EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would first like to ask the minister: can the minister clearly explain how his department defines “unilingual elder” and who decides when an elder meets this criterion?
They do some planning with doctors and they identify if a person is unilingual, is over 65, and if they don’t have any interpreters, they would have to have an escort.
If they have a disability, they will not travel alone. They have to have an escort.
These are constantly reviewed by the people who do the planning and they do get help and support from the medical travel office of my department.
In some regions of Nunavut, we are facing serious language loss, especially for Inuinnaqtun.
Can the minister clarify whether escorts are selected based on their language abilities and the level of interpreting support that they are able to provide to elders?
The patient going on medical travel gets asked which escort they would prefer to accompany them. That’s the first question they get.
It would be kind of useless if someone who didn’t know how to be an interpreter would try to act as an interpreter.
At times, it seems as if there are fewer and fewer Inuktitut speakers and part of the reason is that so many services are delivered only in English.
Will the minister commit to increasing resources to support the use of Inuktitut within our health care system?
With respect to services provided within Nunavut, this is something we can look after. Also, some of the services are lagging behind in offering this, as far as I am aware. We are constantly urging them to look for ways to incorporate it into their services.
Unfortunately, we have no leeway with services provided outside of our territory.
We really don’t have any influence on the services. However, that is the reason why we encourage people not to travel if their fluency in English is limited by their lonesome. We have started to implement this already.
Question 457 – 4(2): Issues with Medical Boarding Homes (Keyootak)
Good morning to my fellow residents of Qikiqtarjuaq and to the people of Clyde River.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to direct my questions to the Minister of Health, as it seems the day to ask questions to the Department of Health.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this question to the Minister of Health regarding medical boarding homes, for example, the boarding home called Tammaativvik and the boarding home in Ottawa, which is occupied by patients from our region. These homes are used by medical patients.
People who travel for medical reasons do so for many different types of medical conditions and they are sent down for treatment.
However, the boarding homes have rooms that are all designed similarly, with no accommodations for specialized services based on the different medical conditions the patients are being treated for.
Does the department have the capability to review the rooms to better accommodate the various medical conditions our patients face so that patients requiring specialized services can have rooms that are better suited for them? In my opinion, I believe there should be rooms that are designed for patients who travel for medical reasons.
To cite this example, every room is carpeted and some patients aren’t able to stay in the rooms due to the carpets and associated allergies.
Also, some patients who travel down can’t walk and require wheelchairs. There are also different medical conditions that require specialized rooms.
I wonder if these rooms can be designed to offer some specialized rooms to accommodate the conditions our people are faced with.
With respect to the boarding homes, it is governed by an agreement with the federal government that has to be negotiated before changes can be made.
Indeed, some of the boarding homes are quite open. We recently toured the boarding home in Ottawa and the rooms are designed differently.
Some rooms are designed to accommodate handicapped patients and their rooms are different.
For the home here in Iqaluit, I will have to look into that to see what the reality is and to review if that is possible.
Again, we can only work with the agreements we have. When it expires or requires further agreement, it is the only opportunity we have to request changes. That is our limitation in this matter.
Indeed, it is more specific to the boarding home in Iqaluit, which accommodates patients from all over the Baffin region.
The patients are all here for a variety of medical conditions and illnesses.
I will include this factual story by providing an example.
Some people can’t live in a room that is carpeted and the numbers are growing due to allergic reactions and it causes breathing difficulties.
The rooms here are all carpeted and I didn’t see any rooms that weren’t carpeted, which is why I asked about it.
On a personal level, my wife has that condition as she is allergic to carpeted rooms, and I have been apprised by other patients that they too can’t stay in a carpeted room.
Further, the couches are pretty well all the same material and for people suffering from allergies, they can’t stay in these rooms due to suffering the effects.
When my wife has to attend appointments at the hospital, which I am just using as an example, she can’t stay in a carpeted room and has to move to the washroom in order to be able to stay there as the washrooms aren’t carpeted.
That is why I wanted to know if this could be resolved, as some patients are further aggravated by the rooms due to there being no rooms without carpets.
Thank you for describing those different conditions. They are run through agreements with an outside party.
We will have to talk to them to see what we can do.
It’s a good issue to bring up and we can look to see what we can do.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Your final supplementary, Mr. Keyootak.
I thank the minister for clarifying that issue and that this will be reviewed in the future.
Perhaps that would be beneficial for the next boarding home construction so that these types of issues are taken into consideration.
Not every patient suffers from the same ailments.
