EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
With those reasons, Mr. Speaker, and in keeping the best interests of the people of Coral Harbour and Chesterfield Inlet in mind, I believe in the Integrity Commissioner’s work.
When we’re voting on this issue, I’ll be voting in favour of the report based on the issues that I brought up.
To the motion. Mr. Taptuna.
It’s a fairly delicate situation at times, but I have to stand up here and say that my community is looking at me to make a decision.
I’m not going to be sitting down here abstaining because that will mean that I’m not capable of making a decision.
I’m not a lawyer or anything like that, Mr. Speaker, and this is not a personal thing for me. I’m just trying to say that there are laws and legislation to uphold, whether it’s the Elections Act or the Integrity Act.
As far as I know, there are laws and statutes that are unclear in every jurisdiction, not just in Nunavut.
But being elected and representing a community, I do have to make an opinion and my opinion is that there is legislation to protect people, officers, Premiers, ministers, elected MLAs, and, most of all, the public.
Therefore, with the findings that have been found by the Integrity Commissioner, my ultimate thinking is that the number one thing that we have to consider is to protect our people out there.
There is no real reason why anybody should be intimated by an elected official. Therefore, I’m going to be standing up to accept the motion.
To the motion. Mr. Ningark.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) About a year ago, I was part of the Nunavut Electoral Boundary Commission.
I wished then the legislature had the guts to discuss a very important report being brought to them.
Today, I’m here on behalf of the people of Repulse Bay and I’m here on behalf of the people of Kugaaruk.
I campaigned and I ran, and I indicated more than once that there are times when we are expected to and we have to make tough decisions.
The Constitution of the country recognizes that every person in the country has the right to seek a job without the hindrance of the country.
Every eligible voter in the country has the right to campaign and seek funding for their belief and the belief of the people who they want to represent, but I’m also expected by the people of Akulliq to uphold the law.
During the time when the Report of the Integrity Commissioner was put forward, I changed my mind at every turn. For one thing, Hon. Okalik is a good friend of mine. Hon. Mr. Hunter Tootoo is also a good friend of mine.
In fact, I call each and every one of you a good friend.
As my colleague, Mr. Taptuna, stated, we are elected to make the system that upholds the law. I will vote to accept the Report of the Integrity Commissioner not because I believe that Hon. Okalik has breached the Integrity Act, I’m not a lawyer, and not because I think that Mr. Tootoo did the right thing. It is because of someone, the Integrity Commissioner, who is appointed because of their expertise in the system.
To the motion. Mr. Tapardjuk.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and also the people in my riding, Igloolik and Hall Beach, but I don’t know if they are watching the session.
I think it was 1999 when Inuit were very proud to get their own Nunavut government.
At that time, Inuit were ecstatic that they were going to have their own government, a culturally relevant and Inuit-friendly government.
We thought that this government would be more Inuit-friendly and we were happy to get our own government. The Nunavut territory was created.
When we were dealing with the government and setting up the government and the Legislative Assembly, we tried to make sure that it was culturally relevant.
Mr. Speaker, I also note the people of Nunavut were looking forward to see this government as more northern-friendly and closer to the grassroots style of government. Inuit are still looking forward to that.
When I review the issue based on these hopes and in looking at the report, I don’t see anything that is relevant to Inuit from Nunavut.
The Inuit who imagined this government as their own, I think, are being alienated by southern and colonial practices.
I want it understood and to make it clear that Mr. Okalik is my friend.
Right now, being his friend is not the reason why I am against this report.
Rather, I’m thinking about the Inuit of Nunavut who want ownership of this government. With this process that is not in line with Inuit practices, are we conducting the kind of process that our constituents want?
We have to question ourselves if we’re doing the right thing. I personally do not think so.
The Integrity Commissioner’s report raises many questions and at times, it seemed that there was no clear idea of what the review was on, whether it had to do with contravening the law or whether it had to do with the integrity of the person under question.
The report seems to state that there was nothing found that would qualify as a breach under the Integrity Act or the Elections Act. Due to that, I want to see changes or amendments made to those Acts.
Since we are conducting business on behalf of our constituents and with their blessing, because this report is not inline with Inuit customs and practices, I’ll be opposing this motion. I want the entire Act reviewed so that it can be fixed.
That is what I wanted to state. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the motion. Mr. Elliott.
I want to start with a bit of clarification because Mr. Okalik was talking about why was it him and whatnot.
Again, with the way the Integrity Act works and our Integrity Commissioner works, there was a complaint that was actually put forward.
So someone actually felt, before any investigation was done, that there was a breach of our Integrity Act that we sort of have sworn to.
