EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I know we have very hard-working and honest construction people out there, but if there’s an instance that something was missed, then this is there.
Normal procedure and protocol, yes, it would be done through the building permits and through inspections, and stuff.
This covers that in this case where it is necessary that it is covered there.
In normal protocol, it may not be needed at all, but for the times that it is needed, Mr. Chairman, then it is there.
The point I want to just make or register it anyway is that it could be a building inspector, electrical inspector, or plumbing or boiler specialist. “…is of that opinion” is what concerns me because it’s really quite clear that he is not being asked to put in a provision that a permit is required.
A permit should be a requirement; it should not be an opinion of somebody. It should be written clearly that for revamping a plant, a permit is required right up front somewhere. It shouldn’t just be of the opinion of somebody or an inspector.
I consider it bureaucratic red tape.
Right now, you can build a plant or revamp an electrical facility without a permit until the inspector comes around and says, “I think you need to consult with the chief building official of CG&S and see whether or not you need a permit.”
That’s exactly what this says.
He may “direct the owner to contact the chief building official appointed under the Building Code Act to learn whether a permit is required under that Act.”
So it is very quite clear.
This number 32 is the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act, not the electrical he’s referring to. An electrician can do anything they want right now.
This has nothing to do with electrical permitting. This is only the boilers and pressure vessels.
I think the minister is well aware that if you go to subclause 34(2), and I can read, “Where an inspector is of that opinion that proposed electrical work would be considered construction under the Building Code Act, the inspector may:  a) require the owner to contact the chief building official appointed…”
So I don’t think there’s any difference between the two. That’s why I used the word because I was part of the standing committee review of the proposed bill. I see the exact same wording used in the proposed changes that are coming.
I apologize to my colleague because I thought we were on No. 32 and not No. 34.
I understand his point, but those issues Mr. Curley brings up are exactly why we are doing this Act.
It’s to make sure that permits are in place, no matter what the permit requirement is, that permits be in place so that the buildings we construct have proper, in this case, boilers and pressure vessels in place with proper foundation properly in place, with all the proper permits so that we do not create a hazard or danger to the people who will be attending to those houses.
I couldn’t agree with Mr. Curley more, Mr. Chairman.
We are at 32. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Clause 33.
I just want to be quite clear that the wording that we read in 32 is much the same as in 34. So in my more general comments, I was alluding to the two of them together.
I think it was made clear by the minister that we are dealing with one specific change in the building code.
I want to be clear that I think I’m right, that the same wording is applied for electrical and to boiler and pressure vessel installation.
Am I correct in that, Mr. Chairman?
This whole issue with inspectors is to ensure… . The whole reasoning behind this is to ensure that proper permits are in place and that the codes are adhered to before construction is completed so that the electrical inspectors and the building is all building code compliant.
Mr. Chairman, that’s the whole purpose for this.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I appreciate the partial response.
I think it was stated earlier that 32 has nothing to do with the electrical, but in my presentation, I made it clear that the same rule applies to electrical installations and permits.
What we’re dealing with now is that the Electrical Protection Act is amended to ensure they do the same exact procedure as they do with the boiler and pressure vessel systems.
So what I’m trying to get to the minister is the same exact inspector appointed would have to go through the same rigmarole of going through the chief building official, whether or not the permit is required.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. Although I didn’t hear a question, but Minister Kusugak, if you would like to respond, go ahead.
Clause 34 has to be approved because it pertains to the Electrical Protection Act.
I noted the comments he made under clause 32. With clause 34, when the electrical inspector does the inspection, they do the inspection to make sure that they are up to par with the Building Code Act.
It is likewise with the Electrical Protection Act.
I understand Mr. Curley’s comment. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 34. Do you agree?
This is just a question around one of the consequential amendments that was repealed.
What I had understood of what the section was talking about is it was just providing greater certainty around the naming of the Government of Nunavut.
So I’m asking the minister if he could clarify why this was asked to be repealed.
I’ll have Ms. Lausman respond to that question.
It was simply to clarify some language between two Acts and it was more of a drafting decision than anything.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Lausman.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For clarification and for the public record, when it mentions the Government of Nunavut, it does include every public agency within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This consequential amendment is actually based around the Consolidation of Technical Standards and Safety Act. I think Mr. Ningeongan was asking questions about when the Act would come into force and what the timeline would be.
In looking at this specific Act, the Consolidation of Technical Standards and Safety Act, this Act was created in the First Assembly in 2002.
It has not been brought into force yet. I’m just wondering when the Government of Nunavut would be putting it into force.
Shortly after this one, Mr. Chairman.
