EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
My point of order, Mr. Chairman, and it is also my privilege as a member that personally I have never supported, as attributed and stated by my colleague, that I supported a child representative.
I have never stated that. I can sign legal agreements, whatever, or a statement to that effect.
I would ask the member to withdraw any reference to me because he would have to produce a document that I did say it or whatever, if I did, and I have never supported such a venture.
So I think he has plenty of individuals to put on this list, but not mine.
I think this is the best route to go because this is important to all of us.
I don’t know if you had stated your support or not.
As Chair, I would like to see the reference. Mr. Elliott indicated three candidates from the Nunavut Leadership Forum.
I will look at those documents and make a ruling today or tomorrow.
If you want help, Friday, November 14, 2008, page 57 and 58 is where the statements are made.
Again, I was working on a letter from NTI. As I mentioned, UNICEF Canada sent a letter saying, “I understand that Bill 40, [the Representative for Children and Youth Act], is scheduled to appear before the Committee of the Whole this week for the Legislative Assembly’s final consideration.
As the world’s leading child-focused humanitarian and development agency and the only organization named in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a source of expertise for governments, UNICEF Canada would like to express further support of this Bill for your careful consideration this week.
UNICEF Canada commends your government’s efforts and views Bill 40 as a very impressive piece of work, which reflects much due diligence and a serious effort to comply with international obligations regarding the recognition and protection,” and that’s what it is, “recognition and protection of the rights of all children.
In our view, the legislative framework of the Bill is very solid and well-considered, reflecting a level of comprehensiveness, internal cohesion and rights-based and legal analysis that are often missing from many other statutes of this nature.”
In some respects, it’s quite unique, which a lot of people like to say that Nunavut is very unique.
“In many respects, Bill 40 serves as a model for other Canadian jurisdictions.
While there are many positive and noteworthy aspects of the Bill, there are four key points that I would encourage you to consider:
Bill 40 outlines a broad and comprehensive mandate directed at protecting and promoting the rights of all children and youth in Nunavut.”
Again, we have heard arguments saying that the role of parents is going to be taken away, but really, all we are doing is that we are promoting the rights of the children and youth in Nunavut.
The second point, “The bill includes repeated references to recognizing and applying both Inuit culture and Inuit societal values.”
The third point, “The areas of jurisdiction of the Representative for Children and Youth would include all government departments and additional designated authorities that are prescribed by regulation. The mandate of the Representative is focused on the best interests of children, a shared interest among all parts of government, recognizing the proper duties of government, the Representative, parents and other parts of Nunavut society.”
Again, it was mentioned earlier that the Child and Family Services Act was the way to go, but unfortunately, that’s just one department that represents children and youth.
We have other departments.
With the child and youth representative, this is a very good point in the sense that it represents all government departments, whether it’s ED&T, whether it’s funding through the Minister of Culture, Children, and Youth. To me, it exemplifies what’s happening.
The other part is No. 4. “There is provision for a periodic review of this new legislation.” Again, a review of something is always good because sometimes you don’t always hit the mark and you need to make adjustments.
“This Bill reflects a level of comprehensiveness, internal cohesion and integrity that will benefit the children and youth of Nunavut in a sustainable manner as it simultaneously advances universal children’s rights and is culturally-sensitive to Inuit societal values.”
With that, I think there seems to be a lot of support, whether it’s international, national, within the Inuit organizations, in this House, communities, individuals, hamlets, or mayors.
So I will be supporting this bill.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Bill 40 is being discussed, (interpretation ends) Representative for Children and Youth Act, (interpretation) I can take part in the discussions.
It is a very difficult topic.
Right now, the population in Nunavut is increasing dramatically and our lifestyle and culture is changing along with the times.
We are not using dog teams anymore, but we are using other forms of transportation as our lifestyle and culture is evolving.
Looking at the change and looking at the population growing, we see children and youth that need more and more support.
We want to help the youth and children because they have their own parents and we would like to get them the help and support from the government, but it is very hard to obtain the type of assistance that they need.
Possibly, if we make legislation like Bill 40, we can ask the government why they are not providing the programs or services and (interpretation ends) make the system accountable for things that we are not able to do for many of our people who fall through the cracks. (interpretation) I know that we, as parents, are falling through the cracks.
In 1999, when we became a government, we wanted our own government, self-reliance, a government that’s run by its people, and a government that’s closer to the people.
Mr. Chairman, Bill 40 would be there as a living document, but we might not even need to use it.
In cases where we need it, I’m sure it’s not going be very often.
We have to wake ourselves up because our culture is unique.
Sometimes there are children and youth who really need help. Sometimes we can’t help them and sometimes the government can’t help them.
With Bill 40, we can start asking the government why they didn’t help a child or youth who needed help.
