question wasn’t very clear because he didn’t respond accordingly.
How will the staff at Nunavut Arctic College find out that such debtors as KPID are now able to make a payment on their debt? How would they find that out? Is the onus on the organizations that owe money to tell Nunavut Arctic College or will Nunavut Arctic College always be scrutinizing KPID’s books?
Mr. Chairman, Nunavut Arctic College would have to continue to monitor the situation with respect to whether Kivalliq Partners in Development does receive additional funds from some source.
So I don’t believe it would be monthly statements, but there certainly would have to be some ongoing monitoring of the debt.
It seems that my question is: when did they acquire this debt?
What efforts did they make to collect that debt before it was written off?
Mr. Chairman, this particular debt goes all the way back to the year 2006.
My understanding of how it evolved is that Kivalliq Partners in Development sourced the funding from Service Canada, then they commissioned Nunavut Arctic College to deliver a number of programs and courses at the college, then Nunavut Arctic College failed to collect the money from Kivalliq Partners in Development, and then eventually the Service Canada folks, because they didn’t get their accountings, requested the money back from Kivalliq Partners in Development.
Ultimately, when Nunavut Arctic College was seeking the funds, Kivalliq Partners in Development didn’t have the funds to pay.
From then on, I’m sure that Service Canada has been requesting for funds.
Did that influence the funds that they have to access or has the cash flow been acceptable on the funds that are requested?
If I understand it correctly, there still remains a good working relationship between the organizations.
I don’t think there has been any impact on the ability of organizations to access funds from Service Canada. I know that Nunavut Arctic College is more vigilant in collecting third party funds when they’re commissioned to deliver courses.
That’s the best I can offer in terms of an answer to Ms. Ell.
I’m not sure if the Minister of Finance would be able to answer my question, but I noticed the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College is here.
Nunavut Arctic College relies on third party funding such as this to operate a lot of the different training programs that are provided across the north.
I’m just wondering: are you aware of any other funding that is owed to Nunavut Arctic College that may have to be written off at this time?
At this time, we are not aware of any other monies owed to Nunavut Arctic College.
I would like to raise this question: when would the forgiveness of debt take effect?
When you speak about that issue, you generally take it off the books.
When does the forgiveness of the debt occur exactly? I would like to know that.
I thank Mr. Oshutapik. I always call him Hezakiah.
Mr. Chairman, to clarify a previous answer, we’re not aware of any other funds owed to Nunavut Arctic College from Service Canada, but they may be owed money from other organizations.
With respect to the question, it’s likely that the funds would be forgiven if and when that other organization was to wind up their affairs and if there’s no other possibility of collecting the money.
Go to (interpretation ends) your white binder.
Bill 17, (interpretation) Write-off of Debts Act, 2011-2012.
It’s in your (interpretation ends) white binders.
Chairman: Schedule on page 2. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Does the committee agree to Bill 17 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), are you agreed that Bill 17 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Peterson, if you have any closing comments, you have the opportunity at this time. Minister Peterson.
Again I would like to thank yourself and the committee for good questions.
It’s important that we discuss accountability in our organizations throughout Nunavut and in particular, our public agencies.
I know that, in speaking with the Minister of Nunavut Arctic College, he is working very hard to strengthen financial accountability in the college.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. At this time, we will deal with Bill 18. Minister Peterson, do you have any opening comments to the bill?
Bill 18 – An Act to Amend Several Acts for Constitutional Validity (Spousal Benefits and Obligations) Consideration in Committee
I am here today to discuss Bill 18, An Act to Amend Several Acts for Constitutional Validity regarding spousal supports and obligations.
Our government is dedicated to upholding and affirming the rights granted to all Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all of the protections therein.
This legislation seeks to further integrate the principles of equality and fairness found in the charter into our laws and to ensure that our legislation reflects the state of law in Canada.
