EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Is it going to be applicable to all departments or will you be creating a separate department that will be protecting Inuit societal values and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit?
Since the day Nunavut was created, we have wanted to envision our future and we have a vision for our future where we no longer need a protectorate of the Inuit language and culture and the incorporation into government operations as this has to be central to our operations using Inuit cultural practices and language.
Currently, the government practices to date, as my colleague’s statement about operational issues related to government paperwork, is all in English at this time.
There is also a statement included that this government will include the Inuit language as part of its operations and we now have to start implementing that in the workforce.
With respect to the two pieces of language legislation, specifically the Inuit Language Protection Act and the Official Languages Act for the three languages, the drafting and contents were entirely driven by the Department of CLEY.
They are now completing the final stages related to the implementation of the legislation. The Department of CLEY fulfilled its mandate when the legislation was passed and became the Official Languages Act.
Part of CLEY’s mandate was fulfilled in finalizing the plans for the Piqqusilirivvik Cultural School.
With the completion of the plans towards the establishment of this facility, the focus has shifted to the operational matters related to the facility teaching adult students.
With the exceptional work having been completed by CLEY for establishing the facility, the focus is shifting towards educational issues and they will implement them.
The facility will teach Inuit culture and language. I cannot say at this time whether it will indeed be transferred to EIA as this is just an idea at this time.
With respect to the official languages legislation that was drafted by the Department of CLEY, the monitoring of the implementation of the legislation will be taken over by the EIA. As an example, if a certain body is not adhering to the legislation, they have to produce such-and-such; an enforcement body in other words.
These are some of the options that have been discussed to date within the Ken Lovely report, which also includes a list of recommendations.
All of us have to be involved in incorporating the Inuit culture and language into government. This is the same as it applies to our schools and workplaces.
Nunavummiut have to understand exactly what the government’s plans are because they want the government to operate in a transparent, effective matter.
So for that, I am very thankful and I would like to thank you first.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Inuit societal values and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, they’re the two favourite pet academia, which are words used by the department, yet they never define these properly. That doesn’t help to make it clear.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier think about or commit to defining one single policy that all the government departments will use which relate to Inuit societal values and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit?
Absolutely, I can think and deliberate on that matter.
I find just thinking about it too insignificant. You have to think about it, you have to plan it, and then you have to draft it.
Nunavummiut have high expectations and we’re still waiting for the Inuit government because Inuit originally felt that the government would operate exactly the way Inuit do.
However, without a proper foundation and without a proper policy agreed to by everyone, it’s quite obvious that my colleagues are also asked by their constituents about this matter.
Will she work towards creating a one-definition policy that respects Inuit societal values and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and whether that’s something that her government can try to create, to not just think about it but to deliberate on it, to draft it, and to complete it?
First of all, he asked if I would consider that. Secondly, he asked if I was going to consult with the members. I thank him for that question and I concur with that assessment.
I will keep the members informed.
Members will note the expiration of the time allotted for question period has passed, so we will move on in our orders of the day.
Tabled Document 160 – 3(3): Quttiktuq Constituency Newsletter (Elliott)
I am pleased to table today a copy of my most recent constituency newsletter. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the way that my constituents in Grise Fiord, Resolute Bay, and Arctic Bay have provided me with feedback on their priorities, which are reflected in my newsletter.
Tabling of Documents. I have a couple of items to table today.
Tabled Document 161 – 3(3): Interim Report of Members’ Absences from Sittings of the House and Meetings of Committees and Caucuses for the Period October to December of 2011 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 162 – 3(3): Report to the Management and Services Board on Procurement and Contracting Activities for the Legislative Assembly for the Year 2010-2011 (Speaker)
Members, the first item is the Interim Report of Members’ Absences from Sittings of the House and Meetings of Committees and Caucuses for the Period October to December of 2011.
And the second item is the Report to the Management and Services Board on Procurement and Contracting Activities for the Legislative Assembly for the Year 2010-2011.
Bill 28 – Write-off of Assets Act, 2011-2012 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 28, Write-off of Assets Act, 2011-2012, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the write off of assets in accordance with sections 24 and 82 of the Financial Administration Act.
The motion is carried and Bill 28 is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Bill 29 – Write-off of Assets Act, No. 1, 2010-2011 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 29, Write-off of Assets Act, No.1, 2010-2011, be read for the second time.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Peterson. The motion is in order.
