EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
As the minister will recall, I asked questions in the Legislative Assembly on May 20, 2004 and again on March 12, 2007 concerning the issue of the “Qangualuk Abduction.”
He has a daughter who is over 80 years old and his daughter is Ruth Qangualuk.
She and her husband came to me in 2004 saying that her father disappeared and she was requesting assistance. I have not concluded this issue.
This notorious incident took place in the Baffin region in the 1940s, in the recent past.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I believe it’s a crime and criminal abduction of a family.
There are surviving members of the family. I believe that incident should be investigated by the federal government.
So I would like to ask the minister: what has occurred since I last asked a question about this family?
As the Minister of Culture and Heritage, I thank Mr. Curley for continuing to keep this difficult issue in Nunavut alive, especially in the Baffin region. We are still dealing with a number of unanswered questions.
The people of Igloolik have been consulted about this incident, as well as the people of Iqaluit, Cape Dorset, and Kimmirut with respect to obtaining more information about the Qangualuk Abduction and his family members.
A report has been presented to our Premier. Mr. Curley and Jack Anawak also have a copy of the report.
We are continually trying to get more information.
We have erected an Inuksuk monument, with a plaque to go with that memorial.
We have tried to consult with the people who live in proximity to where the abduction occurred.
Mr. Speaker, we’re still trying to determine whether crimes were committed. Perhaps members can direct questions to the Minister of Justice about that.
The minister indicated that I should refer the question to the Minister of Justice.
I would like to do so, or should I get it on the docket before I do so?
According to our rules, you can’t switch ministers in the middle of questions, so we have to get it on the docket.
Question 596 – 3(3): Nomination of the Back River to the Canadian Heritage River System (Aupaluktuq)
My questions are for the Minister of Environment, the Hon. James Arreak.
During our recent winter sitting, I raised questions concerning the status of the nomination of the Back River to the Canadian Heritage River System.
At that time, the minister indicated that the Kivalliq Inuit Association had raised concerns regarding this initiative.
Can the minister update the House today on the status of his department’s discussions with KIA on this issue?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank Mr. Aupaluktuq for raising that question.
Yes, we have been dealing with the issue at the Wager Bay Back River since 2010.
We have been negotiating with the residents of Baker Lake, Gjoa Haven, and the Kivalliq Inuit Association, whether they can nominate the Back River to the Canadian Heritage River System.
The Kivalliq Inuit Association has been involved and we have sent them a letter explaining the process.
We had told them that even if the Back River is selected as a Canadian Heritage River, the mining companies’ or other exploration companies’ activities would not cease.
Right now, we are still in the consultation stage with the Inuit organization. We are going to come up with a clear understanding as all those questions are in.
The Back River is part of the Thelon River.
We should consult with the residents of Gjoa Haven and Kugaaruk as to how we can help them.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, the current business plan of the Department of Environment indicates that one of its priorities is to develop a formal nomination process regarding the Back River “With the support of residents from Kugaaruk and Baker Lake...” Can the minister indicate how his department is consulting with the residents of these communities regarding the nomination of the Back River to the Canadian Heritage River System?
Yes, we have been consulting with the residents of Baker Lake and Gjoa Haven, and other communities that consider the Back River as important to heritage.
There’s a report that was developed.
In particular, we have involved the communities of Baker Lake and Gjoa Haven in the negotiations.
Right now, neither of these communities has said no, but they have expressed support in nominating the river.
We received a letter from the Kivalliq Inuit Organization stating that they didn’t want to support the recognition of Back River as a heritage site.
We will continue to consult with the Kivalliq Inuit organization.
Do you have a final supplementary, Mr. Aupaluktuq?
Okay. Moving on then.
Question 597 – 3(3): Northern Residents Deduction (Elliott)
Addressing the high cost of living in the High Arctic has been one of my key priorities, which is why I have strongly supported an increase in the residency portion of the federal Northern Residents Deduction.
This component of the deduction was last increased in the 2008 federal budget five years ago.
As the minister will undoubtedly recall, he moved a motion on this issue during the previous Legislative Assembly which called on the Government of Canada to “ensure that the residency portion be adjusted [thereafter] on an annual basis to an inflation index that [is reflective of] the cost of living in Canada’s Arctic.”
Can the minister tell the House when he last discussed this issue with the federal Minister of Finance or Nunavut’s federal Parliamentarians?
Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall a specific date when I last discussed it with Minister Flaherty, but I do recall the discussion at the time when, in this House and across the three territories, in fact, there was quite a lot of support for an increase.
