EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We only hunt seals with the use of firearms and prior to the introduction of firearms, we used our traditional hunting tools and it was usually an instant kill.
We have been told during our lifetime that we should always use humane methods and to never allow any animals that we harvest to suffer.
This is one of the traditional hunting rules of the Inuit for animals, and with respect to the seal, once we harvest the seal, we usually eat from it.
As my colleague, Mr. Arvaluk, stated, we harvest the seal, then proceed with our tea break and make Uujuq.
I will use myself as an example to portray this particular practice.
I leave quite early in the morning, usually prior to sunrise, and if I happen to harvest a seal right away, I have my breakfast meal even before the sunrise.
That’s usually what I do when I’m out seal hunting as this is my practice.
What I’m saying is, Mr. Speaker, I will support this motion because seals in Nunavut are an integral part of our lives and seals are utilized fully by our people in Nunavut.
I have no more names on my list. I would like to ask the mover of the motion if he has a last reply or not. Premier Okalik.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. As I have reported on several occasions, I was eight years old when I got my first seal and after delivering the skin, I got paid and it was a source of pride for a lot of young Inuit when they first got paid.
My mother did not have a midwife present when I was born and I do not have a godmother, which is unfortunate since the usual practice of Inuit is to give your first catch to your Arnaliaq. However, this was my very first sale of sealskin and I will never forget it.
When I was overseas, I told the environmentalist organizations that even if they try to stop our practice here in Nunavut, we will never stop seal hunting because it is such an integral and important part of our culture and ties to the land. However, the seal harvest is extremely important to our people who use it for food and we prefer that our people have the ability to harvest seals and to trade their skins, which are a by-product of the Inuit hunt.
In Nunavut, we have been harvesting seals for generations and there has been no discernable depletion in the population.
We are not over-harvesting them and they form a large part of our diet here in Nunavut.
In the south, the environmental members of organizations like Greenpeace, and so on, have many food choices as they can grow vegetables and other food products. We do not have food growing operations here in the north, so seals are very important part of Inuit diets.
Again, I urge the members to support the motion and I would like all members to vote unanimously to show our solidarity on the motion.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Premier Okalik. (interpretation ends) A recorded vote has been requested. (interpretation) Please rise once I say your name and then sit down. All those in favour of the motion, please rise.
Thank you. (interpretation ends)
(interpretation) Members, there is a unanimous show of support to the motion. The motion is carried.
Motion 033 – 2(4): Withdrawal of Bill 13, Nunavut Energy Efficiency Act (Tootoo)
WHEREAS Bill 13, the proposed Nunavut Energy Efficiency Act, was read for the second time on June 4, 2007, and referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability for scrutiny;
AND WHEREAS the standing committee has recommended to the House that the bill not proceed;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rankin Inlet North, that the Legislative Assembly orders the withdrawal of Bill 13 from the Order Paper.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I’m delighted to be the mover of this motion and I wish to offer some brief comments for the public record. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Rankin Inlet North for having seconded the motion.
Mr. Speaker, as you can recall, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability reported back to the House in November of last year on its review of Bill 13, the proposed Energy Efficiency Act.
At the time, the standing committee identified a number of issues of concern with the bill and recommended that it be permitted to fall off the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker, the sponsoring minister subsequently announced the withdrawal of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, subsequent to those events, you issued a determination with respect to the correct procedure to follow in such circumstances.
I believe it’s worth noting again for the record and for the minister that only the House as a whole, not the government and not a minister, has the authority to order the withdrawal of a bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would also note that the sponsoring minister enlightened us last week of his intentions to bring forward of a new bill.
The passage of this motion will clear the way for a new bill to be introduced which a standing committee looks forward to scrutinizing with care.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my comments by urging all members to support the motion.
Question has been called. All those in favour, please raise your hand.
All those abstained, please raise your hand.
Motion 035 – 2(4): Withdrawal of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Local Authorities Act (Curley)
WHEREAS Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Local Authorities Elections Act, was read for the second time on March 16, 2007 and referred to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development for scrutiny;
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to comment briefly on the nature of this particular motion.
Mr. Speaker, as the mover of this motion, I wish to offer some brief comments for the public record today.