Moving on. Clause 38.
Just before we put the final stamp on it, I had asked the minister before in regard to funding what was possibly going to be coming in terms of possible PYs, increasing staff.
I know Mr. Curley was alluding to an office that maybe requires more staffing and also the funding that will be needed for the advisory board for the 13 members.
In the replies so far, the minister had said that this can’t be calculated because we’re not there yet.
Again, I think I have given him leeway instead of continuing to ask and saying, “Well, when you put something forward like this, maybe there should be a dollar value attached to it.”
I think what I would like to know is not specific dollar values, but will you be able to fund this with the money you have been allocated already in your budget or will you be coming back for supplementary appropriation to ask for more money?
I don’t think the comment you made is under clause 39, but I will allow Minister Kusugak to respond.
Again I don’t mean to be vague at all, but we will be working within our department.
We will work to realign some of the current staff with training on the matter.
We will be developing this with regulations over the next year. Hopefully, over that time, we will get a better understanding of the overall costs and how we will cover those costs.
I will try my best to ensure that my colleagues are kept informed as this process goes over the next year.
The reason I’m asking on clause 39 is because the answer we received from the minister had said that once his department or the government decides to put it into force, then an advisory board will come into effect and it will start to unfold as to what would be needed.
The dollar value would be attached to it and the meter would start running, so to say, once this comes into force. So that’s why I’m asking the question here.
The last question I would have is if the minister could commit to keeping us informed as to… . If he could let the committee know once an assessment is made of the dollar value.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) Once again, Minister Kusugak, if you want to respond.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and very good questions.
Mr. Chairman, with this whole Act, there will be permitting and costs for permitting. We will be getting money for it by issuing permits at a cost.
At that point, we will start to find out if this whole thing can operate through the permits and the funds we receive through that.
I’m not trying to be vague, but once we figure out the kind of money we’re getting in terms of issuing permits, we will have a lot better understanding of the true value.
I assure you that I will do what we can to ensure that you’re updated on the matter.
Moving on. Clause 39.
I’ll move on. Do members agree to Bill 30 as a whole?
Chairman (interpretation): Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 30 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Kusugak, do you have closing remarks?
Yes, briefly.
I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting this bill because Nunavut is developing and there’s more jobs and work to be done.
Nunavummiut will now have building code legislation, so if we can adhere to the Building Code Act.
(interpretation ends) As the climate changes, it is important that changes to good building practices are made through codes and standards that suit the conditions of Nunavummiut.
This very important bill allows that to happen.
I wish to thank my staff and the many stakeholders who have worked to draft this bill and who will continue to create regulations for implementation. (interpretation) Thank you, my colleagues. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Before we proceed to the review of Bill 31, we will take a five-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 17:08 and resumed at 17:17
Bill 31 – An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. We can now proceed with the review of Bill 31.
I would like to ask the Minister of Community and Government Services if he has opening remarks.
Should I proceed?
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, the amendments to the Consumer Protection Act are the result of feedback received from Nunavummiut through the Department of Community and Government Services Consumer Affairs Office in Baker Lake and an extensive review of similar legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions.
The department began a review of Nunavut’s consumer protection legislation in 2010.
This review brought to light a number of issues that need to be addressed to better protect consumers and identified debt collection practices as an area of immediate concern that could be dealt with in a relatively short timeframe.
Overall, the proposed amendments to this Act are part of an ongoing commitment by Community and Government Services to work with Nunavut residents and businesses in developing a more functional and responsive consumer affairs environment within the territory.
The major changes to the legislation under these current amendments include provisions requiring and limiting the kinds of action debt collectors can or must take in attempting to collect money from debtors on behalf of creditors.
These include notice provisions, restrictions on phoning debtors late at night or at work, restrictions on contacting a debtor’s employer, and restrictions on threats of legal proceedings.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and colleagues for this opportunity to outline the proposed changes in this bill before the House.
I appreciated the discussions we had with the standing committee earlier today on these same amendments and I would now be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table? Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, yes.
On my left is my Deputy Minister, Ms. Kathleen Lausman. On my right is Ann McIntosh from Justice, Legislative Specialist.
Yes, I do. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.
The standing committee recognizes that the intent of the bill is to better regulate debt collection practices in Nunavut.
In May of 2001, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for consumer affairs agreed to a harmonization initiative concerning prohibited debt collection practices.
The harmonized list of prohibited practices was updated in April of 2003.  Prohibited practices include such actions on the part of collection agents as the use of threatening, profane, intimidating, or coercive language in their communications with debtors.
Bill 31 incorporates this list into the Consumer Protection Regulations made under the legislation.