We were very thankful and grateful that the Government of Canada at the time did increase it.
I can’t say that we’ve had seen any indication from the Government of Canada if they’re willing to increase it since that last increase.
On June 27, 2012, the three territorial Premiers issued a joint news release following the annual Northern Premiers’ Forum which stated in part that, and I quote, “Premiers called on the federal government to increase the deduction and index it against the cost of living in the territories.”
Can the minister describe how he is working with the Yukon and Northwest Territories ministers of finance to jointly address this issue with the federal government?
Mr. Speaker, I’m not specifically working with my colleagues.
I believe that officials in all the departments of finance in the three territories have been reviewing the Northern Residents Deduction.
As I noted in the preamble to my question, the Government of Canada has not addressed this issue since the 2008 federal budget.
The Minister of Finance has said that he has raised this issue on a number of occasions with Ottawa and his federal counterparts.
From his discussions with his federal counterpart, can he indicate what further evidence Ottawa needs about our high cost of living before it acts on this issue?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps Mr. Elliott misunderstood me.
I haven’t specifically spoken to Minister Flaherty about the Northern Residents Deduction. My officials have had communicated with their counterparts in the three territories.
At my last meeting with Minister Flaherty in December in Meech Lake, we talked about a number of issues, but the high priority at that time was more housing for Nunavut in the federal budget.
We appreciate the government helping us, but we didn’t discuss Northern Residents Deduction.
Question 598 – 3(3): Assessing Nunavut Students (Schell)
Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, the business plans for the Department of Education have repeatedly referred to developing, monitoring, and implementing a student assessment system which would focus on both language arts and math.
Can the minister provide a clear update on the current status of the Nunavut Student Assessment Strategy?
The student assessment system is one of the high priorities of our department.
We have not completed the student assessment system yet.
From my own personal observations of my own daughter’s classmates, it is quite clear to me that in one single grade, there are children who can read very well, children who can barely read, and children who cannot read at all.
I don’t need a formal assessment to show me these facts.
Can the minister indicate how her department uses the results of student assessments in language arts to determine what supports are necessary to get all children reading at the appropriate grade level?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is going to be ongoing assessment to see where the students are at and at what level. It is something that is important to our department.
Once the early assessment and if their math and reading is poor, then it’s best because they can get help earlier.
The parents of the students and also the teachers have to work together to make a work plan to make sure that they are at the appropriate level and to assess whether the student excels or is poor in those subjects.
It is helpful to both the students and the teacher.
In regard to the student assessments, the students in various levels are assessed.
We do that to make sure that they are at the appropriate level. As I indicated earlier, this project has not been completed yet, but it is one of the priorities of our department.
Even if one or more student is getting along well or is lagging behind or is excelling in the programs, then there is a needs assessment to make sure that they get the appropriate individualized programs based on their assessment.
The Department of Education’s latest business plan for 2013-16 indicates that student assessment benchmarks have been under development.
Will the minister commit to tabling the student assessment benchmarks for language arts so that parents, teachers, and even students can know what is expected of them at the appropriate grade level?
I also thank my colleague for asking those questions. Once the assessment project is completed, I will make sure that my colleague, the parents, and all Nunavummiut are informed about this project.
Question 599 – 3(3): Implementing the Ilagiitsiarniq Family Violence Prevention Framework (Ugyuk)
In our community, we are getting about 24 hours of daylight now and it is a joyous time.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister responsible for implementing the Ilagiitsiarniq Family Violence Prevention Framework for Action. The lead minister may be the Minister of Family Services, the Minister of Justice, or perhaps even the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, earlier in my statement, I spoke of the need to begin to implement family violence prevention activities.
Can the minister clarify what specific budget has been allocated to family violence prevention activities or, if none has yet been allocated, when can we expect to see such a budget brought forward as a supplementary appropriation?
I have been given the nod by the Minister of Family Services, so I will recognize the Minister of Family Services, Minister Ell.
I would also like to thank my colleague for asking questions on that issue. I am very pleased that on April 1… .
Well, I just took over the portfolio on April 1, but in regard to the recently initiated Ilagiitsiarniq Family Violence Prevention Framework for Action, we are currently working on the budget and we are also putting in the required resources so that we can activate this program.
The Ilagiitsiarniq Family Violence Prevention Framework for Action is currently in the works and it is one of the very first priorities of the Department of Family Services. I could also tell my colleague that this is going to be a priority of our department.
We had just recently established a position of director and we look forward to talking about this issue.