We might not have to do that.
The representatives or those who would like to run for MLA, if there’s a representative for children and youth, will be getting annual reports from the representative and they will have an opportunity to ask questions to that representative.
When Bill 40 is comes into force, I don’t think very many people will need to use that piece of legislation.
Even I don’t know, Mr. Chairman.
(interpretation ends) Like my colleague from Nattilik, I wish there were more women in this forum who speak for children and youth.
From the day that I started living with my wife, I spent most of my time away from home, travelling on the land and travelling on business to different parts of Canada for many years.
She was always there for our children. She knows more about what goes on and what is needed. She also spends more time at home to observe what is going on in the community.
She has seen more than I have where a child or youth may need help. She has told me that and I respect that observation.
I would like to state publicly that I will be supporting Bill 40.
We’re still under general comments. Mr. Oshutapik.
I would also like to thank the minister. That way, we will be able to make some comments under general comments.
I also have some comments to make in regard to Bill 40.
I was also involved when we were doing consultation to get response from the community, even though there were only three communities we visited.
As we toured the communities, it became obvious that an issue we had heard of earlier wasn’t quite truthful as we had heard it.
When this bill was being introduced, we heard that the communities had been informed about this bill, what it’s trying to do, and why it was produced.
When we reached the communities, there were some people who attended the meetings. Although these three communities were totally different, we heard the same concerns. The only difference was their dialects.
They were saying that this is the first time they had heard about this bill.
If there is going to be a representative for children and youth, what’s going to happen with the parents? What are they going to do?
These are the things that we heard from different people.
They felt that they were thought of as not looking after their children. It was stated that this bill was conveyed to the communities, probably only to the staff, such persons as RCMP, social workers, and other positions dealing with society. These were the only people who heard about this.
The public didn’t understand this bill. There were many of them when we were starting to introduce this bill, just as the MLAs couldn’t understand it at the beginning.
The communities all had concerns about this issue.
Additionally, in our communities here in Nunavut, if there is a representative given this mandate who would report back to the Legislative Assembly on their annual activities, this person being an independent agent, with no connection to the government, would only work towards the goal set out in their mandate.
We would only be able to review their activities once a year.
If we want a proper representative, we should be able to talk to somebody more than once a year.
According to the bill, we would have to follow these procedures if this was to be approved.
We have been working on Bill 40 since it has been introduced. Why doesn’t it contain culturally relevant things? We could not get answers on that.
We have been saying that we would like made-in-Nunavut materials. We have also heard that all the Canadian provinces have legislation of this kind. We would like to have our own that is made in Nunavut.
I still haven’t decided whether I’m going to support Bill 40 or go against it. For instance, if I was told that I have been taking medication that I’m not supposed to be taking, the doctor cannot fix my sickness by writing a letter.
I am sure that there are going to be more comments about this bill, so I’m going to end my comments right now, Mr. Chairman.
We’re still under general comments.
I don’t have any more names on my list. As this is a very important topic, I would like to recognize Ms. Ugyuk again.
The MLA from Pangnirtung is trying to say that when they were doing consultations, the Kitikmeot region was not consulted at all. I would like to put that into the record.
The only regions that were consulted were the Kivalliq and Qikiqtaaluk regions.
There are a lot of children who are being looked after by one parent.
We keep giving our children to the government, to the school, and if they’re sick, we take them to the nursing station. Not all of them are satisfied with that because some children are taken away by social services for long periods of time.
Not everything is perfect.
The only way people can understand is by hearing about these things. It will be used if the people understand. It will be used by parents and grandparents.
I only have one more name and I think he is the last person for general comments.
I would just like to make a comment. I have to make some comments.
I’m not worried about what was said before.
What we have to think about is when we started looking after ourselves.
Was it when we were elected in 2008 or is it when Nunavut was established in 1999?
No, Inuit have been independent from way back.
Our parents, grandparents, and our ancestors looked after their families.
Their main priority was keeping the family together. Today, since 1999, maybe it is better that they look like Qallunaat.
What they do is in the United Nations.
Maybe it’s better if we act like Qallunaat.
This is not new, Mr. Chairman.
When the British government arrived to Canada in the 1800s, they signed a treaty that while the sun is able to come up, we will look after you in everything and you will be independent.
I think my colleague who is sitting right beside me would be very happy about this.
For us Inuit, I don’t think we should try to copy other people about our children.
What we have to copy is a good relation connection. My friend, who I was proud of for assisting me, my colleague’s older brother, had said, “You teach your children how to become adults.”
In Inuit culture, a child should be a child. Don’t try to get them into adulthood before they grow up.
I think I really heard that sentence.
Some elders used to say that this is really a child.
At one time, I really felt something when my son was becoming 16. Of course, I was concerned about him.