I know that they are properly accommodated in the south, but up here, it seems that the medical travel patients are not properly accommodated.
The present boarding homes can be renovated to accommodate the many different medical conditions that people go to the hospital for.
This is a good topic to discuss. We have progressed in some ways.
We never know what circumstances will arise.
We do try to be ready to accommodate people.
I’m sure it will be discussed with the owners of the boarding homes.
Question 458 – 4(2): Contaminated Site in Baker Lake (Mikkungwak)
My question will be to the Minister of the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
As we all know, there was a cabinet shuffle regarding the portfolios that they look after, but my question will be to the Minister of QEC.
The previous minister that held the Qulliq Energy Corporation visited the headquarters office and actually did see the contaminated site that I have always brought up regarding the old power plant contaminated site.
Can the minister indicate if there are any planned visits, seeing that the Qulliq Energy Corporation is a decentralized site in Baker Lake, and if there are any planned visits for the minister to come to Baker Lake to come and see the headquarters office and to actually see the contaminated site?
I don’t have a visit planned.
I don’t like to make commitments.
I commit to visiting Baker Lake as soon as possible.
As I had asked in my oral questions how large the contaminated site is in Baker Lake, but at the same time, to get a true visual concept on what is currently in place, can the minister indicate if he plans to visit the community of Baker Lake this spring or this fall?
Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation, Mr. Peterson.
I’m getting some advice from my colleague from Pangnirtung.
Mr. Speaker, I’ll visit in the spring, hopefully before the spring sitting.
With his visit coming into Baker Lake, does he anticipate to bring any of his senior officials, considering that one of the senior official positions was moved over here, and to possibly look at that also?
I’ll have to check to see which senior officials I’ll bring, if I’m bringing any, but certainly, I’m well aware of Mr. Mikkungwak’s concerns. The headquarters is in Baker Lake and they have the contaminated site there.
It’s very good and I encourage all of our ministers, and we do try to visit communities as much as possible so that we can meet the people who serve us and they’ve got some very hard-working staff in Baker Lake for the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
It’s good for me to take the opportunity and invest some downtime from House sittings and standing committees to meet our staff.
I will meet with our staff and discuss a plan to visit Baker Lake and see who should come with me to visit the community.
Question 459 – 4(2): Issues with Francophone School (Hickes)
As most members may be aware, there has been a very public dispute regarding the French school parents association and La Commission Scolaire Francophone du Nunavut.
I get numerous calls and emails on this topic and I have spoken to the minister about it numerous times as well.
My constituents are asking me to get an update on this situation. I was wondering if the minister would be able to provide that to me today.
Hon. Paul Quassa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member for asking the question concerning CSFN.
First of all, I just want to make it very clear to the House that the only scenario that would require action on the part of the department would be if CSFN was not complying with the Education Act and Regulations or the department or government policy.
I just wanted to point that out first.
Again, we have been in contact with CSFN and we have written letters informing and wanting to get an update on various issues on that matter.
We hope to get something hopefully by next week. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for that update.
Mr. Speaker, in the minister’s response, he spoke to questions and concerns of the department’s involvement with regard to CSFN very clearly outlined within the Education Act itself.
Is this the first time that the department has ever requested information from CSFN?
As the member might very well know, as a minister, I deal with the district education authorities and I view CSFN as one and certainly, they are similar to a district education authority under the Education Act.
I can say that, I believe, in the previous years, there have been some situations that had to be dealt with by the Department of Education previously.
Again, as a minister, this is the first time we had to try and get more information from CSFN since I became the minister. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again I thank the minister for that update.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the request for information from CSFN, have there been any early indications on whether they will be able to provide that detailed information, and how is the department working with CSFN to help mitigate some of the concerns that the parents have been very vocal about?
Hon. Paul Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member for his questions on this issue. I can say that we get regular updates from CSFN and we talk on a regular basis.
They keep us updated on the issue.
To date, I wrote them a letter and I have yet to receive a response. I’m not sure how they are going to handle it, but I look forward to getting an update possibly next week.
I have yet to receive a response to the letter I wrote.
Written Questions. (interpretation ends) Item 8. Returns to Written Questions. Item 9.
Item 12. Reports of Standing and Special Committee on Bills and Other Matters.
Item 13. (interpretation) Tabling of Documents. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Taptuna.
Tabled Document 123 – 4(2): Government of Nunavut’s Privacy Management Manual (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the Government of Nunavut’s Privacy Management Manual.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Tabling of Documents. (interpretation) Minister of Finance, Mr. Peterson.
