EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
So the first question to the Minister of Justice is; the business plan for the coming year indicates that one of its priorities is to, and I will quote, “Improve community circuit work coverage and procedures. The Legal Services Board will be expecting greater accountability and performance on circuits on all lawyers working within the system.”
Can the minister explain to me today how this goal will be accomplished?
We have appointed new members to the Legal Services Board and will be taking measures to carry out the good work that was done.
A lot of work of reviewing the structure and operation of the board took place over the last few years and we’ll be taking steps to implement those recommendations. So I look forward to more accountability and at the same time utilizing the limited resources that we do have.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada recently was quoted in the media saying that access to justice is becoming increasingly difficult for middle class Canadians, and we don’t have any up here.
Can the minister explain to us today how he will work to improve access to justice for all Nunavummiut?
Hon. Paul Okalik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we’re taking some steps that will be very helpful. One of them, violent crime has, unfortunately, been a very difficult issue for our territory.
So we’re planning to implement the Family Violence Intervention Act later on this year, which will definitely assist us in reducing the number of people that have to appear before our courts by focusing on healing.
We’re focusing on trying to get a fourth judge so that we don’t have to rely on outside judges to deal with our cases.
Luckily, some of the Akitsiraq students are graduating and becoming lawyers. That will assist us in getting more Inuit in the legal community.
So those are some of the steps that we’ve been taking for some time and it’s starting to work out in some areas, but it will take a bit more time in others.
There are many Nunavut individuals that have been charged and are still waiting for court cases that have occurred maybe a year or two ago; they’re still on the court docket.
Would the minister be willing to order an independent review of the effectiveness and efficiency of our legal aid system, and if not, why not?
I believe that we will be reviewing a supplementary appropriation dealing with more costs to the legal aid system. That’s what we have to do unfortunately to try and address reducing the time required to go to court.
But, at the same time, we’re looking at ways; we’ve been pushing the federal government to make it easier to go straight to trial so that the amount of time that is involved in going to trial is reduced.
So that is something that we’ve been pushing with other territories and provinces so that it doesn’t take as much time to get the matter resolved. So, it is something that we can’t do ourselves, but we’re trying to do with the federal government because it’s federal legislation and it’s something that we can’t do on our own.
Question 106 – 2(4): Status of the Review of the Fuel Tax Rebate Program (Arvaluk)
My questions are for the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the Government of Nunavut Fuel Tax Rebate Program.
In his official response to a petition that I presented in the House, the minister indicated, and I will quote to be perfectly clear: “I have directed my officials in the Department of Finance to review the program and make the necessary changes to address the concerns. For example, we are suggesting an expansion of the program to allow all hunters and harvesters to access the program, regardless of whether or not they are employed or classified as a commercial hunter. As well, we are making the forms simpler and easier to complete.”
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House today when these changes will be implemented?
Minister responsible for the Department of Finance, Mr. Simailak.
We are doing an ongoing implementation of those changes.
The minister’s official response to the petition I tabled indicated that he will, and I quote, “...rise in the Legislative Assembly during our next sitting in March 2007 to provide members with an update on the first year of this new program.”
Can he tell me today when he will table the first annual report on the Fuel Tax Rebate Program?
As soon as it has been gathered I will table it in the House.
There are hunters in the communities who are confused about the program. How will the department communicate with the public on the changes to the program, and help hunters complete their applications?
Minister for Finance, Minister Simailak.
We will be dealing with this, for instance, by going on community radio stations to give them explanations and information, as well as writing down the information to be used by the public.
After the changes to the program we will try to make sure that we also have a 1-800 number where people can phone to ask for assistance in filling their application.
Can the minister table how many hunters use this program and how much money the government has used in dealing with those mining companies, the tax rebate for mining companies.
Those will be in the annual report.
Question 107 – 2(4): Wildlife Harvest Permits (Peterson)
My question is for the Minister for Environment.
The Department of Environment has an internal review process to consider applications for wildlife harvesting permits for commercial harvesters across Nunavut.
My question for the minister: can the minister provide an overview of who is on the review committee and how long they have to issue a permit if the application is complete?
Hon. Patterk Netser: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries file belongs to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
So, I will refer the question over to them.
I believe the question is being referred to the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation. Minister Simailak.
Could I get clarification on the question please?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Can I ask Mr. Peterson to repeat the question please?
