EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
When we say suspension, that usually means you’re suspended privileges at the residents and you may have suspended privileges for a couple of weeks while an investigation is going on.
If there are charges being laid by the RCMP, then that is a different case because if there are charges laid by the RCMP, then something serious may have occurred. In that case, Mr. Speaker, then a different protocol would be in place for the termination of the student’s accommodations at the residence.
Question 437 – 2(4): Update on Employees’ Payroll Canada Savings Bonds (Arvaluk)
After receiving a letter dated October 19, 2007, I asked a question regarding the Canada Savings Bonds and if those could be applied to government employees. That used to be the case when we were still under the Government of the Northwest Territories.
At the time of division, that wasn’t divvied up between the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Territories. This matter was going to be looked into but nothing has been done to date. Could you give us an update today?
Minister of Human Resources and Finance, Minister Tapardjuk.
I don’t have a copy of the correspondence dated October 19, 2007, so at this time, I will have to take the question as notice.
Mr. Arvaluk, the minister will get back to your question. I’m sorry, Mr. Arvaluk.
Question 438 – 2(4): Sole Source Contract – Inuujaq School in Arctic Bay (Barnabas)
I would like to direct my question to Minister of Community and Government Services.
Mr. Speaker, last year I tabled a set of photographs depicting the condition of the school.
Yesterday, I posed questions to the Minister of Education with regards to the very same school.
But, Mr. Speaker, Kudlik Construction was sole sourced to renovate the school and it will cost approximately $2 million to renovate.
The member is representing three communities, so I would like him to identify which school he’s referring to.
I am referring to the Inuujaq School in Arctic Bay.
As I stated earlier, I tabled pictures and I posed some questions to the Minister of Education.
Thank you for rephrasing your question.
I will try to respond to that question and it’s better for me when their preamble is quite long because I get a chance to find the appropriate response.
I have a hard time finding the information. In regard to the school in Arctic Bay, we hired some consultants to find out exactly how much renovation is required and it had a price tag of $950,000 to renovate the windows and the doors and so on.
I don’t think I’ll be able to respond to your question in regard to sole sourcing Kudlik Construction.
I will want to get a response to that and I would like the minister to provide me with that information if she cannot respond to me today. The government is going to be using a lot of money and we did get materials in Arctic Bay, like windows and so on.
The private companies in Arctic Bay weren’t even asked to see if they had the materials, when, in fact, they did.
I didn’t realize that. I will look into the matter and I would like to thank the member for bringing that up.
I will look into the issue and get back to the member within the next few days.
Is this for Oral Questions?
I want to confirm that I had my hand up earlier.
I thought you had me on the list, so I want to confirm that before I go on.
Speaker (interpretation): I apologize, Member for Iqaluit Centre.
Because it’s the end of Question Period, I didn’t see anybody with their hand raised, so you will have to ask your colleagues if you could go ahead with your question. You may do so if you wanted to ask a question, Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: No, that’s okay.
Reply to Budget Address 001 – 2(4): Mr. Tagak Curley
This will be the last day for that, so I would like to make a comment on the situation in Nunavut and the challenges that we face on a daily basis.
Again, these are unique challenges that we face that do not exist in the other jurisdictions.
The budget doesn’t really deal with any issues or challenges that we face up here and we can’t quite figure out how the Government of Nunavut, and this is especially for the Minister of Finance, we can end up with a surplus when our cost of living is extremely high when you look at the rest of the nation.
We have the highest costs for food.
For example, it’s very hard for some people to make ends meet with the costs of food, transportation, housing, and the daily essentials.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that the NTI made a comment and Monica Ell stated that a family in Arviat, after all expenses, they go into a deficit of $168 per month.
How can the Government of Nunavut end up with a surplus when the people of Nunavut are going into a deficit situation just trying to make ends meet for essentials of living?
Mr. Speaker, we would like to understand how the government can have a surplus when some communities are given huge projects.
For example, we have the wildlife officers who are operating without any money and the housing associations are building houses through the Project Management Fund when they don’t have a project manager.
The situation in Nunavut, Mr. Speaker, is: should I pay for my house or should I pay for my food?
We all need shelter and we all need food.
That must change.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, our communities have the greatest infrastructure deficit of any community in Canada.
Our communities lack roads, boats, wharfs, and most have inadequate and outdated airports.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the budget to address the infrastructure deficit in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, the budget may have a surplus but our communities have little to live with the reality of infrastructure deficit everyday.
Mr. Speaker, this budget does nothing to deal with the cycle of escalating costs that confront our communities.
Mr. Speaker, we need to deal with this as a top priority and seriously.
Our communities completely lack the basic transportation infrastructure that most communities in the south take for granted.