Tabled Document 124 – 4(2): QEC’s 13th Annual Report 2013-2014 (Peterson)
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the 2013-14 Annual Report of the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
Tabled Document 125 – 4(2): Minimum Wage Annual Report for 2014 (Okalik)
As the Minister of Justice, I am pleased to table the Minimum Wage Annual Report for 2014.
Bill 21 – An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowance Act and the Supplementary Retiring Allowance Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowance Act and the Supplementary Retiring Allowance Act, be read for the first time.
In accordance with the authority provided to me by the Motion 19 – 4(2), the committee will stay in session until it reports itself out.
>>House recessed at 10:13 and Committee resumed at 10:40
I say “good morning” to the people of Baker Lake and Nunavut.
(interpretation ends) In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to continue with the review of the 2015-16 Main Estimates of the Department of Environment, followed by the Department of Culture and Heritage and, if time permits, the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Chairman: Are we in agreement that we continue with the main estimates for the Department of Environment?
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2015-2016 –Environment – Consideration in Committee
Minister of Environment, Mr. Mike, please introduce your officials.
Good morning, my fellow members and ministers, as well as Nunavummiut.
The officials who will be here with me to my right are Deputy Minister Nirlungayuk and Assistant Deputy Minister Pinksen.
Welcome to the House. (interpretation ends) We were on page I-4. (interpretation) Following my list of names, Mr. Enook.
The question I want to ask should perhaps be first asked to you, as I know we are on I-4.
This is related to the caribou management system and planned recovery plans, and I want to ask questions related to these plans.
I am unsure which page I can ask the questions on, as it can apply to page I-5 and even on the page we are reviewing.
Can you please direct me on this issue, Mr. Chairman.
We’re on Corporate Management.
You can ask those questions.
Welcome, my angajuksakuluk, Minister Mike.
I want to ask questions about the caribou management process before I am the only Baffin member not asking about caribou and the management therein. I would like some information to clarify this matter.
I believe Mr. Keyootak was asking questions in the House about the public releases and of the fact that the public may not be aware of the moratorium or he felt there wasn’t enough information available publicly to some communities in particular.
I want to refer to this article written in Nunatsiaq News in the March 4 edition where it speaks about the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board. This article stated that in the board’s view, the caribou moratorium which has been in place for over two months was decided unilaterally and without any transparency, although this issue is a very important matter for people due to the importance of caribou in our lives.
The Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board believes that the decision was made too hastily for this moratorium.
To ensure everyone in this region has the exact same information, can the minister provide an explanation of when, how, who, and where an opportunity was provided for feedback?
Some communities have stated they are unaware of this management decision and that they had no opportunity to make their views known in a momentous decision such as this. They should have been involved.
That is what I wanted clarified firstly.
I also thank my nukassakuluk, Member Enook.
Indeed, I can provide more information on the public releases and how this decision has been released to the public. We can speak to that aspect.
The Baffin Island caribou concerns have been in the forefront for several years, with the concern raised by QWB about the decline in the caribou population, including the concerns filtering up from the HTOs they represent and who are part of QWB.
A concern was raised by the organization around 2009 and 2010 about the declining caribou populations on Baffin Island.
After QWB presented their growing concerns about the caribou, they were amongst the first to voice that concern.
Obviously they represent the HTOs and local people are more attuned to changes in wildlife populations.
That is the way it works today.
In the year 2013, an interim joint committee to review the Baffin Island caribou issue was struck, which is called the (interpretation ends) Baffin Island caribou joint committee. (interpretation) They have representatives from the Nunavut government, NTI, NWMB, QWB, and HTOs. It was at their request to review this issue.
The committee was created either in June 2013 or July 2013.
At the first meeting, debate sprung up on an immediate management plan need. When the committee was created in 2013, elders were included as advisors for the caribou management committee.
One of the first decisions was to conduct an immediate survey of the caribou population in the region and how they could mitigate the decline in the caribou population.
This is where the decision was made, including the announcements.
I apologize if any communities weren’t fully apprised of the management decisions leading up to the caribou moratorium.
However, in the winter of 2014, the Baffin Island caribou committee debated their options and presented their recommendations.
The result was the 2014 winter caribou survey, as the committee wanted the latest numbers, although a caribou survey had been commenced earlier.
This is how the process went throughout the winter. When spring arrived, the caribou management issues were still at the forefront, as another meeting was held in July 2014 with a larger meeting held in November of 2014, last fall just prior to winter.