None. The motion is carried and Bill 29 is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Bill 30 – Building Code Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that Bill 30, Building Code Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the adoption of the National Building Code of Canada. It also contains various provisions to implement that decision: appointment of building officials and creation of the Nunavut Building Advisory Committee; imposition of requirement for permits; authorization of inspections by officials; conferral of power to issue several types of orders; appeal to the Nunavut Building Advisory Committee and then to the Nunavut Court of Justice; offences and penalties; regulation-making provisions; and consequential amendments to related statutes.
There being none. The motion is carried and Bill 30 is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Bill 31 – An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits credit grantors and collection agents from adding more to a debt than the amount that is legally owing to it or collecting more than the amount legally owing on a debt.
Regulation-making powers are added concerning debt collection practices and consequential amendments to the Consumer Protection Regulations are included to regulate debt collection practices and to correct references to the Northwest Territories and other minor errors.
The motion is carried and Bill 31 is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Bill 32 – An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Legal Services Act by repealing provisions allowing for choice of counsel in serious criminal cases. The bill also adds a provision protecting board lawyers against professional penalties for perceived conflicts of interest.
The motion is carried and Bill 32 is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Labour Standards Act to provide leave for reservists during periods of service.
None. The motion is carried and Bill 33 is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
>>House recessed at 15:11 and Committee resumed at 15:40
We now have quorum. I would now like to call the committee meeting to order. In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 34.
If time permits, we will commence the review of the Department of Community and Government Services, followed by the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
Do you agree with those departments?
Minister Peterson, do you have any witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have two witnesses.
My colleagues, do you agree to bring in the witnesses?
To my right is Peter Ma, Deputy Minister of the Department of Health and Social Services, and to my left is Debora Voth, Executive Director of Corporate Services of the Department of Health and Social Services.
I would like to thank your officials for being here. Welcome.
We were on page H-7 yesterday. Health and Social Services.
We will proceed with questions.
Good afternoon. Welcome, Mr. Minister, along with your officials.
I would like to return to my line of questioning previously because I want to have it completely clear, as well as for the benefit of our fellow Nunavummiut.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to the response from the deputy minister.
If a doctor states that a medical patient requires an escort, then the deputy minister can veto that escort requirement.
I’m quite concerned of that and I would like to see or at least hear sound reasoning as to why that can be vetoed.
My thinking is that as a doctor, they’re very serious and they don’t play at their occupation.
It’s a very confidential and serious matter, so I don’t believe a doctor would frivolously request an escort just for the sake of an escort.
In my way of thinking, the only reason that a doctor would request an escort is if he felt the patient would benefit from that or if he felt that an escort would be able to assist the patient.
When a doctor is requesting an escort, what reasoning do you use to veto that decision?
I thank Mr. Enook for his follow-up question. Mr. Chairman, the deputy minister will answer the question.
Mr. Ma: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We look at each case on a case-by-case basis. We look at the medical reasons behind the request by the doctor.
In some cases, there is that service provided elsewhere within the system, so we would then rely upon that care elsewhere. We do not ignore the advice of doctors. We take that into consideration in making the decisions that we make.
Typically, on the advice of a doctor, we would approve an escort if the individual is incapacitated in some way medically. So in other words, if they cannot get around, then that is a reason perhaps for providing an escort. Having said that, if they are incapacitated, perhaps there are other means, such as a wheelchair.
So if there is a wheelchair available, that would likely mean not an escort, but it depends on the circumstance.
Sometimes the reasons provided by physicians are what I would consider more compassionate type reasons. As much as I try and the department tries to take into account compassionate reasons, we do have, at the end of the day, to also make sound medical decisions and sound fiscal decisions. I know it’s difficult for patients and it’s difficult for families, but that is what we have to do.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for my own clarification. When a doctor recommends that this patient requires an escort, from my perspective, the doctor would most likely request a relative, perhaps if the patient is too sick and basically for compassionate reasons if the doctor feels that the patient will undergo more stress.
In my opening comments, I also raised this question: can the medical escort policy be given more compassion or heart?
As humans or as Nunavummiut, patients who leave generally tend to be elders because as we get older, we tend to get more sicknesses. In this day and age, elderly patients generally don’t speak English.