I would be happy to answer questions.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I wish to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 18.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, members noted the minister’s comments in relation to the status of similar initiatives in other Canadian jurisdictions.
Members recognize the government’s rationale for the legal necessity of this proposed legislation.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 18 to all members.
I wonder if I may seek your permission to bring in another witness.
Chairman (interpretation): Do we agree that the minister bring in another witness?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the other witness out, please.
Minister Peterson, for the record, please introduce your witness.
I would like to introduce Thomas Druyan. He’s a legislative lawyer in the Department of Justice.
Welcome, Mr. Druyan.
I hope I pronounced his name properly.
Are there any general comments on Bill 18?
Moses Aupaluktuq.
I am pleased to see the minister introduce this as well in a sense.
It’s nice to see that the minister mentioned the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the protections that we’re given under the Canadian Constitution.
I believe Nunavummiut have been striving for equality as well as recognition as the rest of Canadians. It’s just nice to see that social justice is being embraced and also being enhanced in Nunavut.
I think there’s a good overall need for social justice and support as well.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that we are dealing with this bill as it will recognize co-inhabitation because the Inuit way seems to have been undermined.
Although they have never been formally married, they become accepted as daughters-in-law through Inuit customs and I also support that.
I am very thankful to see that. It will also mean that we’re finally in conformity with the general practice in Canada.
I have no more names on my list. Go to (interpretation ends) your white binder.
Bill 18, (interpretation) An Act to Amend Several Acts for Constitutional Validity (Spousal Benefits and Obligations).
We are on (interpretation ends) Bill 18.
Chairman: Schedule B (interpretation) contains forms.
Chairman (interpretation): Go back to (interpretation ends) clause 21. Clause 21. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Do we agree to Bill 18 as a whole?
Chairman (interpretation): Pursuant to Rule 62(2), do we agree that Bill 18 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Peterson, if you have any closing remarks.
Again I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for your scrutiny and good questions not just today but the last little while.
With the passage of this bill, it will update our laws with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Government of Canada’s decisions in 1999 and 2005. I believe we are the last jurisdiction to do so and it will be a very proud moment for us all when the bill receives assent later today.
Bill 20 – An Act to Amend the Judicature Act (Court Rules) – Consideration in Committee
This is the one where I have difficulty with this word. I’m going to try.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear and speak to Bill 20, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act.
This amendment will provide added clarity to the Judicature Act regarding the process of changing court rules and will ensure consistency between the Nunavut Court of Justice and the Nunavut Court of Appeals.
I look forward to any questions that committee members may have.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I wish to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 20.
As members will recall, these proposed amendments, which change the process for the making of the Rules of the Nunavut Court of Justice and the Rules of the Court of Appeal, were originally included in Bill 48, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, No. 3, which was considered by the Legislative Assembly in 2010.
At that time, the standing committee was of the view that the proposed changes warranted being introduced in a standalone piece of proposed legislation, which the government has now introduced in the form of Bill 20.
The standing committee recognizes that the proposed amendments will have a number of effects.
Firstly, the proposed amendments remove the requirement for changes to the Rules of the Nunavut Court of Justice to be approved by the Commissioner of Nunavut, acting on the advice of cabinet.
The proposed amendments will also allow the Senior Judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice, with the approval of the judges of the Nunavut Court of Justice, to make rules regulating the practice and procedure in the Nunavut Court of Justice.
The proposed amendments will also allow the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, with the approval of the judges of the court, to make rules regulating the practice and procedure on appeals.
The standing committee recognizes that the government’s position is that the authority to make changes to the Rules of the Nunavut Court of Justice and the Rules of the Court of Appeal should rest with the senior judge and the chief justice, respectively, acting with the approval of their colleagues.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 20 to all members.
Are there any general comments? Ms. Ell.
I am not a lawyer by any means, but I would like some explanation as to the reasoning behind changing the wording by substituting it to the Senior Judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice from the judges of the Nunavut Court. Could you explain that to me, please, minister?