I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and Member for Akulliq, Mr. Mapsalak, for seconding this motion.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure Structure, Housing and Economic Development reported back to the House in November of last year on its review of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Local Authorities Elections Act.
Mr. Speaker, if I may say, this is an important Local Authorities Elections Act, but Mr. Speaker, after giving careful consideration to the bill, the standing committee was of the view that the most preferable course of action would be for the minister responsible to bring forward a new piece of legislation to govern the election of members to local authorities, rather than simply amending the existing and outdated statute.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the standing committee recommended that it be permitted to fall off the Order Paper.
The passage of this motion will clear the way for a new bill to be introduced which the standing committee looks forward to scrutinizing with care.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comment by urging all Members of this House to support the motion.
I have no more names on my list. Question has been called.
Bill 33 – An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act – First Reading
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Amittuq, that Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act, be read for the first time. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The motion is carried and Bill 33 has had its first reading.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I request consent of this Assembly to waive the one-day notice requirement to allow the second reading of Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.
The minister is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 62(1) to allow for second reading of Bill 33.
Bill 33 – An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act – Second Reading
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues. (interpretation ends) I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Quttiktuq, that Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill increases the minimum wage payable in Nunavut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The motion is carried and Bill 33 has had its second reading and can be referred to a standing committee.
Bills 28, 29, and 30 with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
Before we proceed with the Committee of the Whole, we will have a five-minute break.
>>House recessed at 17:48 and Committee resumed at 18:02
Chairman (Mr. Arreak)(interpretation): Thank you for returning.
During Committee of the Whole, we will have the following items to deal with: Bills 28, 29, and 30.
Mr. Kattuk: Mr. Chairman, wish to deal proceed with Bill 29, followed by Bill 30 and Bill 28.
Are we in agreement we first deal with Bill 29?
Bill 29 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee
Chairman: Thank you. I would now like to ask the Minister of Finance, Minister Tapardjuk, to make his opening remarks.
The purpose of Bill 29 is to appropriate $98,208,000 in capital monies in 2008-09 for items such as the following:
Departmental 2007-08 capital carryovers;
Women’s Correctional Facility;
Government of Nunavut Office Building in Grise Fiord;
Schools in Qikiqtarjuaq and Sanikiluaq; and
Building Canada capital projects.
As members know, capital carryovers continue to be a challenge. However, efforts are being made to remedy this situation.
The government recognizes that steps need to be taken to reduce the volume of capital carryovers and expects to bring forward solutions.
In our Budget Address, we announced a number of capital projects, such as the Qikiqtarjuaq and Sanikiluaq schools. Bill 29 will allow the government to start the necessary work on those schools, as well as other important capital projects.
The federal government’s Building Canada Initiative has provided us with an opportunity to proceed on some capital projects that will benefit Nunavummiut, as well as moving the national agenda forward.
To advance these capital projects, we need to appropriate the requisite funds.
Chairman (interpretation): Does the committee agree to bring the minister’s officials to the witness table?
Welcome. Minister, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
On my left is my Deputy Minister, Peter Ma, and to my right is Dianne Moebis, Manager of Budgeting Development with our Expenditure Management Division.
Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to the matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
I suggest to members that wherever possible you ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review of the supporting document.
If there are none, we will go to (interpretation ends) Bill 29, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2008-2009. (interpretation) We will start on page 4. (interpretation ends) Justice.
Capital. (interpretation) I will read out how much they are. (interpretation ends) Justice.
Capital. Corrections.
Not Previously Authorized. $4,536,000.
I would like to ask my question. I would like to thank the minister and also would like to welcome his officials, and his deputy minister.
My question is in regard to the Rankin Inlet Men’s Correctional Facility, $2,302,000 line item.
Can the minister respond: has the design been completed or has the contract been tendered out? Do you have any information if this contract has been tendered out or not?
Perhaps Minister Okalik can respond to that question for the Department of Justice, Mr. Chairman.
Although they have identified the site, the work has not been started, but the tender for the contract has been worked on.
They’re now working on the design but it’s still incomplete. They have not initiated the work on that but the completion target date is 2011.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I have another question for the minister.
So this line item of $2,302,000 is just an estimate, it’s not the total cost, or does it cost $2,302,000 for the facility, so that the size of the facility is known?