When a doctor requests an escort for their patient, who is already undergoing personal challenges and stresses in undertaking this trip, a person not even involved can veto this decision. I consider this a very urgent priority.
I just recently found out that this occurred to a patient in our community. A doctor requested an escort for this patient, but the deputy minister vetoed it.
That is so callous. It was such a personal issue, so they had to fundraise to pay the escorts down, and that is aside from the government.
I believe this has to be deliberated on carefully. This is not a question. This government has to provide direction.
I’m very passionate about this and I think we all agree, now that we know, even if a doctor requests an escort, that the deputy minister can veto that. Now Nunavummiut will be able to know that. I would like to ask another question related to that and if they don’t want to respond, I would like to proceed.
I would like to raise another question to the same person. Whenever a person goes to a hospital, the nurse-in-charge will state whether or not they can get an escort. Whenever a person is told that they cannot have an escort, what appeals process is there for them to undertake?
In Nunavut, we need to know if there is an appeals process when the request for an escort is turned down.
Do we have no other alternatives?
I thank Mr. Enook for his concern for Nunavummiut who require escorts. He raises good points.
The Department of Health and Social Services is not unsympathetic to the needs of folks who require escorts, but as we have indicated before, there are monetary considerations.
It is a very large budget we have for medical travel and medical escorts.
We did develop a policy. The policy has been reviewed a few times.
The current Client Travel Policy is expiring at the end of March of this year.
As I indicated yesterday, it is under review. We have asked clients for input on what they think should be included that’s not currently in the policy. We have asked other people, management and operational staff, what should be in there that’s not currently included so that we can consider all the pros and cons and make it a better policy that will better serve everybody who uses it.
Mr. Chairman, I’m going to ask my deputy minister to provide some specific details to Mr. Enook’s question.
As the minister has indicated, we very much appreciate the interest by members and in particular, Member Enook, with respect to medical escorts.
Perhaps this is a good time for me to outline the policy and how it works in a little more detail.
For the Client Travel Policy, there are, in essence, two types of escorts. One is a medical escort and that would normally be a physician, nurse, or social worker, so some sort of health professional, and they would provide professional care to the client when the client is travelling.
The second type of escort is I think what Member Enook is speaking about and that’s a client escort.
That’s typically an adult who has been authorized to accompany our client, who is unable to travel without some assistance or who is authorized to stay for part or all the travel.
I think Member Enook mentioned family. As much as possible, we try to make it a family member.
Obviously, that’s of some comfort to the client. We take that into consideration.
Again, I think members here spoke earlier yesterday about being compassionate and taking Inuit societal values into consideration, so that is one way to do that.
Now, I’ll give you some examples of some of the ways medical travel is authorized for clients. I think we spoke to some of this yesterday.
If a client is a unilingual Inuktitut-speaking elder over the age of 60, unless they say they don’t want an escort, we would provide them with an escort. It’s what we call a negative confirmation in my old accounting days.
If there is a language barrier that exists or interpreter services are not available at the centre where they’re receiving the service; if the client is medically incapacitated, it’s the third criteria we look at.
There’s a fourth criteria and that’s the need for legal consent by a parent or guardian. Most of that is in the case of minors.
The fifth one is if the client has a mental or physical condition such that they’re unable to travel unassisted. I used an example of someone who may need a wheelchair.
And lastly, an escort that will participate in the client’s treatment program; let’s say I’m going down and I need help every day to take some sort of shot in the arm or whatever or some medication and I can’t do it by myself. So there would be a need to take the escort down and train that escort in how to do that.
There was something else Member Enook said and I’m trying to remember what it is.
Just to be clear and I may have heard the translation wrong and if I did, then I need to apologize, but the translation I heard was I can only deal a second escort. They come to me.
The first escort is at a different level. That’s why we’re making a reference to case-by-case situations, just to make that clear.
As the minister has also said, this particularly touches, I think, upon every person, whether they’re a patient or family member.
That’s why we’re doing the client travel review.
Obviously, we’re going to think through a lot of things and there are some things that we have identified that we want to have a further look at.
I hope that clarifies things a bit and I appreciate the time that you have given me.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ma. Mr. Enook’s question was in regard to a patient being turned down when he requested an escort and if he has other options he can use, such as an appeals process.