I certainly can. I was asking whichever department is responsible for reviewing applications for wildlife harvesting permits for commercial harvesting, and maybe I could clarify commercial harvesting, in this case it would be for musk ox harvesting.
I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development to respond. Mr. Netser.
We are responsible for giving out permits for commercial harvest.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the clarification from the government department on who is responsible.
Kitikmeot Foods in Cambridge Bay submitted an application on October 24, 2006 for their annual winter musk ox harvest.
The department did not forward it to the Nunavut Impact Review Board until February 16, three days before their musk ox harvest was scheduled to begin.
My question for the minister: can the minister explain to me what would account for such a long delay when the application was complete and submitted on October 24, 2006?
I believe the application for that commercial harvest for musk ox was presented to NIRB and it was up to the proponent to proceed with the application from the Nunavut Impact Review Board.
The federal food inspector and the abattoir supervisor were delayed as well due to the permitting snafu and the harvest began late, and the organization only harvested 246 of the 300 musk ox, and this affected the bottom line in local employment.
As it turns out because the abattoir is located in Cambridge Bay, it is not a portable on the land abattoir; it may not have been necessary to have a NIRB review in the first place.
This is news to my constituents.
For the previous years they have applied to the department and now they are being sent to NIRB. My question for the minister: can the minister clarify for my constituents in the Kitikmeot on why their musk ox harvest permit application was forwarded to NIRB for review?
I believe that was in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement where we have to deal with the NIRB and other bodies when communities do commercial harvest.
The application was submitted on October 24, 2006. It didn’t make it to NIRB until February 16, 2007. That’s almost four months, or is four months, and my constituents just weren’t aware of that.
One of the problems of the Government of Nunavut is delay, red tape, and barriers to business. In the Kitikmeot we have so few businesses that it’s very important that we support and help them through all the regulatory red tape that we have in government.
My question for the minister: would the minister commit that he will instruct his officials to streamline the regulatory review process to support business in Nunavut and to expedite the processing of applications?
If they identify early on it has to go to NIRB then send it to NIRB, don’t wait four months.
Members, the Question Period is now over.
Item 9. (interpretation ends) Replies to Opening Address. (interpretation) Item 10.
Tabled Document 054 – 2(4): Arctic Bay Health Centre - Photos of Crowded Conditions (Barnabas)
I’m tabling a series of photographs showing the cramped and crowded conditions at the Arctic Bay Health Centre.
Tabled Document 055 – 2(4): Nunavut Association of Municipalities Press Release – Federal Budget Won’t Improve Nunavut’s “Quality of Life”, Declares NAM President, March 22, 2007 (Peterson)
I would like to table a press release that was issued today by the Nunavut Association of Municipalities. The title of the news release is: Federal Budget Won’t Improve Nunavut’s “Quality of Life”, Declares NAM President.
Please bring the document up. Item 13.
Tabled Document 056 – 2(4): Health Human Resources Initiative with the Métis – Health Canada Press Release February 6, 2007 (Arvaluk)
I wish to table the federal government’s press release dated February 6, 2007 that announces $10 million from the Aboriginal Health Human Resources Initiative for the Métis Nation to support the development of health professionals, including health bursaries and scholarships.
I urge the Minister of Health and Social Services to set up her efforts to access similar federal funding to support the development of Nunavut nurses, and other health professionals.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Please bring the document.
Tabled Document 057 – 2(4): Qangualuk Disappearance - Draft Terms of Reference for Public Inquiry (Curley)
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our parents and our elders request help for the things that they need.
(interpretation ends) I wish to table today a document, which provides draft terms of reference for a public inquiry into the Qangualuk disappearance. I believe that these terms of reference are perfectly straightforward and provide a sound basis for the government to take the next step in resolving this issue.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. Please bring the document.
Tabled Document 058 – 2(4): Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Do Not Pose a Fire Hazard – media release (Picco)
I’d like to table two documents concerning the spiral light bulbs statement that I made earlier today.
I am sorry. We’re getting ahead of ourselves.
(interpretation ends) Please present documents in an orderly fashion because we appear to have one that was clumsily presented to the table.
Some Members: Shame. Shame.
Notices of Motions for the First Reading of Bills. Item 16. Motions.
(interpretation ends) Members before we proceed to the motions let’s take a 20-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:14 and resumed at 15:40
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you members for coming back.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek consent to go back to Item 5.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the members.
