EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In part of her response, it states on page 2 that the department is working on how family services and Inuit societal values will be included and used or how the elders and youth can be more involved.
I would like to get some clarification from the minister to see if these people would be working for the government or whether there are going to be advisory bodies.
Hon. Monica Ell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member for asking again.
I have answered part of the question in regard to the director for the Child and Family Services Act.
According to the policy, which was approved by spring, they have to produce a report. That report was tabled recently in the House.
From my understanding, there are some committees in the communities. They have included the elders to do some planning in regard to the title “Tunnganarniq,” to be welcoming.
Your first supplementary, Mr Tapardjuk.
Thank you for dealing with this.
As it was mentioned, there will be more funding available so that the employees will have more understanding of Inuit societal values or culture.
I could ask another question. Are you planning to have only Qallunaat social workers? Is that why this has to be done?
If Inuit were social workers, they wouldn’t need all this training because they understand the social issues.
I wish that you could make this clearer.
Yes, as I stated earlier, in the spring of 2014, the plan is to train the social workers. I would like to state at this time that we have Inuit social workers in our territory, although there are not very many. I am very pleased that I was able to go to your riding in Igloolik to discuss the matter with the hamlet council.
We had a phone-in show. With the chair of NTI, Nutrition North, and poverty reduction, I was able to go to the community with my co-chair.
Between the meetings during our visit to the communities, we were able to tour the community.
Mr. Speaker, there were two students who were taking social work and we crossed our paths. I was very pleased to meet them. The number of beneficiary social workers is increasing.
In regard to the question that you just posed, although sometimes we may be Inuit, nowadays, we don’t know the application of Inuit societal values. If we want to have an opportunity to get further knowledge on Inuit societal values, we have that opportunity now.
I also thank the minister because these types of accomplishments are a source of pride when you see committed people taking courses to undertake this type of career.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, with the passage of the Education Act, and the local DEAs have the authority to hire elders as instructors upon completion of an accredited course recognizing them as elder instructors in various categories recognized within Inuit cultural values.
I wonder if the Department of Family Services in their response identified how these categories were arrived at, and how the process to determine accreditation of our elders was determined. I am proud of this process and expect further developments.
Mr. Speaker, my question I have is this: within the mandate of the Family Services department, is there a comparable process to recognize the capabilities of elders who may not have any formal education, but who are recognized local experts in traditional societal values and who can counsel their fellow residents?
Is there any type of comparable accreditation your department can undertake to this effect? Can you take this into consideration that these elders are recognized as counsellors, on par with how our elder instructors in education? Can you look at this possibility as not all elders are able to provide counselling services?
There aren’t very many elders who are proficient in this field of Inuit societal values and healthy living counselling so that services are available locally?
In my response to his last question, I had stated that anyone is welcome to submit suggestions offering solutions or alternatives, and when this suggestion is submitted such as the member has just made, we can now look at that suggestion and with our departmental officials listening to these proceedings, they can look into this matter and take this suggestion into consideration.
Question 753 – 3(3): Mould in Public Housing at Kugaaruk (Ningark)
In the previous year and proceeding, I have asked the lead minister for the Nunavut Housing Corporation in regard to homes moulding in Kugaaruk.
I understand that the minister has directed his officials and the problem was taken care of.
To date, the problem has persisted. I would like to ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister will have a second look at the problem.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in my responses to the issue of mould in Kugaaruk, there is a process and we encourage the tenant to report any kind of mould, whether it’s mildew or mould, to the local housing organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the ongoing occurring problem in the current unit.
I’ll have to get my staff to take a look into that.
I thank the minister, who has undertaken to try and do something for some homes, but there are more than a few homes back home and we have a number of homes.
We appreciate the privilege of having homes in our community.
Again I would like to ask: will the minister again review the problem we have back home?
The public housing units are inspected annually by the local housing organizations, including some technical assistance from the regional offices.
Once mould or mildew is identified, they work to get the issue resolved. Again I encourage all the public tenants to make sure that they report any kind of mildew or mould that is forming within their units.
Mr. Speaker, I will direct my staff to take a second look into this issue in Kugaaruk.
My second and final supplementary, yes, we have tenants who have talked with the local or regional [level]. When their request falls into deaf ears, then you’re not sure if you’re going to get help anywhere, either it’s local, regional, or territorial.
Is the hon. minister stating that because the mould problem is a serious health problem, we want to help our local health care profession and the territory to ensure that we have prevention?