Mr. Speaker, our transportation costs, mainly air transportation up here, as well as the marine transportation, and consequently, the costs of everything that come into and out of our communities are only compounded by the fact that our communities lack just basic transportation infrastructure.
In plain terms, Mr. Speaker, the lack of infrastructure capacity in our communities increases our costs and reduces the services available to us. Less capacity equals more costs and fewer services.
Mr. Speaker, the costs that we end up paying is a reduced opportunity for economic development. The budget does not provide anything for these costs.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Premier signed an Infrastructure Agreement with the federal government from the Building Canada Fund.
Nunavut is going to receive about $185 million over the next seven years.
This is good money, Mr. Speaker, because any money from Ottawa is good money, but in real terms, Mr. Speaker, it is not that beneficial for Nunavut and I’ll tell you why.
Under the Building Canada Fund, every territory and province is going to receive $25 million per year for seven years.
From this perspective, Nunavut received just a little more than a million a year extra. This is really not enough, Mr. Speaker. Not enough even to begin to address the infrastructure deficit in our communities.
What makes it more disappointing, Mr. Speaker, is that these monies will not be used for ports. The communities, most of them, even headquarters, lack any marine ports in Nunavut.
There is something wrong here, Mr. Speaker.
We need more from Ottawa and our communities deserve more from Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, when our leaders go to Ottawa, we need them to do more than play golf. We need them to deliver for our communities in Nunavut. We have to break the cycle of escalating costs that begins with dealing with our fundamental under-capacity in infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, our communities in Nunavut want the same benefits and opportunities, the capacity that Canada offers, provides for, and makes available in its southern regions, to be made available here in our local communities for the benefit of our peoples across Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, the budget presented by the Finance Minister does not deliver on that and for our people.
Last week when the Senators were here visiting Iqaluit studying poverty, a representative from NTI, Monica Ell, told the Senators, “Nunavut is not poor. Our land is rich. Our people are strong.
Our communities just need the basic tools that Canada makes available to its communities in Southern Canada.” Mr. Speaker, Monica Ell is absolutely right. Nunavut is not poor.
Our people are strong. All we need are the tools that include good government.
For our sustainable economic development, we need good government.
Mr. Speaker, looking back at recent developments in GN, our communities are not getting a good government; we are not getting good leadership.
We need leadership that brings people together. We need leadership that brings our communities together. Most of all, we need leadership that partners with our communities, Mr. Speaker.
This budget doesn’t deliver.
Mr. Speaker, my community, for instance, is waiting for road transportation and requires a decent docking facility. This is not to mention the seven communities that continue to wait for the small craft harbours funding from Ottawa.
We’re still living in the dark ages when marine transportation, loading, and cargo come in every summer. Nunavut is approximately one fifth of Canada’s land mass and we have around two thirds of Canada’s total coastline, and yet, we do not have any ports or policies to build decent ports in Nunavut.
It’s a shame, Mr. Speaker.
At least, according to the budget tabled in our Legislature, we are running a surplus.
Imagine: our communities need significant investment to get the tools they need to generate jobs in tourism, fishing, hunting, harvesting, and transportation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to underline this: we need the infrastructure badly. We are still waiting. Our government has to make this a priority.
Mr. Speaker, we need a vision and leadership at the territorial level and we need leadership to bring this message to Ottawa, to work with Ottawa to deliver on this for our communities.
Mr. Speaker, this includes a vision and commitment to deliver on a plan that will finally connect and bring our communities together.
Our communities need major significant investments across all modes of transportation, including air, rail, and roads.
What is required, Mr. Speaker, is more than just $26 million a year for the next seven years under the Building Canada Fund. Let Nunavummiut remember that this is $33 billion that Canada provides for communities across Canada.
Nunavut requires billions of dollars in federal investment in basic infrastructure, and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, tens of billions of dollars, in fact, are required beginning today, Mr. Speaker.
I guess I was just a little slow sticking my hand up, but I would like to ask for unanimous consent to go back to Tabling of Documents.
The member is asking for unanimous consent to go back to Item 14.
Revert to Item 14: Tabling of Documents
Tabled Document 185 – 2(4): Letter from Sarah Ali Requesting Support for ING Speed Skating Challenge Video (Tootoo)
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a letter from Sarah Ali describing what the ING Speed Skating Challenge means to her and how you, and all other Nunavummiut, can support her by voting for her video online and all of the directions are on there.
Mr. Speaker, once again I encourage all of you to log on to the speed skating website and vote.
Please bring the documents up so that when we’re in our hotel rooms we can look through them.