Very quickly, I would like to recognize in the Gallery this afternoon, Dr. Steve Grey who is here with his daughter. His daughter is up for spring break, and he is taking a couple of days off to show her around Iqaluit and to listen to the proceedings today. Welcome to the Gallery.
Going back to Item 16.
Motion 003 – 2 (4): Rejection of the Report of the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission (Tootoo)
WHEREAS the 2006 Report of the Nunavut Electoral Boundaries Commission was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on November 21, 2006;
AND WHEREAS subsection 27(5) of the Nunavut Elections Act requires the Legislative Assembly to consider the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission;
The motion is in order. Members, before we proceed with debate on the motion I have a few comments to make as to procedures. Every member has the right to speak once to the motion for a total time of 20 minutes.
The mover of the motion speaks first and the seconder speaks second.  The mover of this motion has the right to the last replies which closes the debate.
To the motion. Mr. Tootoo.
Can I go first and second right away?
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to the motion before the House and I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Baker Lake for seconding the motion.
Indeed, the fact that this motion has been moved and seconded by members from two very different communities should serve to amplify one of the key elements of my position which is; that the interests of Nunavut as a whole must come before the interests of any one member, any one community, or any one region.
Mr. Speaker, as you clearly recall, the Members of the First Legislative Assembly were united and spoke with one voice when we passed our made in Nunavut Elections Act back in the fall of 2002 when the Legislative Assembly just started in your beautiful home community of Pangnirtung.
When we developed the Act, careful consideration was given to how best to approach the issue of electoral boundary redistribution.
The Members of the First Assembly, a number of whom are sitting here in this House today clearly recognized the need for an approach that is objective and systematic.
The provisions in the Act for the establishment of an Electoral Boundaries Commission achieved that goal. Given that such commissions are specifically designed to remove politics from the equation.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Second Legislative Assembly were also united and spoke with one voice when we established the Electoral Boundaries Commission last year.
Like other members, I looked forward to the presentation of a report that would provide clear and unambiguous recommendations based on rigorous and thoughtful analysis.
This report was supposed to provide the foundation on which a Constituencies Bill would be drafted for you to present before the House.
Mr. Speaker, do we see a Constituency Bill before us today?
Will we see one soon?
Like other members, I was very disappointed at the final report of the boundaries commission.
I do want to make it clear that I am in no way questioning the sincerity of the efforts of the commissioners. They had a challenging task before them.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, if you were to review the recent and very interesting report from the House of Commons Standing Committee, you would see that the issue of how to approach electoral boundaries possesses challenges even at a national level.
Nonetheless, we have an obligation as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly to deal with the situation that we have before us today.
The report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission is deficient.
I do not believe that there is any Member of this House who could reasonably dispute that conclusion. We have been informed that it is simply impossible to proceed to the next step of drafting a Constituency Bill based on the report.
The commission simply did not fully comply with its requirements under the Act.
Mr. Speaker, the boundaries commission was assigned the responsibility of bringing forward clear recommendations.
What we got was a disjointed smorgasbord of options and scenarios, maps without substantive meaning and no evidence of consultation on changes to constituency names.
Let’s take the constituency of Amittuq as an example, which includes two communities. The commission brings forward not one, not two, but three extremely different options for how to deal with the boundaries.
Which option did the commission think was the best approach? Who knows – it’s simply impossible to tell.
As another example, in the case of Iqaluit, the commission actually brings forward an option to elect the city’s members on a fundamentally different basis than every other constituency in the territory without even an attempt to provide an analysis or discussion of the merits of this radical proposal.
Mr. Speaker, the report is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It is beyond repair.
You may hear the suggestion that we can rush out and strike some form of new body to fix the problems.
I’m sorry, but in this case, I believe the patient is dead.
I recognize that the title of the motion before us today has a negative ring to it. The word “rejection” itself sounds unpleasant to the ear.
However, I believe that the legislative assembly will accomplish something positive by passing this motion.
Earlier in my remarks, I noted the importance of putting the interests of Nunavut as a whole above all other considerations. As the Member for Iqaluit Centre, I could have endorsed the report for personal political gain, as one of the scenarios for my community would have positioned me well in the next election, if I chose to run.
However, I firmly believe that we have an obligation to get the job done right for the benefit of all Nunavummiut.
We were all elected in February of 2004. Even if a new commission were to be established in the spring sitting, it is unlikely it would be in a position to report back until next year.
There simply wouldn’t be time to bring forward a bill while providing our electoral administration with sufficient time to prepare for the next general election.