If I understand her question correctly, it would still have to be approved by all the judges. We would have one signature on the document, but all the judges in the Nunavut Court of Justice would have to approve the rule changes.
Ms. Ell: So you’re saying that all the judges have to sign a piece of document for changes prior and with this change, only one judge then would have to make the changes but with some sort of an approval from the judges.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that’s essentially what we’re asking. In the past, it was difficult for all the judges to get together.
So what this will do is it still will require the senior judge to get approval of all the judges, but there will only be one signature required on the document.
We believe that being judges, they will respect the laws and their own rules in the Nunavut Court of Justice.
Ms. Ell: Can you explain to me what difficulties there might have been in the past to deal with their day-to-day business of the practice that they have done in the past?
What I’m trying to find out is if there have been a lot of difficulties or if this is just an irritant of the way the current system works and whether there’s an actual example that you can provide to satisfy me that the way you’re now trying to go forward with this is warranted?
Mr. Chairman, the best example I think I could give Ms. Ell is Nunavut is a large territory.
Currently there are four judges and they travel quite a bit with the court parties to various communities in Nunavut, so it’s very difficult for them all to be in the same place at same time.
When the Nunavut Court of Justice adds two additional judges, there will be six. I think that’s the plan. It will make it even more difficult to get six judges together to discuss rule changes.
This would facilitate the teleconferences, faxes, and emails to discuss the rule changes, and then the senior judge, acting with the agreement of all judges, would enact the rules.
Ms. Ell: Has there been a lot of changes being brought forth to cabinet for signatures?
Has there been any number that has been in the past or very little that has been brought forward for changes?
Well, in my almost three years as cabinet minister, I don’t recall any rule changes.
It is always a distinct possibility.
An important thing to remember is judges would be discussing changing rules, not changing laws.
What our cabinet would like to do is just strengthen that arm’s-length relationship between the cabinet and the Nunavut Court of Justice.
There’s always a perception, if the judges have to get permissions or approvals from cabinet, that maybe we have some control and influence over them. We just want to strengthen that arm’s-length relationship between our cabinet and the judges.
I have no more names on my list. Go to your (interpretation ends) white binder.
Bill 20, (interpretation) An Act to Amend the Judicature Act. (interpretation ends) Clause 1. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Do we agree to Bill 20 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), are we agreed that Bill 20 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
I again thank you as the Chairman and I thank the committee for their support of this particular bill and all the other bills earlier.
I think this will help the Nunavut Court of Justice with their rules.
I would like to thank my officials, Mr. D’Arcy, who left earlier, and Deputy Minister of Justice Janet Slaughter for appearing before us today.
I would like to take a moment right now to thank Mr. Thomas Druyan for eight and a half long years of working with the Government of Nunavut in our Legislative Division.
I might have mentioned to some of you that he’s leaving the Government of Nunavut on November 11. He’s transferring to the Government of the Northwest Territories to help them with their work over there.
It’s going to be a great loss to the Department of Justice, but it’s going to be a wonderful gain for the Government of the Northwest Territories.
So I would like to wish Mr. Druyan a successful career in the Northwest Territories and thank him for his many years of hard work on behalf of our Legislative Assembly and the people of Nunavut.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Druyan.
I believe that’s how his name is pronounced.
We wish you success in the Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Minister Peterson and your officials.
We will now deal with (interpretation ends) Bill 23, (interpretation) which is related to education.
Does the Minister of Education have any opening comments?
Bill 23 – An Act to Amend the Public Colleges Act – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Aariak, Minister of Education, you may proceed with your opening comments.
Good afternoon and welcome. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to be here to explain a bit about Bill 23, the proposed amendment of the Public Colleges Act (PCA).
The proposal to amend the PCA was submitted in partnership with Nunavut Arctic College. This bill is about authorizing Nunavut Arctic College to offer university-level programming and grant degrees.