So that was the first part and then the second part was the confusion about why him, and I know Mr. Curley was mentioning it too, if he was a regular member and it was in the report that since he was not a regular member and since he was acting as a Premier until the new Premier was put into power, he was acting as the Premier.
The other thing I wanted to point out is that we have shown in our actions from last week that we, as the House and elected officials and full members participating in the Legislative Assembly, want to be accountable for our actions and we want to be accountable to the people of Nunavut. This situation is no different in the way we’re handling it.
Again, Mr. Okalik spoke about a law being broken and I don’t see it as a law being broken.
Integrity is not a law; it’s a principle which you live by in terms of living up to the integrity and not doing things that are deceitful.
From what I got from the Integrity Commissioner’s report, it was stating that letters were written with sort of encrypted codes to know who was making donations or maybe whistle-blowing and letting people know what was happening.
To me, that’s not a sign of integrity, that’s a sign of hiding something. To me, that’s the principle of what I have been thinking and deliberating upon.
I know, when I think back to my three communities that I represent, if I was to send out a questionnaire and that questionnaire had in it a little code where I could find out whether it was a government worker who was answering it or if it was a person on social assistance who was working on it and they found out, that would not be very honest and not living up to the integrity code that we all took and swore an oath to.
So I agree with Mr. Curley’s comments that the legislation sometimes maybe is not totally clear. Perhaps with the review of the Elections Act, maybe it would be recommended that letters don’t go to deputy ministers so that this does not happen again.
So speaking to what we’re looking at, I’ll be voting in favour of accepting the report.
I wish to inform the House that I have no more names on my list. Does the mover, Mr. Tootoo, have a last reply?
As in two previous occasions where we dealt with the Integrity Commissioner’s reports, it’s never a fun thing or something that anyone looks forward to doing or enjoys doing.
I want to make it very clear that my concern was the fact that the Integrity Act was breached. Absolutely nowhere in there does it say that I alleged that the Elections Act was broken.
I think the way our system and our legislation are set up… . This is a piece of legislation that we developed in Nunavut back in 2001 for Nunavummiut. The Act stipulates that anyone can make a complaint if they feel that the Act has been breached.
Mr. Speaker, there was a comment made that I couldn’t even point out what was breached.
If I could not identify where I thought that the Act had been breached, I’m sure the Integrity Commissioner would have dismissed my allegation and my complaint.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, on the first page of his report, he indicates that I alleged that Mr. Okalik contravened section 4(a) and 4(b) and section 10 of the Integrity Act.
So there is a specific point to where I believed a breach had happened.
Mr. Speaker, it also points out that, and we know the procedures for doing this, once the Integrity Commissioner receives a complaint, the person requesting the review must have reasonable ground for believing that there has been a contravention of the Act, that the request to the Integrity Commissioner must be in writing, and that the facts to support the allegations must be in an affidavit.
Mr. Speaker, I provided all of that information to the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner, upon receiving that information, provided it to Mr. Okalik for feedback on it.
I was just as frustrated that it has taken so long for this report to be completed.
I think if you look at the report, in the back section, it’s very clear and he spells out why it took so long to do the report.
I think the other thing that is clear or another comment that was made is the fact that he didn’t even make any decision as to what happened, that we’re being judge, jury, and executioner and that’s not the case, Mr. Speaker. In the conclusion of his report, he does point out on page 16 of the report, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons above, I find that Mr. Okalik, “Member for the Legislative Assembly of Iqaluit West, contravened the Integrity Act.” And he points out exactly where.
On page 17, it talks about in general the sanctions that are allowed under the Integrity Act, of what kind of sanctions he can recommend to us. There was a whole list, I think A to H, of sanctions that are listed.
When this legislation was being developed, we wanted, in the way of Inuit, to be able to leave some flexibility for the commissioner to take into consideration the factors and the circumstances of the day, and being able to choose which recommendations and which sanctions to impose.
I think that the Integrity Commissioner, in outlining his sanctions on page 18, has taken a lot of the circumstances and situations into consideration. I think it’s spelled out even on page 17 as to why he is making and only choosing those sanctions.
Mr. Speaker, I know in February of 2008, my colleague, Mr. Curley, had indicated in dealing with the previous report, he said it is stated in the Act that, and he is referring to the Integrity Commissioner, he has to investigate and make a report. That’s what he has done. He has taken the allegations.
He has asked both parties for their input on those allegations. He has done his investigation based on the information that has been provided to him. And he has come to the conclusion that he has outlined in the report.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Curley also said on that day that he was, in that case, fair and sensitive.
