EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
My question for the minister is: can the minister tell us what the actual status of the five-year strategy is for children and youth as referred to in the current business plan?
As I said earlier this project is a promise. We call it Nunavut’s Promise to Children and Youth. We have a coordinator with the Department of Education who has been working with a multi-departmental team task force to review recommendations and ideas and issues to help bring forward proactive solutions to issues that deal with youth across Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, the inter-departmental group has come up with ideas and plans.
The position is funded and one of the things that we have been looking at, I know that the member has been a champion, and indeed, has done yeoman service, on the opportunity and the issue of a child advocate. That is something that this working group has been looking at.
I thank the minister. We are hearing a lot of what they are doing but I’m not seeing a lot of what they are doing.
I am starting to think that maybe this entity isn’t well funded, or well staffed.
Can the minister, just to clarify to the House and to me, tell us what exact human and financial resources are available to Nunavut’s Promise to Children and Youth?
As I said earlier the position of Nunavut’s Promise to Youth coordinator works within an inter-departmental working group, or committee. That committee includes the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth, as well as the Department of Justice.
The money in that committee or working group is a renewal of a pan-Canadian strategy that plays off of some of the other opportunities and issues that have been dealt with in other jurisdictions across the country.
We are linked with other jurisdictions in a similar strategy.
Some of them have a little different need, but basically, the members might have changed but their mandate has remained the same.
As I said earlier the issue around the child advocate is something that has been researched and looked into. There’s also opportunity to sharing of focus; looking at the health of students.
When I say health of students, I’m talking about academic health, curricular health, extra-curricular activities, and so on, that goes on with some of our youth.
Those are the types of topics and issues that we have dealt with. I would hope to be able to deliver a statement in the House updating the members on what Nunavut’s Promise to Children and Youth is. The member’s questioning has given us the opportunity to bring that forward here today.
I thank the minister again for that answer.
I look forward to seeing that information. I will get more specific detail about what this entity is doing.
That leads to my final question. This entity is a part of his department, accountable to the minister.
Can the minister tell us how we can expect it to act as a strong, independent voice for children’s needs if it is part of the overall Government of Nunavut bureaucracy?
The member is just confused a little bit on the role of the coordinator, under Nunavut’s Promise for Youth and Children.
Our coordinator works as a school health coordinator, as I just mentioned earlier, in trying to fulfill the child and youth promise that we’ve made, for example, healthy classrooms, healthy playgrounds, and inter-coordinating services that we are delivering to our children.
The member is speaking more of an advocacy role where the position would be an advocate for children and because of that would need the independence away from government.
That is part and parcel of the good work that the member has done on the issue of the child advocate where under separate legislation a child advocate would be able to advocate on behalf, and for children, outside the auspices of a bureaucracy, like the Department of Education, Justice or Health.
I hope that clarifies what the position is. The position is a coordinator. A facilitator of programs and services is not an advocate in the traditional sense that the member is thinking about.
Question 106 – 2(3): RCMP Dog (Alagalak)
I will direct my question to the Minister responsible for RCMP, or for Protection Services.
Last year, not just last year, we had heard this being mentioned, that the RCMP dogs were starting to help Nunavut to alleviate drugs or illegal substances in Canada and Nunavut, and also, he was helping to alleviate bootlegging.
We had heard that the dog was available in Nunavut. We keep hearing about this. Could the minister update us on if we are still utilizing the RCMP dog?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The RCMP dog’s name is Bart.
A total of $2.5 million worth of drugs have been seized, so it has been very helpful to alleviate the drugs that are coming into Nunavut.
Are we still using the same dog?
Yes, the dog is sent out to the schools to teach children how the dog is used and the dog is also used on emergency cases and the dog is very beneficial, although he doesn’t only work for those areas.
I would like to hear any suggestions on how we could use the dog.
The dog has traveled to the communities.
Although we never know where the dog is going to visit, when the municipalities request the services of the dog, then the dog is sent to the communities.
Yes, we keep hearing during the session here that Nunavut is a very huge territory and vast country and we have a lot of issues to deal with.
Could the minister consider... Mr. Bart is the only dog that works for our vast territory and we know that the dog is quite busy.
One time they had to turn down a community when they requested the services of the dog.
Have you ever considered getting another dog? Perhaps call him Bart II. Have you considered that Mr. Speaker?
I would want the dog to have an Inuktitut name because it’s a good dog and it stops the trafficking of drugs.
At this time, yes, we have to watch the dog because it’s quite expensive.
We’ll have to review it in the future and I thank my colleague for being very supportive of this.
We have to look at the operations and maintenance for the dog.
