EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I believe that is what the Human Rights Legislation does.
Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting the legislation.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Irqittuq.
Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t going to speak today on this Bill and it would be out of character for me not to express my opinion on this Bill.
I look around the room today and I was brought up in a strict catholic family.
I went to a catholic school until I was in grade four or five and I had a deal with the Catholic Church and what was going to happen to me if I didn’t follow all their rules.
I look around the room today and I see all the poppies.
I remember my uncles, some of them I lost and why I’m wearing the poppy.
The main reason was a group of people’s views about another group of people.
Thank God, we had our country and Britain and a few other countries and millions of people died trying to defend other peoples views and that’s why we’re wearing the poppy today.
I have my views about other issues in regards to where I feel and where I was brought up, rightfully so or wrong.
But today, it’s funny that we’re debating this and I respect everybody’s opinion and it’s great to hear to those opinions and the diversity, the background here.
We have a visible minority from what Kelvin Ng said and every time you turn on the TV. you hear about what happened to the Chinese when they were building the railroad and the land was taken away and they were persecuted probably more than any other people in this country.
It’s not a surprise that Mr. Ng is supporting this Bill. The Inuit people in Nunavut, I represent a large constituency and the number of phone calls that I get from constituents based on being discriminated against in this territory by their employers.
And I deal with that on a daily basis.
And I’ve sat in this House for the last five years and I listen to my colleagues talk about the discrimination against them over the last 30 or 40 years and this is the type of Bill that I hope will eliminate all that in the future.
I respect everybody’s opinions here. I’m supporting the Bill.
This is a very important Bill and we weren’t overly concerned about it when it was in the first and second reading.
I think that if we had considered carefully and looked at what happened to the Bill on the Wildlife Act, I think that this is one issue that we should look through carefully on behalf of the people who elected us to this House.
I like the wording in the Bill because it covers all aspects and it’s easy to understand.
It helps us give equal rights to all people.
I’m sure that if my mother and father were alive, I’m sure that it would have been a bit uncomfortable if they told me which way to vote on this Bill.
I do have my own opinion on it, but I have to listen to the people in my riding.
The two communities that I represent, I didn’t consult with them because the Bill was in the hands of the committee and they decided not to go to the smaller communities with this Bill, which is not right.
There was only one meeting and there are many people who are confused about the intent of this Bill and I’m sure that this is the first time they are finally getting the intent of the Bill.
The media only concentrated on what could be controversial.
I’m sure that we’re only going to be getting the negative responses from the public out there but here is room for change and since we’re deliberating this Bill, we have to look into the future and what we can do for our people.
Since I’m the last one making general comments, the next step would be to go into question period.
We have to understand the Bill and its intent and we’re going to be going clause by clause and our chair will probably say go clause by clause and we would agree.
Possibly, if we read it, we would be more informed about the intent of the Bill.
As Members of the Legislative Assembly, we have read the Bill but the general public will not understand as the committee dealing with this Bill did not choose to consult with the communities when we start going clause by clause.
The Members of the Legislative Assembly are the only ones who are guilty if we did not put the information out there, not only the Standing Committee.
It is up to us to inform our constituents about the Bills that the House is deliberating.
We just assumed that the Standing Committee would be going out there to the communities so that the people of Nunavut would know what the intent of this Bill was.
At this time, during the deliberation of this Bill, I don’t know which way I’m going to be going to be voting.
I would like another opportunity to make some statements on this Bill.
I do know that no matter what I say, we have already made a decision on which way we are going to be going.
But even if that is the case, we are told that we should have positive legislation.
But, we already know as the people of Nunavut are friendly and I doubt very much if the people out there, if the general population out there will understand the intent of this Bill.
Manitok was saying, had questions about sexual orientation.
The people of Hall Beach and Igloolik do not understand what that means.
We, the Inuit want the protection and promotion of the culture and language and because of that we cannot agree to this Bill and only after we explain the Bill to the general public, they possibly could be voted for.
In Toronto or Ottawa they might be performing same sex marriages and then this couple, couple of guys went down to the States for their honeymoon and they were denied entry.
We of Nunavummiut openly accept anybody who wants to go up here, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I will be accepting in law, they will always have jobs whether there is legislation or not, but I don’t want to see anything like this approved in this House.
Just for clarification, our committee worked really hard on this Bill and we debated in the committee room on this issue.
We worked on this Bill for approximately a year and we have to.