We know the size of the facility and we need to make plans for the contents of that facility. That $2.3 million is for planning purposes and the beginning stages of the work.
In the coming years, there will be additional funds for line items and they will be identified at that time.
We’re on page (interpretation ends) 4. Justice.
I welcome the minister and his officials to the meeting.
I have a question on the women’s correctional facility, it’s budgeted at $1,166,000, but additional costs of $918,000 is estimated by the Department of Community and Government Services.
That almost doubles the project cost, not quite. Could the minister provide some explanation for why the cost has almost doubled on that project?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The original design did not take into account all the requirements of a facility that will house inmates, such as concrete flooring, security cameras inside and outside the building, electronic locking systems, and those are the features that are required, like glass that you can’t break through the windows.
Those types of designs, I guess, were left out of the original plan.
So after more work taking place, this will be the additional cost and the completion date is July of 2009. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That’s interesting to know that the original design was incomplete because, based on the original design and the original budget the House approved the budget and now we’re being asked to provide almost double that amount.
Who did the original design? Was it the Government of Nunavut Officials, or was it a private enterprise company?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) It was done with what was already pre-existing. I believe at the time, we were using a trailer to hold female inmates.
After more assessment of work with CG&S and the architects, it was decided that these are going to be facilities that will be housing inmates that require these specifications to be met.
So after more discussion, it was decided that it was safer to build a facility with more money at this time and I don’t plan to come back to the Legislative Assembly for more money because this is it. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I note in the substantiation it says, “As estimated by the Department of Community and Government Services.” When we get estimates, they’re not always reliable but the minister is indicating that that’s it.
Is he pretty firm on those final costs that he will not have to come back to the Legislative Assembly for additional monies to complete that project?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) It is based on current costs. The construction will start this summer and will be completed by July of next year.
So those are current costs that are budgeted now, so I don’t anticipate going back to the Legislative Assembly for more money for this project. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question on the Young Offenders Healing Facility Washroom Repairs for $150,000. I noted in the capital plan substantiation sheet that the project is being held up because they’re waiting for some stainless steel showers that are being manufactured in the United States and they’re expected to arrive in Iqaluit this month because it says the project will be completed in May 2008.
Can the minister provide us with a quick update on the status of that project? Will it be complete this month or will it be in the next couple of months?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) From what I understand, the reason for the delay has largely been met. There are no further delays anticipated at this time and the project should be completed by this year. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The minister said this year, but does he mean in the next couple of months? It says in the substantiation sheet that it will be done in May 2008, but if they’re only waiting for stainless steel showers, I would expect that the project could be completed fairly quickly.
Can the minister give us a firmer date on the project completion?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) From what I understand, it will be done this year and that’s all I know at this time.
I don’t know exactly what day that might be done but it will be completed this year. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Total Corrections. $4,536,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $4,536,000.
Turn to page 5.
Not Previously Authorized. $10,864,000.
I never knew that CLEY is responsible for Sports North and yet, CGS seems to be responsible for recreational facilities and capital items, so I will ask in this line, maybe the minister can clarify for me or direct me to the appropriate minister.
There was an agreement made between the government and the hamlet that a new community hall would be built on the baseball diamond in Pond Inlet and that the government, I think it was Education, CGS, and CLEY, agreed that they would build a baseball diamond right in front of the high school.
That was two years ago and yet, I have never seen carryovers to honour the agreement between the GN and the hamlet to construct a baseball diamond because the community hall was built on the original baseball diamond.
Can the minister tell me when this agreement will be honoured?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I have not seen an agreement myself, but I have to see the agreement first before I can respond to your question. I have not seen an agreement.
Perhaps Community and Government Services made an agreement but there is no agreement with the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth, Mr. Chairman.
The minister works closely with CGS and I’m pretty sure he has more information as to what it is.
I don’t have an agreement in front of me and I’m pretty sure the government is aware somewhere in the department. It is often hard to raise questions and often times we don’t know which department to question.
I’m just asking him for clarification because they have discussions.
I believe CGS used to be that it was cheaper to build a complex with the community hall and the arena.
It would cost less if it’s built on the baseball field and that way, there would be more room for the arena.