Our resources are quite limited, so I’m sure it will be quite hard to get another dog, but some time in the future we’ll be able to consider it.
In Rankin Inlet, the liquor warehouse is making a lot of money and I’m sure you could get a lot of money from that to perhaps get a second dog with an Inuktitut name.
My last question Mr. Speaker is: could the minister update the communities on the process of requesting the dog’s services?
To date, the municipalities have to make a request when they have a concern. So, they meet with the RCMP and the RCMP officers meet with the whole community.
So, that’s how the dogs go to the communities, but I can’t tell you when the dog would visit the communities because we don’t want to let the drug traffickers know when the dog is coming in. If your communities request a dog, then perhaps they could come out to your communities.
Question 107 – 2(3): Nunavut Education Act (Tootoo)
I know the minister was using a fine word this morning or earlier today when he talked about yeoman service and I’m sure that he’s giving it his best in the Department of Education.
Earlier I spoke of the government’s process towards introducing new made-in-Nunavut legislation to address our education needs.
Can the minister clarify, for this House, why a previously rejected piece of proposed legislation is again being brought forward and distributed on these consultations, when on the inside it says that this bill was deferred by the government?
I listened with some intent and interest to the member’s statement earlier. All I can say is that I heard the statement and the information that was given; I can’t say there was accuracy there and the accuracy was there’s actual consultation on the Education Act.
Other than that, I didn’t find much accurate there.
So, I’m glad the member asked me the question so I could probably clarify it.
There was an information binder given out during this process and there was a lot of good work done on the Act, the whole previous Act because it was an Act, but it never came forward to the House to be an actual Act, the draft.
So, we incorporated the things that were already agreed to by all of the stakeholders in the previous draft, as well as the comparison of the current Act to find out what should be involved in the new Education Act. A binder was given out; a CD-ROM was prepared, and so on.
So I think there’s some misinformation out there. We are not saying, ‘Here’s the old Act, use it.’ What we are saying is, ‘Here’s the draft bill that had gone through second reading that there were some concerns with, why go back and try to do the whole thing again?’
That was the feeling as well as the support that we had in the standing committee, from my Cabinet colleagues, and from our consultation with NTI and others.
So that’s what we have done. We are not saying that we are going to use the Act that never went forward. We are saying, ‘Take the best of what was available at that time and use in that in the comparison to bring back or bring forward a new piece of legislation which incorporates the very best of the current Act and the very best of the work that was already done and incorporate that into a new Act.’
So I hope that helps clarify the issue.
I would like to thank the minister for clarifying that and I’m glad to hear that he was paying attention earlier on.
He indicated and said, ‘Why go back and do that again?’ I had someone attend for me the public meeting that was held here in Iqaluit because I was out of town on standing committee business and the package that got brought back to me, all it was a copy of that draft Bill 1 that only made to second reading, and on the inside of it, it said, ‘This bill was deferred by the government.’ And the departmental officials said, ‘I’m here to listen to you.’
There was no proposal of we are taking this out of this Act or this draft we are taking this out of our existing Act. This is what we are changing.
Maybe I’d like to ask the minister if he can clarify it.
Again, why go back and do that again? It has been done twice already. The standing committee and the government has gone and listened to people and what their concerns were.
We had this report from the first assembly nice and thick with all kinds of submissions and suggestions. Have they not taken that information, developed a new draft piece of legislation to go around and ask people what they think about it, instead of going around with the same old thing that we are here to listen to you.
One of the issues with the previous Act that was struck, it was a draft legislative bill that came forward, that the member is correct, standing committee hearings were held and so on.
The public at large and indeed the standing committee said there was a lack of public consultations. That the words the committee had heard and the members had heard and so on were not reflected in the Act. So taking that information forward Mr. Speaker, there is no Act to look at.
We got the current Education Act, the previous draft bill and I think Ms. Thompson is doing an excellent job by going out and facilitating debate on what would you like to see in the Act; number one.
Number two; the information that the member says is one page that thing that came back and it wasn’t in great detail.
For the record, I’ll read it for the record. Some of the work that has gone on in the process and the packages have gone out.
There has been a comparison binder, which looks at the current Education Act, Bill 1, and the Education Act that was proposed in 2002. It points out the changes.
A CD-ROM has been prepared and distributed summarizing Bill 1 and the differences from the current Education Act. Cassette tapes have been prepared with the Legislative Specialist speaking about possible changes to the Education Act, including various issues for use on all local radios. A brochure outlining issues arising from the Education Act consultation and a discussion paper which outlines and distributed for the public in anticipation of the public meetings.