Mr. Ma, if you would touch on that, please. Mr. Ma.
My apologies for misunderstanding Member Enook’s question.
Yes, I can address the member’s question.
So there is no further appeal beyond the deputy minister.
However, having said that, I know that each and every person that doesn’t get a second escort will go to their MLA or whoever. It will come back to me and we will take a second look at it sometimes.
So that’s the nature of the territory we’re in and that’s fine. That’s the reality. That’s where we are.
Having said that, where we do turn down the second escort, we are considerate where possible and there are options. Like I said, we try to be as compassionate and as helpful as we can.
So I’ll pick on our region, which is where Member Enook is from. So if I turn down a second escort, there are other options.
Family members perhaps could go down on compassionate travel through their regional Inuit associations or Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
In terms of accommodations, if they happen to go down, there are other options besides Larga, such as Rotel.
That’s a non-profit accommodation that is operated by the Rotary Club in Ottawa.
So there are other options and we try to help clients in finding those other options.
It doesn’t always work, but we make the best efforts that we can.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for assisting me in trying to obtain an answer when my question was not answered.
If I went to the health centre in Pond Inlet and I was of the mind that I required an escort, I was informed that the nurse-in-charge would be the spokesperson and would make the determination as to whether I would come alone or with an escort.
So the question that I tried to raise is: if the nurse-in-charge states that the patient has to travel alone, is there an appeals process if I don’t believe I could travel alone?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Mr. Enook.
Ms. Voth will answer that question.
The nurse-in-charge would actually make a recommendation to the director of health benefits in the regional office that an escort is required.
The director of health benefits would make the decision of yes or no after reviewing the circumstances of the escort against the policy.
The client does have one appeal process and that is to the regional director of the regional office, so the executive director or the regional director that’s the head of the region.
So that’s the one area of appeal.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Now, having requested a response to my question, it just muddles the water.
Yesterday, I seemed to have understood that the nurse-in-charge in a local community is the sole determiner of whether an escort is required.
(interpretation ends) Are you done?
(interpretation) Now I’m being led to understand that another person at a higher echelon approves this.
Am I misunderstanding this?
I also thank Mr. Enook for asking for clarification.
Ms. Voth will respond to that question.
The health practitioner, whether it’s the nurse-in-charge or the doctor on call, makes the recommendation to the regional office for an escort. This is for client escorts.
What happens is that request will go to the director of health benefits, who considers the request against the policy and accepts or denies that request for escort.
The recommendation comes from the health practitioner, but the health practitioner does not approve escorts. The appeal process goes to the regional director of the regional office.
Now I finally understand that in the community, the nurse-in-charge is not the sole determiner of whether or not the patient requires an escort.
Do I understand that they just recommend it?
Yes, the nurse-in-charge would only recommend.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you. I thank the minister for the really concise response.
The nurse-in-charge in the local community recommends that this patient requires an escort or alternatively, if they state they don’t require an escort, let’s say in Pond Inlet, and if I were the one to request a change to that, who would I speak to?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Enook.
As I understand it, medical travel has to be recommended by a Nunavut health practitioner.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): That’s why I’m trying to ask the question.
If the nurse-in-charge does not give the recommendation for an escort, it means that I have no alternative but to travel alone.
I have absolutely no appeals process to try and get an escort. In my own estimation, I may want an escort.
So if it’s recommended that a patient doesn’t require an escort, is that final?
I thank Mr. Enook for again seeking clarification.
There is an appeal option. The patient could appeal to the director of regional operations.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you.
I think those of us in Nunavut now understand that if we don’t agree with the nurse-in-charge about the need for an escort, we can appeal to the regional director of operations.
Do they have people who are bilingual in those offices?
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister and I am also more gratified by the minister since Nunavummiut don’t always understand these polices, particularly when these policies aren’t consistently applied throughout Nunavut.
There’s another matter that is included within your policy in one of the last sections pertaining to medical travel. I want to be totally clear in my understanding of the language since it has been mentioned as a concern previously to me.
If a parent is required to escort two of their children simultaneously on medical travel, how does this policy speak to that situation? Does the parent have to escort both their children or can both children qualify for an escort individually?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Enook for the question. I believe that one adult can escort two children.