I was told that he has never been 16 years old and that’s why he is in that state.
I was 16 at one point, and I really woke up on that.
According to Inuit culture, what I wanted to say is that there are too many people in regard to dealing with children. The government has a lot of programs for children. They have no one to oversee the programs.
Maybe we should strengthen the programs instead for them to become effective.
We gave our children when the religious group came in by the Anglican Church, including residential schools.
We all know that we went through hardship and we had to correct those.
It seems like the way we raise our children is not enough. Nunavut came into being and we now need a representative to help our children.
Our independence should just be strengthened individually by communities.
The reason why I am bringing this up is when we look at the representative, it doesn’t state that these things will have to be strengthened out in the communities; only the government responsibilities. If this representative gets a complaint, they can’t start an investigation on anything.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of us were expecting that there was going to be an amendment or a stronger Social Services Act and to see how we could change the department and change the policies in dealing with the Child and Family Services Act.
I call the Department of Family Services the department responsible for things other people don’t want to do. Social service workers have to be taught and it hasn’t even started.
They don’t even have a program through Arctic College to become a social worker, but the teacher program is very good because they got accredited for it.
When we’re giving the responsibility of our children to another person, a lot of parents won’t know that there is an investigation or if the programs were not correct, and then they will break up the family.
As one of the MLAs said, over half our population is children or youth.
Do I understand that the majority of the young people from 21 to 25 are all criminals?
No, they don’t all break the law.
Majority of them are helping their parents, grandparents, grandfather, grandparents, or their relatives. Some of them are really good people who look after their family and we’re proud of them.
As we heard earlier, her husband was a good hunter. There are a lot of young people who are good hunters.
When we talk about youth, let’s stop thinking that all youth are causing problems.
Let’s try to lift them up.
This representative will only look after the people, children, or youth with problems.
They’re not going to consider any help for the people who are doing well.
I feel that maybe we should give this to the next Assembly. Let’s give it to those who are going to have the time to properly deal with it.
I know that the minister is working hard to push this, but I don’t agree with the dealings of the youth or what he wants to do for the future of Nunavut. I don’t know if it’s going to be better for the future.
Yes, it would be better if we strengthen the programs that are directed to the Child and Family Services Act through other means to help out the youth and to give them more funding.
Even though this person is the only representative, he or she will be using over $2 million a year. That could have been used for the youth programs.
I will have some questions during the clause-by-clause review, Mr. Chairman.
We’re under general comments.
They have already made comments, but this is important to all of us. Using my discretion as the Chair, I will again recognize Mr. Tapardjuk.
I just wanted to reiterate that we have been delaying Bill 40 quite a few times.
When we have done our deliberations, we have extended it again.
When we hear that other governments have a bill of this type, we should do the same thing.
I know that in Nunavut, maybe I’ll make a mistake with numbers, but I think I estimate that the population is 37,000, below 40,000.
Because we envy people with high populations, they have different services and it gets very difficult. Maybe this would help the larger populations.
As I had been stating, the low population numbers in Nunavut sometimes causes more issues in trying to get services.
Even without Bill 40, the government has already been provided with recommendations specific to children and youth, to provide more benefits and in particular, the amendment that was recommended in May for the Child and Family Services Act that would have a foundation based on Inuit cultural traditions.
As Inuit, we have often been admonished that perhaps our culture is inappropriate when dealing with social services, that we are using the western cultural practices, and that the Inuit culture has to adapt because of its inadequacy to resolve these issues.
That is what I perceive because presently, we don’t even have one Inuk social worker to provide some background.
It is again a return to the old paternalistic days where Inuit are trying to be assimilated by the southern majority by including their legislative foundations.
We were also informed that there were quite a few letters from somewhere with respect to passing Bill 40.
These arguments bring back the reasons why Inuit fought for the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, so that Inuit could work towards self-sufficiency and to develop our own legislation.
Inuit have always been directed by people of other cultures, specifically since the days of the Hudson’s Bay Company, the teachers, the RCMP, and the old Indian and Northern Affairs settlement managers, about how Inuit ought to live their lives to assimilate properly. Inuit have continued to be threatened by outside cultural initiatives that have no basis in our culture.
This issue, I believe, is something we have to very carefully deliberate upon so that it comes from our own culture and people, so that we incorporate the wishes of our constituents into legislation.
I believe we need to provide more opportunity to have these recommendations reviewed. What formed the basis of the expectations of our Inuit when we fought for the land claim is that Inuit could start repatriating the services currently run by others.
Due to our being boxed in by a myriad of legislation, we, the members, have to bear the wrath of our constituents on these issues. At least I personally have experienced this complaint that the Legislative Assembly is too focused on legislation and that only legislated mandates are given recognition.