On September 17, 2008, Mr. Speaker, dealing with another Integrity Commissioner report, my colleague, Mr. Curley, had indicated that, “I would like to say that we have to adhere to the rules that apply to the Members of the Legislative Assembly.” That’s the Integrity Act.
That applies to all of us. It’s our duty as members to uphold that Act.
Regardless of whether it was done intentionally or inadvertently, as my colleague said last week, ignorance is no excuse for the law.
An Hon. Member: A point of privilege.
My point of privilege is this: to those who are not here, it appears that we were dealing with the same report or something with the same circumstances. It is very different, I believe, if we’re dealing with the Mr. Simailak case. There was actually evidence that were quite contrary to what he had said before and so on.
So I think it’s not a fair comparison to the one that we’re dealing with today.
With that, the mover is making his last reply and there was no point of privilege.
Hon. Hunter Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize if I made it seem like we were dealing with the same… . I’m sure I said “in previous reports” in talking about Integrity Commissioner reports in the past.
Mr. Speaker, the other comments made is the one-size-fits-all thing that only works for down south.
As I said before, this piece of legislation was developed by the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut for Nunavut in Nunavut.
It was not developed down south.
The other thing that’s important is that our unique system of governance is a consensus style system.
Hon. Tagak Curley: My point of privilege is this: when I say use a reference, the research that Mr. Pickell used gave members here the case studies that he had done and that was the point of the term I used “one-size-fits-all,” not specifically to the fussy issue of whether or not the actual breach has been done. Mr. Pickell did indicate that he has no evidence and I agree with him.
I believe you are asking for a clarification.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) Please proceed, Mr. Tootoo.
I think, as indicated in probably the part that the most controversy is on, I made three suggestions where I believed the Act had been breached.
The Integrity Commissioner, after looking at all of the evidence and doing the research, and that’s where a lot of the comments in the report from case law, indicated that I was, in fact, incorrect in one of the sections that he had indicated in his report that he believed that Mr. Okalik didn’t breach section 10 of the Act, but he did breach the other section of the Act.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, our unique style of governance and, as Mr. Elliott pointed out and Mr. Pickell points out in his report, why was the sitting Premier at the time singled out on this.
Mr. Speaker, that’s because in our unique system, that individual, whoever it is at the time, is in a position to have full authority over the deputy ministers.
They are appointed at pleasure of the Premier.
That individual, during an election campaign, is still the Premier until the following Premier is selected after the general election.
So that person is in a position to have some control over those individuals’ employment. I think, as Mr. Curley pointed out where he said that Mr. Pickell didn’t believe that there is no evidence saying that he did, that’s beside the point.
I think the fact of the matter is the potential is there under the Act where a sitting Premier could utilize that authority under the Act, and I think the whole premise behind this is that that should not be allowed to happen.
That’s why I’m saying in my comment that I believe that appropriate piece of legislation, I don’t know which one it is, whether it be the Integrity Act, the Elections Act, or the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, be amended to make it very clear so we don’t run into a circumstance like this in the future.
I said individuals who received those letters did feel intimidated. They were worried. They didn’t know.
They were scared if they should or shouldn’t. They felt uncomfortable in receiving that letter. I don’t think it’s fair to put any employee into that position.
Again, as I stated, the uniqueness of our situation, the only individual in our style of government that is in a position to be able to do that is the sitting Premier. I think that in order to address that so that this doesn’t happen again, these changes need to be looked at in the appropriate piece of legislation. Like I said, it would be a protection mechanism for those employees and for whomever the sitting Premier is at the time.
We need to get that clarified and I won’t dispute that.
I think it needs to be done.
Mr. Speaker, I guess, again I can’t go on to say, as I, too, am frustrated that it took so long, and without going into the detail as to why, it is very clear in the report why it took so long.
When I was asked questions and forwarded information to review based on the information that was provided to the Integrity Commissioner, I responded as quickly as possible to try and facilitate him in doing his investigation.
It is the role of the Integrity Commissioner to take investigations. If he felt that an investigation wasn’t warranted, he would have dismissed it. After looking at the information that was provided to him from both sides, he determined, based on the legislation in his report, as to why he felt he had jurisdiction to do an investigation and was compelled to do an investigation.
The report, as I said earlier, speaks for itself.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all members to support this motion and also to let you know that I would be asking for a recorded vote on it.
There are no more further comments. There was a request for a recorded vote. (interpretation ends) A recorded vote has been requested.
All those in favour, please stand and sit down when I call your name.
All those opposed, please stand and sit down when I call your name.
Results are: for, 11; against, 3; abstention, 1.