Did the hon. minister say that he will direct his officials to come to Kugaaruk and check out the persistent problem?
It appears that the persistent problem is from one unit. If we can get a letter to follow up… . I’m sure these inspections take place yearly on an annual basis.
If the mould problem is a persistent, ongoing issue with a tenant, I would like to get more detailed information from the member and possibly a letter from the tenant to follow up to make sure that these mould issues are taking care of in that unit.
I have no more names on my list. We will move on in our orders of the day.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to go back to Item 5 in our Orders of the Day.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to return to Item 5 in our Orders of the Day, Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery. Are there any nays? There are none.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I have the honour of recognizing my husband, the greatest-looking man in Nunavut.
I have a second honour to recognize a visitor in the Gallery, one of the greatest leaders in Nunavut, my uncle James Eetoolook from Taloyoak.
He was a recipient of the Diamond Jubilee [Medal] last fall in Taloyoak. We are very proud of him in Taloyoak. He has contributed many hours for the benefit of Nunavummiut, the land claims agreement, and so on.
At the local level, he has been a voice for leadership in Taloyoak.
Lastly, I would like to say (interpretation) I remember that my later father was assisted by his younger brother. They would go out hunting together and provide support to the wife and always checked on his wife to make sure she was okay while the husband was out hunting.
He is my uncle, and I do have compassion for him and gratitude for providing support to the people of Nunavut.
Welcome to the Gallery, James. It’s always a pleasure to see you over here.
Hon. Monica Ell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize two of my constituents. First of all, I would like to recognize Sammie Peter.
Welcome to the Legislative Assembly. Sammie Peter and his wife have been very supportive. They have been very helpful to the people through the Anglican Diocese.
I would also like to welcome Alice Ningeongan. Welcome.
Although this individual was acknowledged, I have worked with this individual in the past and I would like to acknowledge Mr. James Eetoolook. I am very proud of the fact that you are very good at what you do. He is the co-chair of the round-table discussions representing NTI.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to acknowledge James Eetoolook.
He has been a member of NTI for a very long time, although he is younger than me.
I, too, would like to welcome Mr. Eetoolook.
Item 5. Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery. Mr. Peterson.
I would like to also take this opportunity to recognize Mr. James Eetoolook. He’s a visitor to the Gallery. James was my first boss when I went to work for the Kitikmeot Inuit Association group of companies.
In one of our first challenges together, we were actually in a battle with the Government of the Northwest Territories on initiatives. It’s kind of ironic now that I’m with the government. Welcome, James, to the Gallery.
I appreciate seeing you here today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery. Mr. Ningeongan.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my only sister, who is very supportive of me, whom I love very much. I, too, would like to acknowledge Alice Ningeongan.
We will go back to our orders of the day. Item 7. Written Questions.
Tabled Document 411 – 3(3): 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 Education Act Annual Reports (Aariak)
I am pleased to table the 2010-11 and 2011-12 Education Act annual reports.
Tabled Document 412 – 3(3): Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: Council of Ministers Meeting, October 11, 2012 Lake Louise, Alberta (Arreak)
Tabled Document 413 – 3(3): Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CCFAM) and Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture (ACFAM), September 5-6, 2012 – Victoria, British Columbia (Arreak)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to the FPT report on the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment meeting, October 11, 2012, in Lake Louise.
I am also pleased to table the FPT report on the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment meeting, October 11, 2012 in Lake Louise.
The titles of these two documents may sound the same, but they are two different documents.
Moving on in our orders of the day. Item 14.
Motion 057 – 3(3): Extended Sitting Hours and Days – Notice (Kusugak)
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, September 16, 2013, I will move the following motion:
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Quttiktuq, that the Speaker be authorized to set such sitting days and hours as the Speaker deems fit to assist with the business before the House during this present sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Bill 40 and Bill 64 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
Before we proceed to the Committee of the Whole, we will take a five-minute break.
>>House recessed at 11:18 and Committee resumed at 11:29
I would now like to call the committee meeting to order. Welcome to the Committee of the Whole, as well as Nunavummiut who are following the televised and radio broadcasts of the proceedings.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 40 and 64.
Mr. Aupaluktuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, we wish to commence our review of Bill 40.
Does the committee agree that we first deal with Bill 40?
Before we proceed with the bill, does the committee agree to bring in the minister’s witnesses?
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses in. Madam Minister, if you can go to the witness table.
To my right is the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to my left is Anne Macintosh, legislative drafter from the Department of Justice.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Minister. Mr. Vandermeulen, welcome. Ms. Macintosh, welcome.