Tabled Document 186 – 2(4): Seniors Facility for Kugluktuk – Motion from Elders Meeting February 12, 2008 (Evyagotailak)
I would like to thank my colleague, I had my earphone off.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a copy of a motion made by the Kugluktuk Elders Committee regarding the urgent need for a 24-Hour care facility for the elders in Kugluktuk.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second such motion put forward by the Elders Committee. As you will see, I am also attaching the signatures of those who voted on this motion.
I urge the government to give this motion full consideration.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Evyagotailak. (interpretation ends) Can we have that document brought forward to the table, please.
If there are no more, Item 15.
Motion 026 – 2(4): Extension of Review Period for Bills 6 and 7 (Mapsalak)
AND WHEREAS Rule 66(1) provides that bills referred to a Standing Committee shall not be proceeded with until the Assembly receives the report from the Committee or 120 calendar days pass from the day the bill was given second reading;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly approved motion 20 – 2(4) on October 30, 2007, to grant a 120-day extension to the Standing Committee’s review period;
AND WHEREAS the Standing Committee is committed to fulfilling its responsibility to review these bills with care;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Uqqummiut, that the period of time for the Standing Committee to report Bills 6 and 7 back to the House be extended by a further 120 days.
Motion 027 – 2(4): Acceptance of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly Regarding Mr. David Simailak, MLA (Tootoo)
WHEREAS the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly has tabled the Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut regarding the conduct of Mr. David Simailak, Member of the Legislative Assembly for Baker Lake;
AND WHEREAS the Integrity Act requires that the Legislative Assembly shall consider a report laid before the House within 10 sitting days after its tabling, and shall respond to the report before the end of the session in which the report is laid before it;
AND WHEREAS the Integrity Commissioner has made certain recommendations;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly may either accept or reject all of the Integrity Commissioner’s recommendations;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nattilik, that the Report and recommendations of the Integrity Commissioner be accepted.
To the motion. Member for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
My apologies, Mr. Tootoo. Before we proceed, I wish to remind members of the following: any member will have the opportunity speak once for no more than 20 minutes.
The mover will speak to the motion first and the seconder will be next.
The mover of the motion will have the opportunity for the last reply.
As the mover of this motion, I wish to offer some comments for the public record today.
I would like to begin by thanking the Member for Nattilik for having seconded this motion.
The matter in question is one that must be dealt with by the Legislative Assembly as a whole, and it is my hope that today’s vote on the motion will be unanimous.
Mr. Speaker, when the Members of the Legislative Assembly passed the Integrity Act in 2001, we had high hopes that our statute would be amongst the strongest of its kind in the nation. Seven years later, I continue to believe that we have a good piece of legislation.
When we developed and passed the Integrity Act that I believe was done in Cambridge Bay under the midnight sun, one of our concerns was to achieve a goal of ensuring that elected officials do not use their positions for personal gain while not throwing up unnecessary disincentives to people who are active in the business community from either running for public office and bringing their ideas, experience, and energy to the floor of this House.
Mr. Speaker, transparency is the key and I believe that the Integrity Commissioner’s Report to the Legislative Assembly on this matter provides clear observations with respect to this dimension of the situation.
I also believe that the report’s recommendations are clear and appropriate as they relate to this specific matter, which is why I have moved this motion before the House today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by again commenting that transparency is essential. I continue to believe that we need a system to formally register and regulate the activity of paid lobbyists. This is an issue that the Integrity Commissioner commented on in his most recent annual report to the Legislative Assembly as was the issue of the development of conflict of interest guidelines for senior officials.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll conclude my comments by saying that at the appropriate time, I’ll be asking for a recorded vote on this motion.
As the seconder to the motion, I would like to make a few comments to the motion and it’s more in general to the whole transparency and disclosure issue.
First, I agree with the recommendations in the report and this is an unfortunate occurrence with high consequences and implications, as seen unfolding in the last few months.
Mr. Speaker, today I want to speak about transparency and the intent of the Integrity Act. As I understand it, I believe it’s a good Act and the report that was tabled by the Speaker, by yourself, Mr. Speaker, it states that openness is the fundamental feature of the legislation.
I truly believe in that statement and disclosure is the essential means by which potential conflict between private and public interests can be identified and be avoided, and every Member in this House is accountable for that full disclosure and his or her objectivity and impartiality can be fairly judged.
When we talked about fairly judged … we say by whom, by people in this House and by people of Nunavut.
Again, the very people who elected us and put us in these jobs; we have a responsibility to the public to hold our jobs in the highest regards.
As an MLA, and as MLAs in this House, we disclose our salary on an annual basis, we disclose any gifts that we receive beyond a certain amount from any private sector, we also disclose our debts, we also disclose who our spouse is, their employment, their business interests and so on; my children, or your children, your spouse; we have to disclose that as part of the legislation and it’s all about openness and transparency and accountability. But, not only that, Mr. Speaker, within the government, we also have policies in place for our senior staff.