We did a community consultation tour on the Education Act and on the Wildlife Act and that took precedence over this Bill.
Again, we didn’t have enough opportunity to go to the communities because of the scheduling of the House and the committees and with the opening comments that I made earlier on this Bill that it should be taken back to the House.
The Members of the Legislative Assembly could be going to their communities to put out the information out there, the government had the opportunity out there if they want because it was introduced by the government.
When the Committee go to the communities, after the community tours we go back to the House and make recommendations based on what we heard in the communities.
Even if we do go out there, it would seem that the Standing Committee, we are the ones who introduced and support the Bill.
That is for clarification.
We can always reintroduce a new Human Rights Act in the future.
We are not going to die tomorrow, well we might die tomorrow, but there are many years ahead of us, where we have the opportunity.
Did we want to take a break?
We do have other work to do.
Mr. Chairman, as a Member of that Standing Committee, as well I could not wholeheartedly agree more with the Chairman on how hard we worked on that.
Due to scheduling and other issues, the Committee felt that they were not going to do any community consultations.
The Committee decided that it would put out a request for submissions that was put out and advertised in both newspapers, and I believe on the radio as well, for any interested parties to make submissions to the Standing Committee in relation to the Act.
I believe there were six or eight submissions that we did receive, and we looked at those.
And also, Mr. Chairman, the fact the comment that was made that no one knew about the meeting here, the meeting after all this was done, they decided to have a meeting here in Iqaluit; that meeting was advertised in the media.
I believe that it was advertised on the radio.
I believe that it was advertised in the newspapers.
There were thirteen presenters at that meeting.
They were interested enough to come out and go there. They were interested enough to make sure that they knew and read the paper, or paid attention to what was going on so they come and made their views heard.
Again, I reiterate what the Chairman indicated.
Every single person that was at that Public Meeting supported the legislation.
There was not one person, organization, or anything that was there that did not support the legislation.
As Ms. Thompson had indicated that it was only 13, well she said 15, but there were only 13.
What is that in a community of 5,000?
Those people showed the interest, and they made sure that if they had an interest in it, and they wanted their voices to be heard, to be there.
Other than that, what else can we do?
We did all the advertising and everything else.
That old saying, Mr. Chairman, you can lead the horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
It might be applicable in some cases.
You can advertise, and advertise, and advertise.
I have heard of constituency meetings where only one person showed up, and that is well advertised.
If people are interested, they will make sure that they are there.
We will have to go into questions and the Minister of Health and Social Services, I believe, was going to feed us, so I would like to report progress.
We will take a 30 minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 19:15 and resumed at 19:50
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for coming back.
There were no more general comments.
Now it’s time for the Members to ask questions.
I would like to ask a question about the Inuit not having enough information from the government as well as the committee members.
Are we allowed to deal with the legislation that way?
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Premier.
We are allowed to consult with our electorate.
We were available to do that and some of the people were consulted.
It’s up to the Members.
If you don’t want to vote on the Human Rights Act, it’s up to you.
You have been elected to represent your constituents.
I would like to ask some questions again in regards to the Human Rights Act, which is before us today.
Some problems that have occurred in Nunavut, like there have been some people denied something.
Those people who were denied something, have they been asked.
Those people who have been denied something, have they been asked whether they think the Bill is okay?
Chairman (interpretation): Premier Okalik.
We have considered those before when we were drafting the legislation.
If an individual was denied something and they wanted to bring it forth to the federal level they would wait for two to three years to deal with it.
According to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, if a problem arises, we try to deal with it as best as we can.
Because we don’t like to prolong the process of denying people, that’s why we’re trying to bring about this process so that these kinds of things do not happen.
According to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, we will use that avenue so the public out there, the Nunavummiut can have this as legislation.
Perhaps if I can get further clarification from the Minister, have you given information to the public, have you questioned those people who have been denied access to anything and how many are there?
We’re not really sure what the numbers are.
There have been many people but they have not approached us.
We don’t really know how many people are out there and they don’t know which government department to approach.
If we pass this legislation, than that piece of legislation will be there to protect them.
So, if this Legislation does not pass would there be something in place to help those people that have been denied something?
Chairman (interpretation): Okalik.
This is not a new thing. The Northwest Territories Government dealt with this as well.
So, we are now in a process of doing it as the Government of Nunavut.
I know that this is not going to be the last time that we are going to be dealing with an Act such as this and if we try to have this Legislation passed, we can pass it today and have a piece of legislation to protect the human rights that people could refer to.