The best course of action is to permit the members of the next assembly the opportunity to establish a new commission from scratch, which can learn from these lessons.
It is my understanding that will be required anyway after the next general election.
That’s the common sense approach. Let’s do the job right next time, and I will be pleased to support any necessary amendments to our act to help the next commission do so.
Mr. Speaker, you may hear comments today that suggest that the assembly should effectively cherry-pick the parts of the report that it likes. That would be a dangerous course of action.
It would make a bad situation even worse by compounding the problems.
The whole point of establishing a boundaries commission is to present members of this House with a complete, clear and cohesive set of recommendations.
Picking and choosing what we like as individual members treats the report as though it were some sort of buffet.
Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that effective democratic representation comes at a cost, however, we must ask ourselves whether it would be a price worth paying to rush into a quick-fix, Band-Aid solution, I don’t think it is, and I don’t think that the thousands of Nunavummiut who are waiting for us to deliver improvements to housing, health care, and education would think so either.
Mr. Speaker, we have better things to do with our limited time and scarce resources than to continue bickering over this flawed document like starving ravens. Let’s move on to the task of governing.
Mr. Speaker, again, I encourage all members to support the motion before the House today.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Baker Lake, Mr. Simailak.
I seconded the motion.
Just recently when we had a meeting I was told by my staff that the report did not follow through with the responsibilities that were given to them. We were told that we’ll have to do the same thing in 2009 and set up another commission.
At this time we keep saying that we have very limited financial resources and it would not be the right time to proceed with this.
We are going to be spending more money as a government and as Members of the Legislative Assembly.
With that, I seconded the motion.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I think this is one of the rare times where I actually agree with the Member for Iqaluit Centre ...
... even during budget time.
But, I must say as the Premier of this territory I represent every single community and I try and represent every single community in the same light. With the struggles that we have each year, we try and do our part in making sure that every part of our territory is benefiting in some way, and I will continue to do that.
I have to also look at the resources that we do have and what programs that we can offer, and the recommendation to add new members when we’re already the most represented territory in the entire country is something that we have to look at very carefully.
The report recommends four additional members, and if broken down, would create additional limitations in our limited resources by creating an additional $2 million that will have to be expended for our territory to be represented when it’s already overrepresented.
As my colleague has said already, the report itself is flawed.
It’s the first time that we’ve tried a boundaries commission. There will be more in the future. So I’m sure that the future commissions will look at that very carefully and make sure that the mistakes made aren’t repeated.
So I look forward to the future recommendations of the future commissions and look forward to making sure that it’s sound and something that we can live with.
I think we owe it to our constituents to use the resources that we do have to deliver programs and services to the best of our abilities.
So in that light, I will be supporting the motion and supporting my colleagues in rejecting the report. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Premier. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation ends) Member for Arviat, Mr. Alagalak.
I do not agree to the report and I’m sure that it was very expensive as we spent $250,000 on it.
Would the three members who are saying that there was no financial resources, I’m sure they’re going to be saying the same in 2009, and say that there should be no additions to the 19 members here.
But again, as a government, we have to keep going forward instead of going backwards.
We have to be proud of the bodies or the entities that we produce.
We worked extremely hard to make sure that the commission was approached by the elders, by the youth, by the people.
We directed them to go to the communities to hold public consultations and when I see that I wouldn’t want the people out there to be disappointed.
They took the time to come to the meetings and now they might be saying that the government is doing totally useless things.
There were a lot of papers that were produced and the outcome is nothing. That, I think, will be the image that the public will see.
With all the documentation that was compiled, I’m sure that there are some extremely good recommendations or extremely good suggestions that came from the people of Nunavut.
The people out there were saying what they would like to see in the government. They gave options to the commission. Again, we have been given the authority to make the decisions and we have to get the good recommendations from this report and put them to use.
I don’t like the idea of going forward with this motion. We heard that there were a good number of people that were coming to those meetings when the commission came to their communities.
In addition, with all the information that was complied by the commission, they did their job.
They followed our direction, and we appointed people as commissioners because we believed in them.
We believed that they would do a good job.
In 2009 the same thing is going to happen again and we’re going to be hearing the same thing.
I wanted to make a comment to the motion, but if we create a new commission in the future, they will probably write the report, but for the record, I would like the people out there to know that we shouldn’t be doing things like that if the end product is nothing.
There are people out there who are poor.
There are people who can’t buy food. They have no harbours.