This seems as if we, as regular people, no longer can think for ourselves, even when we want to incorporate Inuit customs into legislation, due to the continual threats about running into legislative barriers.
With that being the case, I wanted to voice my concerns about this matter, Mr Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) At this time, I move a motion to report progress. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members, there’s a motion on the floor to report progress and the motion is not debatable.
We will continue with this bill.
Just before I rise to report progress, I would like to remind you that I, as the Chair, was going to make a ruling on the point of order raised by Mr. Curley.
It will be tomorrow or the next day because the Management and Services Board will be meeting. I will probably make my ruling tomorrow.
If not, the day after tomorrow.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bills 32, 40, and 69, and would like to report that Bills 32 and 69 are immediately ready for third reading.
Bill 69 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2013-2014 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon, Member for Rankin Inlet South-Whale Cove, that Bill 69, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2013-2014, be read for the third time.
As such, Bill 69 has had third reading and is ready for assent.
Bill 32 – An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South-Whale Cove, that Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act, be read for the third time.
The motion is carried and Bill 32 has been read for the third time and is ready for assent.
Just a reminder to members that at nine o’clock, there’s a presentation in the Tuktu Boardroom and at half past ten, there’s a meeting of the Management and Services Board also in the Tuktu Boardroom.
This House stands adjourned until Thursday, September 12, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned 17:56
DAY 90
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Pages 4936 – 4961
Opening Prayer 4936
Ministers’ Statements 4936
Members’ Statements 4939
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4942
Oral Questions 4944
Revert to Item 5: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4958
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters 4959
Tabling of Documents 4959
Orders of the Day 4961
Thursday, September 12, 2013 4936
326 – 3(3): Nunavut Fur Sales Exceed $1 Million for Second Straight Year (Arreak) 4936
327 – 3(3): Action to Complete the NHT and CEAP Construction (Taptuna) 4937
328 – 3(3): Principal/DEA Chair Conference (Aariak) 4937
329 – 3(3): Congratulations, Davidee Arnakak (Ell) 4938
330 – 3(3): QEC Inuit Employment Plan (Ell) 4939
555 – 3(3): Calvin Pameolik and Abraham Eetak (Shewchuk) 4939
556 – 3(3): High Arctic Transportation Strategy (Elliott) 4940
557 – 3(3): A New Book from Kugluktuk – No Borders (Taptuna) 4941
558 – 3(3): Nunavut’s Involvement with Climate Change (Curley) 4942
733 – 3(3): Proposed Victims Bill of Rights (Aupaluktuq) 4944
734 – 3(3): Marine Infrastructure in Nunavut (Enook) 4945
735 – 3(3): Activities of the Office of the Chief Coroner (Tapardjuk) 4947
736 – 3(3): Bulk Fuel Storage Facilities in Nunavut (Ningeongan) 4948
737 – 3(3): High Arctic Transportation Strategy (Elliott) 4949
738 – 3(3): Support for Hunters – Poverty Reduction (Curley) 4951
739 – 3(3): Status of Cape Dorset Sewage Lagoon (Schell) 4954
740 – 3(3): Child and Family Services Act Amendments (Tapardjuk) 4955
741 – 3(3): Resurfacing the Grise Fiord Runway (Elliott) 4956
742 – 3(3): $100 Million Geo-mapping Project (Elliott) 4958
Committee Report 041 – 3(3): Bill 58, Public Service Act (Ningeongan) 4959
406 – 3(3): March 2008 Nunavut Leadership Forum Candidate Responses (Peterson) 4959
407 – 3(3): UNICEF Canada Letter in Support of Bill 40 (Elliott) 4960
408 – 3(3): Second CMAJ Article on Suicide (Elliott) 4960
409 – 3(3): Victims Assistance Committee’s Annual Report for the Period April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 (Shewchuk) 4960
410 – 3(3): Nunavut Liquor Commission’s Annual Report for 2010-2011 (Peterson) 4960
055 – 3(3): Adjournment for the Day (Ningeongan) 4960
Speaker (Hon. Hunter Tootoo): I would like to ask Mr. Oshutapik to lead us off in a prayer, please.
Minister’s Statement 326 – 3(3): Nunavut Fur Sales Exceed $1 Million for Second Straight Year (Arreak)
I am pleased to bring to my colleagues’ attention the continued strength of Nunavut’s fur industry.
The Department of Environment markets Nunavut furs through a partnership with Fur Harvesters Auction in North Bay, Ontario.
Four auctions were held in the winter and spring of 2013. Nunavut furs were offered on each of these sales, grossing $1.04 million in total sales for Nunavut hunters and trappers.
In 2012, gross sales were $1.1 million, making these two years most profitable on record for Nunavut hunters and trappers.
Profits were driven by an international market demand for polar bear hides that has never been stronger.