Chairman: Iqaqrialu.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Is it not dangerous that the communities in Nunavut have not been consulted on this very important Legislation?
Is it not dangerous that if this Legislation pass and without consulting with the people in Nunavut, would that not be dangerous?
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Okalik.
Perhaps if I can make this clearer, we are trying to make everybody equal.
If somebody is discriminated against they can go through the Federal Legislation.
If there was to be discrimination against same sex couples, then they can approach the Federal Legislation and they can go through that Legislation.
But we want to have our own Legislation regarding Human Rights here in Nunavut.
And I am happy to say we are able to make our own laws for the people of Nunavut and we want to include Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and I feel that we are not in any danger because the Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights will always be there whether or not we pass this piece of legislation.
In Nunavut, have there been any complaints brought forward to the Federal Government from the residents of Nunavut about any form of discrimination?
Chairman: Okalik.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Yes, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, there have been some complaints to the Federal Government, but they have all been from non-Inuit.
I have not known of any Inuit people who might have approached the Federal Government as I feel that many Inuit do not know of such legislation and that is why I feel it would be beneficial for Nunavut to have its own Human Rights Legislation.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): There are no Inuit people who have made a complaint to the Federal Government for Human Rights violation?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Residents of Nunavut have made some complaints to the Federal Government.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Has there been long time Nunavut residents?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): I do not look at whether they have been long time Nunavut residents.
They are all people, they all have the same rights.
We cannot try to differentiate whether they have been Inuit or non-Inuit.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): The people of Nunavut have always welcomed people. We are not trying to differentiate what race they are or whether they are residents of Nunavut or not, then how come we are trying to get the Human Rights Act passed?
So that is why we are trying to make everybody equal in Nunavut.
We want them to have the same rights as anybody else and make everybody equal and everybody has the right to be employed and to have a future if they want to have it here in Nunavut and to be equally represented.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): I know we are all open to the people of Nunavut wherever they come from that’s why we are dealing with the Human Rights Act, the reason why I’m asking this question is because the people who are long time residents and Nunavut born people are not the ones that are trying to make this legislation.
Perhaps there has been some elders who voiced their opinions about the Human Rights Act is that why we wanted to make the Human Rights legislation because you have asked the elders what they think.
Chairman (interpretation):
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): I will get Lucien Ukaliannuk to respond to that question.
Mr. Ukaliannuk (interpretation): Thank you.
The question that Mr. Iqaqrialu is asking is from the public’s view or from the public.
I have heard from them that when we get our own Nunavut government that we would be able to be involved and make legislation to help the people of Nunavut and it has been the belief of Inuit out there that they should be able to make their own legislation when they get their own Nunavut government.
And those are the types of things that I have heard about from the public out there and that is why we are dealing with the Human Rights legislation geared towards the people of Nunavut.
I keep hearing that the elders are dying off and they want to be involved in making legislation and to be involved with the government.
So that is what I have heard from the public out there, if they want to be able to have their own Nunavut made legislation and they wanted to be involved in the government in their own government.
According to what I heard, the people of Nunavut have been saying that they want to be involved.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we have not dealt with, you have to be, you have to be able to provide legislation that is geared towards the people of Nunavut.
That is why we are bringing about this legislation, if we don’t have legislation like that then we will be controlled by outsiders.
We want to have our own legislation and according to the wishes of Nunavummiut, that is what we want to provide you with in the Human Rights Act.
So are you responding to me then, that the people of Nunavut can use their rights once this is enacted?
That is what we’re dealing with today is to ensure that those complaints that were once dealt with by the Federal Government will always be dealt with by the Federal Government if we do not take ownership to ensure that these complaints are administered within Nunavut.
Don’t we already have that right through the court system?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Okalik.
No, the Federal Government has the jurisdiction to review any complaints in Canada and as I stated earlier, the process takes quite a while because it’s a Canada wide process.
Once the complaint is made, the review will take place outside Nunavut and if we enact this made in Nunavut human rights legislation, and then we can review complaints within Nunavut, once the legislation is set up.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): If I understand his response, have the Inuit of Nunavut have any rights?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): My apologies, I don’t understand what his question is.
Chairman (interpretation): Can you clarify your question?
My question is, are the people of Nunavut aware of his comments that they do have those rights outside the court system?
Do they know of their human rights outside of the court system?
Yes, this tribunal is administered by the Federal Government.