The standing committee encourages the minister to bring forward additional amendments to the Consumer Protection Act over the coming year to address such matters as payday loan operations and debit cards.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 31 to all members.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. As we proceed, are there any general comments on the opening remarks?
Since there are none, I will proceed.
I have no names on my list. Mr. Elliott.
My question is on the legislative proposal around section 10 of the harmonized list of prohibited collection practices. It provides that, and it’s quoted as, “Any waiver or release given of the rights, benefits or protection provided pursuant to the Act or regulations is void.” Can you tell us how Bill 31 addresses this provision?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) Before I continue, (interpretation) I can’t see very far without my glasses, so please raise your hand up high so that I can see you.
Through you, if I could have Ann McIntosh respond to that specific question, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Ms. McIntosh.
That provision in the legislative proposal and in the harmonized list of provisions is actually covered specifically by a provision in the Consumer Protection Act now. In section 107, I think, of the Consumer Protection Act, there is a provision that prevents or voids the waiver of any right or any benefit under the Act and regulations.
Strictly speaking, it’s not necessary to include the waiver provision in the amending provisions.
However, we recognize the Consumer Protection Act is a very large Act, it’s a very complex Act, and it’s not a very user-friendly Act in spite of being called consumer protection.
What we would be happy with is, because this set of amending regulations is, in fact, a kind of standalone code of practice for debt collection agencies, that it would be simple.
It is a kind of a belt-and-suspenders approach.
To add in a waiver provision specifically in there to ensure that any waiver of rights is in respect to debt collection practices or in respect to debts owing, that any waiver would not be allowed, it would be void, similar to the provision that’s already in the Act, but repeating it in the regulations so that it’s in with the other provisions and it will be more apparent to readers and users of those provisions.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. McIntosh.
One of the concerns or thoughts that I think we discussed was the idea that without the Language Act actually being enforced, sometimes we have unilingual-speaking constituents who are signing either their cellphone contracts or their loans, and sometimes not necessarily understanding everything that’s in it because it’s not translated in the language of their choice.
I just wanted to make sure: so this is actually covered in, and you said, section 107 of the Act.
In regard to paragraph 3, and I know we had some comments from the Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation as well, where you had specifically said in your opening comments about some of the changes in response to consumer affairs environment. We were specifically concerned about payday loans.
Specifically, when I had put it out there in terms of discussions in the communities about the changes that we’re making to this Act and some of the amendments, that was some of the concerns that I had heard, where cards are being put out where there are quite high fees. I think there were some media stories about the fees for cashing cheques and whatnot.
So I’m just wondering: in terms of some of the new changes that might be coming to the Act as it continues to unfold, what type of a timeline would we be looking at for some of these issues to be addressed?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Chairman, we will continue to look at the timelines and dealing with those issues that Mr. Elliott is talking about.
We will proceed with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 31.
I have the English copy, so I will read it in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act. (interpretation) We will start clause by clause.
Chairman (interpretation): Also on page 7.
That is already done?
Does the committee agree to Bill 31 as a Whole?
Chairman (interpretation): Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 31 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Bill 31 has now been reviewed.
Minister Kusugak, if you have any closing remarks, please proceed.
Seriously, I am not quitting, but I have closing remarks.  I would like to thank the members for supporting this bill.
I further wish to thank all of our tireless employees who partook in the drafting and revision of this legislation, (interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman.
I absolutely don’t want you to quit either. Sorry about the dialectal misunderstanding.
Mr. Ningeongan: Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to move a motion to report progress.
All in favour, please raise your hand.
Thank you. I will now rise to report progress.
Moving on with our orders of the day. Item 20.
Report of the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Enook.
Mr. Enook: Uqaqtii, your committee has been considering Bills 30 and 31, and would like to report that Bills 30 and 31 are immediately ready for third reading.
Bill 30 – Build Code Act – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that Bill 30, Building Code Act, be read for the third time.
The motion is carried and Bill 30 has had third reading and is now ready for assent.
Bill 31 – An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act – Third 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 third time.
The motion is carried and Bill 31 is ready for assent because it has had third reading.
Just a reminder that there are meetings tomorrow morning with the Standing Committee on Legislation starting at nine o’clock in the Nanuq Boardroom.