At this time, as we move towards reviewing this bill, let me start off by stating that during our committee meeting yesterday, a point of order was raised by the Member of Rankin Inlet North.
I will be making a ruling on this tomorrow, as I have decided to present this ruling at the beginning of the Committee of the Whole.
Oops! I would be all alone trying to present this ruling tomorrow. I meant to state Monday.
If it was tomorrow, I would be all alone.
On Monday, I will make my ruling in the Committee of the Whole.
We’re on general comments for Bill 40.
I had some names on my list from yesterday. Mr. Ningark, I now give you the opportunity to speak.
This bill, Bill 40, entitled “Representative for Children and Youth Act,” I think we are all aware, at least the majority of members in this House are aware that NTI has been very supportive of this bill.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated meets with, works with, and collaborates with the Inuit regional associations, such as the Kitikmeot Inuit Association, including the Kivalliq and Qikiqtaaluk regions.
These organizations represent the aboriginal people of Nunavut, namely, the beneficiaries of the land claims agreement, as they are elected people of their communities as Inuit representatives for their region.
As per my earlier comment, there are regional organizations, such as the Kitikmeot Regional Inuit Association, as well as Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which represent Inuit as aboriginal people through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement via elections for a fixed period.
I recognize their representation of the aboriginal people of Nunavut, the Inuit, and of their mandate and authority.
This includes their support for Bill 40, which I am also in support of.
If things were perfect in this world, they would never have to apply this bill. However, this world isn’t perfect and it is impossible to be a perfect human being, even if you want to be the best person possible. Some people will always require assistance, whether they are youth or children.
As well, I sometimes reflect on certain issues, such as some youth want to speak with adults separately from their parents or family members. Not all youth are like that, but this occurs occasionally.
This highlights the fact that we are just human and aren’t winged angels. Therefore, humans aren’t perfect and we don’t always spot people requiring assistance or support.
I certainly hope that we would apply this legislation only to those people who really require assistance, as that is the purpose of the bill.
I certainly hope this legislation never has to be applied in Nunavut.
I imagine, however, that it would have to be applied at some point in this day and age as well as in the future.
With that in mind, I wanted to voice my general comments and I have no questions.
I want it known that I am in support of this bill. I have no further comments to make, but that I hope this bill will be enacted as legislation applicable to Nunavut.
I believe this is the last individual to make general comments. I don’t have any other names on my list. Mr. Tapardjuk.
I would like to ensure that I am clearly understood.
The sole purpose of Bill 40, Representative for Children and Youth Act, is to protect. I totally understand that aspect. Furthermore, I know certain children and youth require assistance.
When speaking about Inuit traditions and societal values, as the Minister of Family Services, or the minister now responsible for Bill 51, once this legislation is being implemented, many of us had expectations of certain conflicts currently in play could possibly be resolved through this amendment, particularly for families.
Spousal assault, family violence, bullying or even guardians who abandon their moral duties are a bane on every communities’ reputation and Inuit didn’t have these issues so prevalent in our past.
This government’s work to develop this is a matter we can all take pride in, especially in light of Bill 51, and the government has to be recognized for their zeal in trying to properly assist and understand what Inuit societal values consists of.
There are still many areas that will most certainly cause issues, which is obvious in looking at this legislation.
I believe that this government will work hard to implement this legislation properly.
If Bill 51 is implemented to resolve the current cultural conflicts with traditional Inuit culture, we will also be informed about possible amendments to enhance it.
This in my belief that Bill 40, Representative for Children and Youth Act, is being enacted to the Legislative Assembly and to have an employee to monitor and represent children and youth.
The Department of Justice is being asked to create this position through legislation, which will cost approximately $2 million per annum. This is, in my opinion, a rush job, although I am not particularly offended by it.
I believe in the government that once the amendment is fully implemented, our biggest source of conflict with the western idealist agenda would be largely resolved.
I wonder if it has been thought out wisely in attempting to ramrod Bill 40 through the Legislative Assembly without having incorporated the proposed amendments. Is there a hidden agenda inside Bill 40? I wonder what the real purpose of Bill 40 is, as I can’t grasp the reasoning behind this bill.
Can’t our government first try to implement Bill 51 and once it is being implemented, yes, the members could be faced? The Legislative Assembly is already being asked to approve this legislation, to review this bill prior to any implementation of Bill 51. What is the foundation for this haste?
I truly can’t understand the reasoning.