The agreement is being built beside the school property.
That complex is finished and Minister Barnabas was there to open the complex, but it’s been two years and the baseball diamond hasn’t been built to date because they have an understanding that if it’s going to be built, the hamlet would agree to where the present baseball diamond is.
They put community complexes as a priority but the baseball diamond isn’t mentioned under what he said. Are they not going to build it because it wouldn’t use that much funding?
All they have to do is put sand there, they don’t even have to level it.
Why is it being delayed? What’s the reason?
I haven’t heard anything about this at all and it’s not included in the supplementary for 2008-09.
I can definitely try and get more information from my colleague, the Minister of Community and Government Services.
They can request for policies, renovations, or sports complexes up to $200,000, but what the Department of CLEY is responsible for is to provide for existing facilities.
I haven’t heard anything about his question, but I can try and get more information and we have not identified any extra funding at this time for this year, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I understand what he’s saying, but the way it is, is that I don’t think there was an agreement between the hamlet and the government.
As Inuit, we believe the government if they agree to something, but as long as there are no signatures and dotted lines, then they will say that they didn’t hear anything about it.
I know the minister is telling the truth, but if the hamlet council and the government have a discussion, I’m not concerned about which department, I’m talking about the whole government because they’re supposed to keep each other updated, and if the hamlet council agrees and believes that they will get that, but I guess it wasn’t signed and that’s why we haven’t seen it.
I think it will cost under $200,000 to put sand and erect a fence around the baseball diamond.
So before our session is over, I want to hear what the response will be and find out what they will do this summer because they had agreed to it in Pond Inlet.
I want to hear what plans any departments have for the baseball diamond by July 4.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I believe that was just a comment and the Minister of Community and Government Services is here now and after discussions, we will inform the member.
There are three projects, which is just over $8.6 million for the coming winter and next year, and the minister mentioned before that from the past, they have not been completed as of yet.
If I were to ask about the Folk School, which is listed as $5, 773, 000, for what purpose are you asking this to be approved?
The amount we are requesting for is to go to Piqqusilirivvik which is in the planning stages. The design stage is complete and the site has already been identified.
This year, after the plans are done, they will start the construction in 2009-10 and by 2012, it should be completed.
These funds are for planning and that’s why we are requesting that funding, Mr. Chairman.
The amount, $5,773,000, seems to be too much just for planning, it’s an amount that would normally be spent on capital projects.
I would like the minister to clarify whether the planning is completed or if $5,773,000 will be spent on capital materials in the coming years, and if that is the case, are they planning and designing?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank the member.
The planning and design phase will be completed by 2008-09 and the actual construction should start in 2009-10.
The $5,773,000 is money that we would have used that we did not spend and we are requesting it again because the construction of the building had to be delayed. The Department of Culture, Language, Elders, and Youth now has a contract for the planning and design. We will be using those funds and it will be started this summer and coming winter, and the following years, which is $5,773,000.
It is nice to hear of the progress.
Just for more information, next year, once the construction starts in the winter of 2008, and if the designs are completed, does the $5,773,000 include the construction costs or will you need another appropriation for the actual construction?
It is in the Five-Year Capital Plan and the total will probably go over that amount.
This funding that we are requesting is to start doing some work, but I’m pretty sure it will go over that amount, Mr. Chairman.
It would be good if we can get more information as to how much it will cost.
I don’t believe that the $5 million will be used up before the end of 2008 and it will probably carryover into next winter in my view.
So for that reason, my related question is concerning the request for the proposed Nunavut Heritage Centre of $2,774,000 and if they used any last year or even if none was spent, was it carried over? Now, this amount is requested again for 2008-09. Is this amount for the planning and design purposes?
There are three partners on the Nunavut Heritage Centre - the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Nunavut Heritage Trust, and the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
We have contracted a company to do the fund-raising with Uqsiq, who has worked in seven regions.
They are included in that amount and we have advisors or consultants who are looking at how it will be designed.
We didn’t use the funding that was allocated for the Nunavut Heritage Centre that was approved last year, so we’re trying to request that funding again so we can do what we originally wanted to do, Mr. Chairman.
The total comes to over $8.5 million and that’s a lot of money for planning.