The other point the member made in his statement was that for some reason the public consultations had stopped and that is not true. Last week, we had meetings in Pangnirtung and this week we are in Igloolik.
So, Mr. Speaker, this process is going forward and we are doing extensive consultative hearings.
The Deputy Minister of Education just recently again met with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to go over some more concerns they had and we have to remember when on a piece of legislation, once we get the draft bill prepared from all the consultations we’ve heard, it will come here to the Assembly, to the members and the standing committee.
And, the standing committee at some point will take that out again to the public to make sure there is a check and balance in what’s been offered, and then, for ratification again to the full House.
Mr. Speaker, I’ve been given a task by the Premier to bring forward a new Education Act during this term and I’ve committed to the Premier and to my Cabinet colleagues and to the House that I would hopefully have that Act in place by 2006. That is the timeline I am working under.
I believe I’ll be able to meet that time with the assistance of Nunavummiut and the Members of the House.
I think again this process has been very thorough and fair and it does do exactly what the member is talking about. It creates some debate on the draft Act, which of course is not even an Act because there is no legislation written; it’s comments and ideas to Bill 1, and from the current Act.
Just to clarify for the minister he indicated it wasn’t a bill. It was a bill, it was Bill 1.
It received two readings and failed to get brought forward by the government to get third reading because they knew it wouldn’t pass to turn into an actual Act.
But it was a bill and it got first and second reading. It was Bill 1 and maybe the minister needs to be more educated on legislation.
But it was an actual bill that came forward.
Mr. Speaker, the minister also indicated that he is looking at bringing something forward by the next year.
Mr. Speaker, I know a few months ago the minister’s staff was on the radio indicating that there would be delays because of the lack of manpower and resources.
I’m just wondering if those things have been brought forward and addressed. Also he indicated all these lovely things that the department is handing out as information packages. How come the only thing that was given out at the public meeting here was that old Bill 1 that never got third reading?
It is a very serious issue, and I believe one of the hallmark pieces of legislation for this Assembly, will be the new Education Act for Nunavummiut.
I’ve given the member and the House a timeline that I would like to see it presented.
If it takes more time then that’s what we’ll do.
What I tried to point out was that, in the former Bill 1, which was rejected by the House, the bill never received third reading, and therefore died on the order paper, there was some good work in that.
We wanted to start from that point, which is the work that everyone had agreed to, side by side with the current Act and then come up with changes and recommendations for the draft bill, once we get to that point in the process.
Mr. Speaker, so I hope that helps clarify that issue. The second issue on the information packages that had been prepared.
We had a good turnout here in Iqaluit. There were over 60 people, I believe it was one of the largest turnouts that we actually had, during the Education Act process.
As I said earlier, there is a wealth of information available for discussion. There will be more opportunity for public input.
If the public need information, whether it is in Inuktitut or English, we have that information and it’s available.
On the third point that the member raised, I think that is a good point, is that we don’t want to go back to the point where we’re rehashing stuff that has already been done.
That’s why we are trying to use the position paper of the areas of the bill that had been agreed to, previously.  Again, the resources that the member talks about have been found.
There was a concern with some more resources because of the interest that we’re having. We talked of the logistical, the administrative work that Ms. Thompson is finding on her travels.
We have been able to fund those resources internally within the Department of Education, itself.
As I said earlier, there has been no delay; meetings have not stopped.
Again, we were holding meetings last week in Pangnirtung and this week in Igloolik.
I’d like to thank the minister for clarifying that in such a timely manner.
Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated, in his earlier response that one of the concerns that resulted in, as he just indicated, in the rejected Bill 1 by the government was a lack of consultation.
I know you will remember, at the time you were the chair of the standing committee, I was strongly opposed and raised lots of concerns in this regards to the government at the time, and their oodles and oodles probably more paper than this that they provided saying look at all the consultations that we’ve done.
I just hope we don’t go through this again and we actually get some meaningful consultations.
The minister made a very good point and that is the fact that he just indicated that it was a rejected bill.
If that is the case, then why is the department trying to confuse people when it’s handing out a copy of Bill 1, and on the inside of it, it says that this bill was deferred by the government.
He just indicated that it was rejected.
I’d like to ask if we can get an explanation as to why this confusing information is being put out there.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I tried to explain it the best way that I can and could.
I think that most people are aware of now why we are using that document as a reference document.
I’m not saying that this is a document and take this, and have nothing else. It’s a reference document that was done in the past of some of the good work that resulted.
When the minister asks me to clarify it, I’ll have to go back in history here, and maybe I can stand to be corrected by some of the members who were also part of the process. The bill went to receive first and second reading, went to the standing committee. There was no support from the standing committee to bring it forward to the House, and therefore and thus, it didn’t get to the House.