I want it clearly understood that we have received written letters of support from NTI and other organizations, but I am also a beneficiary of the land claims agreement. We have a local representative in both Igloolik and Hall Beach to represent the beneficiaries in these two communities.
The community support for this legislation has never been referenced in any of NTI’s supporting of it.
In reviewing NTI’s AGM reports, I have never seen a motion to that effect brought forward explicitly offering beneficiary support for Bill 40.
Due to this reason, as we are all of a different mind, perhaps the organizations properly representing their regional communities, such as QIA, with parental bodies, such as NTI, should have been asked as representatives of their regions that their local representatives were in support of Bill 40. However, the support has been given from the top down without debate.
As our local representative stated to me, in their opinion, Bill 40 expropriates parental rights and responsibilities perhaps because we, as parents, are failing in our parental duties.
This legislated representative is felt to be too intrusive and confiscating parental duties.
Due to hearing this opinion expressed by Inuit, I believe that one person representing Inuit can’t force the entire population they represent to accept their personal recommendation.
Due to not having learned of local support via these channels, this is my reasoning and I want it clearly understood that I personally don’t oppose this bill, Bill 40. However, without even attempting to implement the amendments laid out in Bill 51, it will smooth the path towards the completion of Bill 40 to eventually reach their stated objective.
When this bill becomes legislation, the members may start accusing the government is bereft and lax in fulfilling the legislated requirements laid out in it and it would lead to more discord, especially since Bill 40 is trying to be rushed into legislation.
It is as if Inuit have to again be asked to swallow a sugar-coated legal pill as history, which our colonialists have always subsisted of strange laws being forced upon Inuit without any real Inuit input or crafting particularly legislation that will have a real intrusive effect on our social fabric.
The practice of forced legislation in this day and age of Inuit having their representatives in this Government of Nunavut means that all proposed legislation be seriously debated, negotiated, argued upon, deliberated on, and to explore ideas so that it will be created to best serve our people in Nunavut.
Given that I have this opportunity to provide my thoughts on the proposed legislation while it is being deliberate upon is something that I am quite grateful for.
I wanted to make a few additional comments and I will not be long. I want to comment on the opening comments of the Premier with respect to Bill 40.
Firstly, let me start off with this statement: when members are questioning the bill, this government takes that as opposition to a representative of youth and children and their contention that members don’t want to see one created based on arguments laid out to date. This is a completely false assumption. Let’s all be clear on that.
I have read documents about our youth in many reports as well as many letters from our youth expressing their thoughts on Rankin Inlet’s issues they want noted. Increased criminal behaviour is blamed on bored youth who have no activities to do in the community.
We hear this often from youth, that if more recreational facilities are built, including youth drop-in centres and the like, then youth will not cause as much trouble with their time devoted to activities.
What has the Legislative Assembly done to meet that need?
It is as if this government is akin to creating a (interpretation ends) super nanny, (interpretation) as some derisively call the special representative, but only if it is created and we hear these types of reports spewing from this representative does it finally mean that this government will start taking action on these issues?
I don’t believe that is the case.
I have said on many occasions that in order to alleviate some of conditions our youth face, we must concentrate on youth-oriented facilities within our communities with specified facilities in every community, as well as (interpretation ends) programs. (interpretation) There are many programs available, with youth having something to do at the local level, with youth working during the summer months to offer these programs, as many graduates can’t find employment after they have finished their schooling.
Programs are ideas we have to seriously look at, either that or is our priority to wait for the legislated special representative report recommending these changes to begin to take action?
I don’t believe that is the proper approach.
This is what this government apparently understands, at least by some of our colleagues here: too much of the legislated mandate hasn’t originated from the traditional Inuit society or grassroots level. The members of non-Inuit culture have placed too much emphasis on organizational support in trying to ram this legislation through.
Non-Inuit are taking the letters of support from organizations as representing Inuit when bodies, such as NAM, and so on, I am quite sure, have never seen the language of the all-powerful representative intruding into their daily lives and that it will be drafted by this government without any meaningful consultation of the grassroots level.
However, in principle, they have submitted their support. How can they submit their support without consulting their membership? How can an entity offer its support without reading the legal language?
The reason why I advocate caution since the day I was elected and the reason why I have advised cautiousness by this government about whether an advocate for youth is required. Do I see the need? Absolutely yes; including MLAs who have to lend their voice on behalf of their youthful constituents and mayors, who have to fight for programs and services, and strengthen the programs geared towards their youth.