Bill 19 – An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Arviat, that Bill 19, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, be read for the first time.
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Are we on Item 18 now?
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. Curley, not yet.
We’re still on Item 17. (interpretation ends) First Reading of Bills.
I request consent of this Assembly to waive the one-day notice requirement to allow for second reading of the bill.
The minister is seeking consent to waive Rule 62(2) to allow for the second reading of Bill 19.
Bill 19 – An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Member for Arviat, that Bill 19, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Act to provide that services that could be provided to a child under 16 years of age may be provided to a youth of 16 to 19 years of age, either by way of agreement or pursuant to a court order following a declaration that a youth is in need of protection.
The motion is carried. Bill 19 has had its second reading and is referred to the appropriate standing committee.
Item 19. Second Reading of Bills. I’m sorry, it was Item 18.
Now going to Item 19.
Before we proceed with the Committee of the Whole, we will take a 10-minute break.
>>House recessed at 16:32 and Committee resumed at 16:49
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan): I would like to call the meeting to order, please.
We wish to continue with Bill 8 and the review of the Nunavut Housing Corporation, followed by the Department of Justice and, if time permits, the Department of Education.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with the Nunavut Housing Corporation?
Is the committee agreed that Minister Tootoo and his staff go to the witness table?
(interpretation ends) For the record, Mr. Tootoo, please introduce your witness.
The witness here with me today is Lori Kimball.
She is our executive director of corporate services and chief financial officer.
Members, please turn to page J-3 in your capital budget book.
Last week, the members were on page J-3.
Are there any questions from members on page J-3, J-4, and J-5?
We will give you a moment to get to those pages.
I would first like to ask if the minister can now respond to the many questions we asked and he did not have any information today.
I don’t know which question he should start with, but he should at least start with an answer to one of those questions.
Thank you, Mr. Okalik. I was waiting for someone to ask that question.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question that was asked on the RFPs for structural insulated panel units, an RFP was issued with a deadline of July 17, 2009. The corporation received 12 responses to the RFP.
Five of those 12 were short listed and a further review conducted. Out of those five, two stood out.
The selection group unanimously selected the KOTT Group and the contract was signed on October 29.
As far as the status of the Nunavut Housing Trust delivery and completion, I know that, as far as when all of the construction dates, that’s something that changes fairly regularly for unforeseen circumstances.
I have asked my staff and they have requested updated dates from the district offices as those projects are administered and monitored through the three district offices.
As far as when those will, once I get that update from the district offices, I’ll be more than happy to let the members know when their schedule is as of now.
Another question that was asked was the fact on when we will table our final delivery strategy. Like I said, we’re not anticipating all of the work on the trust to be completed until the end of this year. It’s kind of hard to do a final analysis and study on it until that work is completed.
But once that work is completed, we will be doing an evaluation on that to be able to bring it forward to members to have a look at.
Again, one of the other questions that were asked is dealing with the cost broken down by unit. Again, as that work is still underway, we’re not able to determine what the actual costs are per unit until the year-end or until all of the work is done. So once that is done, we will be able to provide that information to the members and I will commit to doing that.
There was a question on oil tanks. There was a sole source contract issued to Granby Tanks from Granby, Quebec, in February 2009.
At the time, they were the only manufacturer that we found that could provide the tanks to the specifications. Also, there were deadlines required to be able to get them done prior to the sealift as well.
As I had indicated, the specs for these tanks made them extremely durable and environmentally friendly.
Since then, as I had indicated last week, a local businessperson had enquired to me as to why they were sole sourced and I informed him that they were the only ones we could find that could build to that specification.
The individual asked me to provide him with a copy of the specifications for those tanks.
Subsequently, they informed me that they were able to find someone themselves who would manufacture to that specification.
I had committed that when we go out for oil tanks again to that specification, they would be put out for tender. So I think it was an excellent initiative by that individual or that company to be able to go out and find someone else who will manufacture those tanks so that it could hopefully help us get a better price on them in the future.
I don’t know if I missed anything, but I’m sure the member will remind me.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) On the fuel tank situation, I had asked if there had been past employees who were part of the contract. That part I did not get a reply.
The other one was on the apprentices. We want to know how they’re doing.
It’s nice to get the numbers, but it would be nice to know if they’re progressing well and if they faced barriers to see what else we can do to accommodate their success. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the member for reminding me of those other questions. There were so many that I couldn’t remember which ones were answered.
The contract for the fuel tanks was directly between the corporation and Granby Tanks, so there was no middleman or no one in the corporation, a former employee or anything that it went through first. It was a contract directly from the Nunavut Housing Corporation to Granby fuel tanks.