That means, it wasn’t rejected by the government, it was rejected by the whole House, the government, meaning the members. It was deferred, which means it didn’t come forward. There is no contradiction there.
So I know the member likes to have this type of clarification.
So what happened to the bill, the way that I remember it, was that the bill never got to third reading, it didn’t have the support of the committee to do that, and the department and the government, the members, decided that it wasn’t worth voting on because it wasn’t acceptable.
I think that’s your recollection too, Mr. Speaker. So, I hope that helps clarify the member’s point. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Item... Mr. Premier.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to go back to Item 5.
Speaker (interpretation): The Premier is requesting that we go back to Item 5.
Not too many of my constituents come to the Gallery and I would like to recognize the person who represents the President of the Nunavut Investment Group for quite some time, which was Mr. Curley’s position before and he’s been here but he will be moving back to Pangnirtung. I would like to welcome him; Johnny Mike.
Written Question 009 – 2(3): 2006 Arctic Winter Games (Evyagotailak)
My question is for the Minister Responsible for Sport Nunavut. I recognize that he took one of my questions as notice yesterday. These questions seek some other information.
Mr. Speaker, this written question is to the Honourable Louis Tapardjuk, Minister Responsible for Sports Nunavut, entitled 2006 Arctic Winter Games.
As of November 30, 2005, how many athletes and mission staff have been selected to represent Team Nunavut in the 2006 Arctic Winter Games?
What forms of official identification will be required for athletes and mission staff participating in the 2006 Arctic Winter Games?
What support is available from Sport Nunavut to assist athletes and mission staff in obtaining the required official identification prior to the 2006 Arctic Winter Games?
As of November 30, 2005, how many athletes and mission staff have the required forms of official identification required to take part in the Arctic Winter Games?
Return to Written Question 003 – 2(3): 2005 Fuel Re-supply (Brown)
This was asked by Hunter Tootoo, MLA for Iqaluit Centre. I was asked as the Minister of Community and Government Services, dated November 29, 2005, and the subject was the 2005 Fuel Re-Supply.
Speaker (interpretation): Please pass up the documents.
Committee Report 001 – 2(3): Interim Report of the Standing Committee on Health & Education on the Review of Nunavut Arctic College (Alagalak)
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to provide the House with an Interim Report on the Standing Committee on Health and Education’s review of Nunavut Arctic College.
As members will recall, during the budget session of the Legislative Assembly earlier this year, the Committee of the Whole’s consideration of the Department of Education raised a number of issues regarding Nunavut Arctic College.
Following that debate, a motion empowering the Standing Committee on Health and Education to conduct public hearings and consultations on Nunavut Arctic College was passed on March 15, 2005.
Today’s interim report provides a brief summary of the standing committee’s activities to date and identifies a number of emerging themes that have resulted from our review.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee’s first step was to review information and statistics relating to the operations of Nunavut Arctic College. Members of the committee would like to thank the Minister of Education for making much of that information available as requested.
Correspondence, announcements and discussion documents were prepared and distributed to communities across Nunavut. The standing committee planned to visit the three regional campuses of Nunavut Arctic College as well as other communities.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the weather did not cooperate with our travel plans.
We made not one, not two, but many attempts to reach every community that we planned to visit. We have not yet succeeded in completing all of our visits.
Mr. Speaker, the document titled Your College, Your Future, Your Say was developed as a discussion guide to inspire dialogue between the committee and the public.
This document can be downloaded from the Legislative Assembly’s website.
The Committee continues to welcome completed copies of this discussion guide as well as written submissions from stakeholders and interested individuals until the end of January.
Mr. Speaker, the committee would like to thank those Nunavummiut who have participated in our review. Members would especially like to thank the students and the staff of Nunavut Arctic College at all three campuses for taking the time to meet with us, giving us frank and honest input and for making a number of written submissions.
It is clear that students and instructors are deeply committed to the future of Nunavut Arctic College. Mr. Speaker, based on the results of our work to date, the standing committee recommends that the Minister of Education take into consideration the following issues relating to the role and operations of Nunavut Arctic College while preparing his upcoming Business Plan and Main Estimates.
Some themes that are emerging from our review include the following:
Literacy and numeracy levels and the role of Adult Basic Education courses must be addressed more comprehensively;
Support and services for students, especially those with families and those leaving home for the first time are inadequate, especially in the areas of food, housing, life skills, counselling and basic tutoring.
For example, we heard that there are Nunavut Arctic College students who rely on the food bank to meet their nutritional needs;