The report had various options related to the management decisions. As the caribou population estimates were available, the management options were identified as to how to manage our caribou.
That’s how we tried laying it out.
The Nunavut government identified three separate steps that had been brought back to the NWMB back in December in Rankin Inlet, so this was also dealt with.
The caribou hunting ban has gone through this process as we look for options to consider.
The regional wildlife office, in this case QWB, had ample opportunity for their input and desire to be involved in this caribou discussion. I do say that any members from QWB have not stated as to how they want to be involved in caribou management.
I’m sorry I have to make a long response, but I want him to understand where we are coming from.
In December when NWMB met, did they respond at that time regarding the caribou hunting ban?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Yes, that was the case and the proposed ban was presented for my approval and I agreed.
We deal with all kinds of wildlife in Nunavut through NTI and NWMB.
We have to work together in tough cases such as this. This was how it was.
I understood that NWMB recommended a caribou hunting ban for Baffin Island to you as minister.
I wonder why the media says that you stopped communicating with the QWB and it states that it was an acrimonious and jaded handling.
I wonder what was out of place here.
Thank you for asking about that.
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement spells out in Article 5 how it deals with wildlife matters.
The agreement states that the Nunavut government minister has a role to play as outlined in this case as it relates to the approval of this caribou hunting ban.
Due to this, wildlife management has to go through this process and no other way.
If we deviate from normal practice where numbers were healthy and then a drastic decline in population occurred, which was observed by local hunters, who then voiced their concerns, this right is outlined in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Since they are aware of their rights and obligations due to their involvement in wildlife issues, they recommended that a moratorium be enacted in the interim. It wasn’t meant to be permanent.
Another issue rose related to communication or the communication breakdown.
I personally am unaware where the breakdown occurred if QWB wasn’t aware of this development, including the communities. I don’t know where the communication lines went awry due to the fact that this moratorium was discussed earlier as part of the caribou management consultation process.
This was brought up as well as other options, such as a limited harvest of caribou, certain areas that would be subject to this moratorium, or to have only a winter or spring hunting ban while the caribou are calving or during their mating season.
These were the types of issues debated by the groups.
I apologize if the details weren’t released locally by either QWB or HTOs, and I can’t respond on their behalf.
Another matter relates to the local HTOs. Some of them have stated that they weren’t provided with any opportunity to voice their choice on the options.
I wonder why the HTOs would state that they weren’t provided an opportunity to select their options in the management plan.
With respect to this apparent breakdown, I personally haven’t received any correspondence from QWB or HTOs about this complaint.
I have heard on the media about the lack of communication.
Within our offices, we haven’t received any correspondence outlining this concern and I personally haven’t seen letters to that effect.
I imagine it could be due to the fact that the HTOs and QWB who voiced their concerns about the caribou population decline in the Baffin region also have a representative at the NWMB board level.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated also has a wildlife department that deals with Inuit wildlife concerns.
With respect to this complaint, as of now, there weren’t any population concerns expressed at the time of the first meetings from 2009 and 2010.
The caribou surveys have been ongoing since that time.
In the year 2013, when the parties wanted to strike a subcommittee, QWB, NTI, NWMB, and the government jointly established this committee to review the caribou population concerns expressed by our hunters.
When the process reached the caribou moratorium option, this option wasn’t brand new as this option was clearly identified within the Government of Nunavut options paper listed as the third option.
The other two options were for a limited hunt or seasons.
I can’t respond with the insinuation that the caribou were in danger of extirpation.
However, what is an expectation is that the meetings are held mostly in Iqaluit.
After the representatives have attended these meetings, if they haven’t informed their membership upon their return to their communities, then yes, we can run into precarious situations.
In the year 2014, we also made a decision within the Department of Environment. We initiated a final community tour in 2014.
Less than 400 people attended our community tour. Approximately 380 people attended.
During our public meeting regarding caribou in Iqaluit, some members did not attend or their attendance was quite low or perhaps their representative did not inform the public.
Since I became minister, I have talked about caribou management on Baffin Island in the House three times.
I’m probably not the only one who has received correspondence from the wildlife organizations in regard to the question.
Mr. Chairman, my other question is, since we have had a moratorium on caribou, one of our colleagues stated that the people were not properly informed.
How did you inform or consult with the community that there is a recommendation or the moratorium will go into effect?
My deputy minister will respond if you will give him the opportunity, Mr. Nirlungayuk.
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Enook.