Our senior staff also are required to disclose their personal and private interests. Why do we do that? We do that to ensure that we protect the public interest.
So, again, I’m in full agreement that these are measures that are in place to ensure that when we make our decisions, when we deliberate, and when we debate that we are making the best decisions for Nunavummiut with the best information before us for them.
I believe that it’s long overdue in Nunavut to take this transparency a step further.
I believe that other organizations outside this legislature, outside 19 members, have to be extended. And, I say that because there are other elected officials out there who make decisions for me and for all of you.
I am a beneficiary of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Inuit organizations, I believe, should be disclosing their salaries, their benefits, their perks, their spouses’ business interests and so on. I think, as a beneficiary, I have a right to know if the people I elected are making decisions for me, or people that are appointed are making decisions for the best interest for myself and people of Nunavut.
I have heard in the past, the saying from my leaders, “We’re not government, so we don’t need to disclose whether our spouse is listed as an interest in a company. I don’t need to disclose that because we’re not government.” I have been told that personally.
Guess what? It’s my money. It’s our money and we have the right to know that.
And, I believe, as well, that our elected officials in the Inuit organizations and the IPG senior staff have to also disclose their personal interests.
They make decisions on our behalf, they influence decisions in their senior jobs, and I have a right to know that; people in Nunavut have a right to know that.
The disclosure, as I said, should extend beyond this House, and as it is right now, any Nunavummiut can walk into this building, go upstairs and go through our disclosure statements.
It’s public, it’s transparent, and I believe that every beneficiary should have that right as well. I think they have a right to go and hold their other leaders accountable.
I believe that privilege exercised to hold us accountable has to be extended to the beneficiaries of Nunavut. After all, it’s about being honest, being open, and being accountable to the people of Nunavut.
And, today those are comments that I wanted to make around the transparency issue, and again, it’s an unfortunate incident that occurred here and it’s a difficult one we have to deal with as mentioned by my colleague who moved the motion.
I want to again just state that I’m in support of the recommendations in the report.
I thank my colleagues for their comments. Mr. Speaker, ministers and MLAs are elected to represent their constituents and ridings with dignity and honour, and I firmly believe in that.
We’re expected to be role models to our constituents and all Nunavummiut who they can trust and respect without question.
Mr. Speaker, in Nunavut, the jurisdiction is small, there’s no question about that.
It’s a big geographic area but there are only 31,000 of us here, so everybody seems to know what everyone else is doing.
You hear it on the radio, you hear it in the airports, you hear it in town in the coffee shops, as a politician, you can’t escape the microscope and it’s on you everyday, and that doesn’t just include MLAs and ministers, it includes all politicians.
Mr. Speaker, it’s incumbent upon all elected leaders in Nunavut to recognize this when they perform their duties, whether it’s for the government, or this Legislative Assembly, or other organizations in Nunavut.
We’re not elected to help ourselves personally, or our business interests, or those of our friends and relatives.
Mr. Speaker, I often hear and I have heard this for as long as I’ve been around, it seems like, we often hear the people comment that politicians are only in the elected offices to help themselves. In fact, they always call politicians crooks.
It’s one of the things we hear when they do the surveys, we’re ranked down there as seven percent of the Canadian population that think we’re crooks; we’re down there with the murderers and thieves. That’s how bad it is.
To this end, Mr. Speaker, it’s incumbent on all elected officials to act in ways that ensure that public confidence in their offices is beyond reproach.
In the little things you do, the big things you do, the things you don’t do, everybody will, in Nunavut anyway, everybody will know what you’re doing so they can tell how you’re performing.
Mr. Speaker, we are elected to represent our constituents to the best of our abilities and we’re not perfect. We’re not experts in everything but there is a lot of common sense in what we can apply everyday of our lives; we know the difference between right and wrong, and those are easy questions to answer.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if we work hard, we’ll represent Nunavut well and the public confidence will never ever be in doubt.
Mr. Speaker, I will be in support of my colleague’s motion.
At this time, I would like to explain that I will not be voting to this motion.
I also would like to state that I will want to make a response tomorrow morning. I am in support of all the motions. I would like all members to vote in favour of the motion.
I am in support of this motion because our current Integrity Commissioner will be resigning at the end of March.
It is stated in the Act that he has to investigate and make a report to the Member for Baker Lake. He was fair and he was sensitive.
If the Member for Baker Lake apologizes, this issue will be over. I want to conclude with that and I would like to say that I’m sure that this was not done on purpose. I’m sure we will hear from our colleague for Baker Lake tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I was a bit concerned because I believe that we will have to look further into the regulations that we cannot control.
If any ministers are travelling overseas, then they have to follow these policies and we as a government can control that.