We have no jurisdiction over it whatsoever and so we’re not really aware of the processes that this federal tribunal is involved with because they have their own rules and regulations.
That is why many Nunavummiut are not aware and because the language usage at that level is English and French and they have no way of recognising Inuktitut in that process.
Once we enact this legislation, then we would have our own recognised set of values in the process.
The court system deals with those types of complaints and if this legislation is passed, will we set up our own tribunal within Nunavut so that they can put forth any complaints on any human rights legislation in a timely manner through the judicial process?
Yes. It’s not a court system; it’s a tribunal that is appointed with members.
At this point it’s a federal government appointee at the federal level and there is no representation from Nunavut.
Once enacted, we can appoint our own tribunal members who can review complaints for human rights violations; we can also make their own decisions within Nunavut and in the same process use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
According to his comments in response, the Human Rights Legislation, have they done a study regarding that in Nunavut?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): I am sorry.
I do not understand what his question is.
Can he please clarify it?
At least I know what I am trying to say.
I am asking him on his response that this tribunal that deals with complaints on any human rights violation, will legal authority be given over Nunavummiut?
Will the jurisdiction be handed over once this tribunal is set up?
If you can understand my question.
Yes, this appointed tribunal would have to be versed in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
And if this Act is enacted, it will not go in effect right away.
Perhaps we will have to wait one year before it is implemented, because we all know that there are some outside forces that we have to inform, and that we have to comply with certain provisions.
So it takes about a year to start implementing it.
Are you saying that this Bill, once enacted, will be brought into the communities to review what further improvements can be made?
If this Bill is enacted, then some amendments could be made to it, but we are going to have to find out exactly what the status of the Bill is before we can make consultations and changes we would like to make to it.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): If this Bill is enacted, it will be for the benefit of Nunavummiut, and human rights will be protected within Nunavut.
How is he going to inform those residents just coming into Nunavut about their new rights in Nunavut?
We are going to be setting up a tribunal, if it is enacted.
This will be a permanent body that will deal with complaints on human rights violations, and there will be an Annual Report given to the Minister on its activities, and what assistance the Government can be to this tribunal.
If this Bill is enacted those residents outside of Nunavut who will be moving into Nunavut, will there be a mechanism in place for us to ensure human rights violations are tracked?
Yes, the Federal Government does have a tribunal that reviews complaints and if there are any human rights complaints to the tribunal, that mechanism can automatically starts reviewing those complaints.
This would be a made-in-Nunavut solution with our own Tribunal and its members would be Nunavut residents who would be more aware and responsive to Nunavut.
If we get down to our line by line process, I’ll have some questions on that.
I don’t have a question at the moment but later on I will when we go line by line.
I just have one question for the Minister.
The Standing Committee had asked for the department to develop public information explaining the Bill.
Can the Minister or his officials tell us why this didn’t happen?
My apologies but we had a misunderstanding.
We were thinking that they wanted more information so we gave it to the committee to handle; I apologise that they had in fact requested that the government provide information to the general public.
The committee had asked for this information to be distributed widely to the communities of Nunavut, suggesting that it be inserted in all the newspapers and it didn’t seem like it happened.
This is probably why we need to think about consulting with communities.
When we do consultations with communities about the Bill, it’s the department or the Minister’s Bills, it’s not the Standing Committee’s Bill.
So, we cannot go out there and tell the people that it’s a good Bill or not a good Bill because it’s not ours.
What I’m trying to say is that the department did not inform the communities properly, and that’s why the Bill is before us today.
I would say again that people need to understand what is in the Bill.
It affects them and affects everybody in Nunavut just as much as the Wildlife Act and the Education Act and other acts that we consult communities on.
This is unfortunate that it didn’t happen, that the committee had recommended or suggested to the department.
Maybe next time we could do a better job.
Yes there can be a lot of finger pointing around here.
I introduced this Bill in October of 2002.
We’re now in November.
We received a letter from the committee 10 months after I had tabled the legislation requesting information and we thought we were complying.
We did not know that we were supposed to publicize a draft Bill and its contents.
I’ll leave it at that.
Ms. Williams: One last either comment or question.
That’s why we all need to understand that it’s not the Standing Committee’s Bill.
It’s the Department’s Bill and people need to know that when we do consultations with communities, we’re not selling that Bill or we’re speaking against it.
It’s a very important Bill and people need to understand what’s in it.
I fully agree, this is a very important Bill and I believe we all have a role to play as Members.