This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, June 6, at 3:00 p.m.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Pages 2731 – 2761
Opening Prayer 2731
Ministers’ Statements 2731
Members’ Statements 2736
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 2741
Oral Questions 2742
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters 2757
Tabling of Documents 2758
First Reading of Bills 2759
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2760
Orders of the Day 2760
Wednesday, June 6, 2012 2731
166 – 3(3): New Licensed Early Childhood Programs (Aariak) 2731
167 – 3(3): NHC Supports Third Habitat for Humanity Project (Taptuna) 2732
168 – 3(3): Elder Abuse Awareness Day (Arreak) 2733
169 – 3(3): Nomination to the Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council (Ell) 2733
170 – 3(3): Uranium Policy Statement (Taptuna) 2734
171 – 3(3): New Wildlife Damage Prevention and Compensation Programs (Arreak) 2735
272 – 3(3): Recognition of Jessie Fraser (Rumbolt) 2736
273 – 3(3): Security Concerns at the Nunavut Court of Justice (Curley) 2736
274 – 3(3): Food Security (Elliott) 2737
275 – 3(3): Crime Prevention (Oshutapik) 2738
276 – 3(3): Remembering David Ell (Ell) 2739
277 – 3(3): Congratulations to Pond Inlet High School Graduates (Enook) 2739
278 – 3(3): Development and Transparency (Aupaluktuq) 2740
386 – 3(3): Security Concerns at the Nunavut Court of Justice (Curley) 2742
387 – 3(3): Status of Removal of Abandoned Buildings in Nanulik (Ningeongan) 2744
388 – 3(3): Complaints Before the Department of Health and Social Services (Enook) 2746
389 – 3(3): Status of Decentralization Review (Rumbolt) 2748
390 – 3(3): Minimum Wage Rate in Nunavut (Elliott) 2750
391 – 3(3): Crime Prevention (Oshutapik) 2752
392 – 3(3): Complaints to Health and Social Services (Ningark) 2753
393 – 3(3): Safety of Medical Travellers (Curley) 2755
Committee Report 023 – 3(3): Bill 39, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act (Ningeongan) 2758
205 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut’s Uranium Policy Statement (Taptuna) 2758
206 – 3(3): FPT Report on the Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Emergency Management in Victoria, BC May 2012 (Kusugak) 2758
207 – 3(3): Office of the Fire Marshal’s 2011 Annual Report (Kusugak) 2758
208 – 3(3): Presentation to the United Nations on Achieving Sustainable Food Security in Nunavut (Peterson) 2758
209 – 3(3): Public Agencies Council’s 2012-2013 Annual Letters of Expectation (Peterson) 2758
210 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut’s Public Forum on Uranium, Summary Report (Aariak) 2759
211 – 3(3): Nunavut Lottery Financial Statements for 2010 (Arreak) 2759
032 – 3(3): Motion to Extend Question Period (Enook) 2757
Bill 40 – Representative for Children and Youth Act – First Reading 2759
Honourable Eva Aariak, Honourable James Arreak, Mr. Tagak Curley, Honourable Monica Ell, Mr. Ron Elliott, Mr. Joe Enook, Honourable Lorne Kusugak, Mr. John Ningark, Mr. Johnny Ningeongan, Mr. Hezakiah Oshutapik, Honourable Keith Peterson, Mr. Allan Rumbolt, Honourable Fred Schell, Honourable Daniel Shewchuk, Honourable Peter Taptuna, Honourable Hunter Tootoo.
Before we commence with our proceedings today, I would like to ask Mr. Oshutapik to lead us off in a prayer, please.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Oshutapik. (interpretation ends) Members, before we proceed with the orders of the day, I wish to make a statement.
Firstly, I would like to express my appreciation to all Members of the House for the support that they have shown to the community and people of Iqaluit during the spring sitting.
The attendance of many members at the recent memorial services held in Iqaluit has been very much appreciated by the community.
I also wish to take this opportunity to note that today’s sitting of the House marks a very historical milestone for us.
As members are aware, for sure, I’m sure you all know, today is the 500th formal sitting held by the Legislative Assembly since April 1, 1999. Being the only member of the current House who served in the First Legislative Assembly, this milestone brings back numerous memories, some fond and some not so fond.
For those of you who aspire to being in this House on the occasion of the next milestone, its 1,000th sitting day, you have my very best wishes.
Also, I would like to mention that I had a very nice goose lunch with our interpreters today. It was a very good lunch and I appreciate it.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the person who gave me the tips on how to cook a goose properly.
We will move on with our orders of the day.
Minister’s Statement 166 – 3(3): New Licensed Early Childhood Programs (Aariak)
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Good afternoon to the people of Iqaluit and my constituents in Iqaluit East.
Mr. Speaker, studies have proven that a child’s future is largely written in the early years of their life.
It is during this period that their minds and bodies are undergoing the fundamental development that will determine their ability to be contributing members of society.