Your first supplementary. Ms. Ugyuk.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Can the minister clarify whether we are going to see the necessary shelters and addiction treatment programs, which go hand in hand with addressing family violence issues, established in Nunavut?
I know that we have just started Family Services on April 1 and one of the priorities for Family Services is to discuss these issues. I can assure the member that once Family Services and the staff are in place, discussions on this and the framework will take place.
I would also like to note that the Ilagiitsiarniq Family Violence Prevention Framework for Action was tabled by the previous Minister of Health and Social Services in the legislature on March 19, 2013.
As you were saying in your Member’s Statement, I am happy to hear that you have been reading this tabled document.
I also urge all other members to be reading this document and to come and have a meeting with me at any time to discuss this priority.
I am also urging any members of the public or any organization to approach us to discuss this issue.
We have been looking forward to the Ilagiitsiarniq Family Violence Prevention Framework for Action for many years.
(interpretation ends) Will the minister commit to fully implementing the Ilagiitsiarniq Family Violence Prevention Framework for Action at the earliest opportunity and before the end of our term?
I will be able to make an appropriate response once we have the framework and the resources in place.
We have to consult with a lot of individuals and entities out there and we know that family violence is prominent out there.
It is going to be helpful to the government if we talk about this issue. We can make the changes.
We can turn it around and it takes cooperation or close working relations between the individuals, between the organizations and the entities.
We are in the planning stages at the moment and at this time, we urge everyone to be vocal about this program.
Question 600 – 3(3): Status of Mary River Project (Enook)
As the minister will recall, I asked questions during our winter sitting concerning the status of the Mary River project, which is of significant concern to the residents of Pond Inlet.
In January of this year, Baffinland requested amendments to its project certificate, which was issued by the Nunavut Impact Review Board last year.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he can inform the House about what submissions the Government of Nunavut has made to the Nunavut Impact Review Board concerning Baffinland’s request for amendments to its project certificate.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Member for Tununiq for that question. Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right.
There’s a request for a change in the environmental impact statement of Project Certificate 005. Once that went out to NIRB, the changes requested were significant enough for the request from NIRB to redraw the data indications that were already inputted into the first EIS that was submitted.
Once that happened last March, I went to the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
He agreed that a review was necessary to look at the requested changes in what they call an early revenue phase and that was shipping ore out of Milne Inlet rather than Steensby through the Milne Inlet road haulage. The change requested also was going from 18 million tonnes per year to 3.5 million tonnes.
The requested change in the project certification was significant enough that Baffinland now has to prepare a comprehensive addendum to their final impact statement describing all aspects of the baseline data, wildlife monitoring, impact predictions, and proposed mitigation for the project, and that’s ongoing as we speak now.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I’m afraid I’m going to have to try and rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, (interpretation) I would like to hear from the minister responsible about the massive amendments in regard to the Mary River project and transportation.
Any individual can voice their concern. I would like anyone who is concerned about this project to be able to approach NIRB and voice their concerns.
In regard to the change or request for amendments, can you indicate what types of changes they’re expecting?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again thank the member for the question.
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for Mining, I do not get involved in the technical aspects of the discussions that are ongoing. Our department is a participant with the Nunavut Impact Review Board and all the stakeholders and communities.
That’s why the addendum was requested, because of all the submissions by all parties that are involved in the process.
I will not ask the questions that I had prepared.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to Baffinland and their requests for amendments to its project certificate, has your department discussed this amendment with NIRB and have you submitted your report? (interpretation ends) Do you have a position with NIRB on the amendment?
Again, the department and the government support responsible resource development that makes the territory attractive for investment.
We support any responsible development. Mr. Speaker, through our multiple departments that participate in the regulatory processes, which make up three or four different departments, at times, even more, at times, even more departments are included in the regulatory processes.
All the information is posted on the website by NIRB. All the comments, letters, concerns, and issues are all up on the website, including individual community members who put in issues and concerns to NIRB.
As the government, we continue to support responsible development and we do participate with all of our stakeholders, including the proponents.
Question 601 – 3(3): Update on Request for Housing in Repulse Bay (Ningark)
I would like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the housing corporation.
During the meeting in March 2013, I asked a question regarding a letter that I received from the Repulse Bay Housing Association.
They stated that they were waiting for additional housing because of overcrowding and because overcrowding has an effect on the students’ grades, and so on.
In March 2013, I told the minister that we’re asking for additional housing for Repulse Bay.
I would like to ask the minister if he has had a meeting with his federal counterparts and if they have received any additional funds for housing.
Mr. Speaker, as in the March 21 federal budget, we were allocated $100 million for public units, which we’re very pleased.
I know fully Nunavummiut still require approximately 3,500 units to catch up.
This will at least alleviate some of the needs for Nunavummiut and yes, we really do appreciate that.
For the discussions on the needs of Repulse Bay, there are needs right throughout Nunavut.
Again, I’ve got to indicate that the needs are over 3,500 units that are needed in Nunavut communities.
Every community has these needs and we’re basing our allocations through the specific needs that we have within our data system, whether it’s the waiting list or the housing survey that was done three years ago.
Once we have detailed information from CMHC about how the $100 million is going to be administered, I’ll surely let the members know.
I would also like to thank the minister for the new additional dollars.
I would now like to ask the minister about the correspondence I got from the Repulse Bay Housing Association. It’s coming from them and I would like him to respond from the bottom of his heart.
I feel that it’s very tough at times to get all the things that we want for our communities in Nunavut.
Of course, housing has always been a priority and it continues to be a priority.
We will make every effort to maximize the $100 million to maximize the number of units we deliver for Nunavummiut.
That’s one of the things we have to work together on and that’s what I intend to do.
I did acknowledge the letter from his constituency, among others.
We will continue to work towards maximizing the amount of funds that we have to get the most bang for our dollar, so to speak.
At the end of the day, we want to get as many units as possible with the amount of funds allocated to this government.
I believe that when it comes to housing allocations, we always work with a needs survey.
The request from Repulse Bay indicated that there is a need for housing.
Will the minister seriously consider dealing with the demand for housing in Repulse Bay?
Mr. Speaker, I can say yes, but as you know, the demand is so great within Nunavut and we will just do our best. Again, I’ve got to say that we will do our best to maximize the funds we are allocated to get the maximum number of units possible.
Question 602 – 3(3): Update on Qangualuk Abduction (Curley)
I want to follow up with my question to a different minister this time, to the Minister of Justice, about the family of Ruth Siakuluk, who were abducted just before the First World War occurred in the middle of Baffin Island on the east coast.
This was a criminal abduction of a family with one child. Ruth Siakuluk is about 86 years old.
She is still alive and looking for answers of what happened to her parents.
They were abducted via small plane with skids. Now the information is available. Paul Irngaut, who was a host of CBC, did a good job on TV showing a documentary.
In 2004, Mr. Speaker, I asked questions to the Minister of Justice then why he should investigate. It’s really just a cultural issue. This was not a cultural issue.
This is a criminal act. A family was abducted.
Now my question is to the Minister of Justice. Will the Minister of Justice ask the RCMP to fully investigate what happened, why it happened, and who did it? Can the minister undertake to ask the questions to the RCMP?
I thank Mr. Curley very much for that question.
First of all, I would just like to say that I just became aware of this abduction and the situation on this file this morning through my colleague, Minister Arreak.
It’s very interesting and I think there is concern here.
The information that is laid out to me is that Mr. Curley, you had brought this in the previous Assembly up as an issue, and there is quite a bit of information that has been researched and compiled.
I think that me, as the minister who has just been informed of this situation, needs to review that and my department needs to review that.
I think we need to take a very good look at that and see if there are any criminal abduction issues here, which you state that you feel that there is.
That needs to be looked at.
I could say that yes, we could have the RCMP look at this too.
From what you have said and the information that I have, it looks like you have brought it to the attention before with the previous government.
I’m not sure whether or not it went to Justice, but I know that CLEY at that time and Culture and Heritage has done a lot of interviews, has done a lot of work on this file, and has erected a commemorative plaque, but the issue of abduction and of course, it’s my understanding that if there was some type of abduction, there’s no limitation of action.
Under the Criminal Code, there are no time periods for crimes like that to lapse.
I commit to you, Mr. Curley, I will take this information very seriously and look into the matter further.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I want to thank the minister as well as the Minister of Culture and previous other ministers who have responded to this.
I have treated it always as a criminal act.
I believe the family was kidnapped. I thank the minister for indicating to the House that there are no time limits or time lapses on criminal cases.
The RCMP has completely failed to acknowledge this event, which is known by the elite of the town of the 1940s. The priest, the Hudson’s Bay, and the RCMP have known about this case.
The family of Ruth Siakuluk, still living today, she could have been part of the abduction, but she had gotten married and was living in Cape Dorset. She’s still wondering today what happened.
Mr. Speaker, there was only one plane that flying around Baffin Island and it was piloted by a former pilot of the First World War, a German citizen.
What was he doing flying around that area?
Is it possible that that pilot may have abducted that family?
Can the minister undertake to provide answers to this question?