EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would like, what I have done so far to keep going, to keep working on it, and if we’re going to be taking out a Minister and put in a new one, then there’s going to be a stall because we will have to replace a minister.
Yet things have to keep going at this moment.
We have this momentum that we have to keep going.
We cannot be making replacements.
And we have to talk to the people of Nunavut that we represent.
I can tell each Minister; because of course I have visited each of your communities.
There are some people who at many times have been told the concerns of their representatives.
And they don’t say anything about it in the House.
There are people out there who say my representative is now a Minister and is neither representing me nor voicing the needs and the wishes of the people in his or her riding.
If that’s the case, I have to work extremely hard because of the people of Nunavut out there.
The people of Nunavut want to be represented now.
They want to participate in the proceedings.
When we got the Government of Nunavut in 1999, everything has come to a halt and the people who were working within the government have resigned because there is no place for them.
They have not been able to go forward.
With this government we have to think about the unilingual Inuit who should be able to work within the government but there are so many barriers and challenges created now and the only thing that we are focusing now is the procedural matters and the policies and the regulations and so on where we can’t move forward anymore.
No wonder the number of suicides has increased because we are creating more challenges and barriers from the time the Government of Nunavut was created.
Our government and as people of Nunavut we have to integrate our beliefs and our traditions.
What had happened with the previous government is that they would come to our community and they would tell us this is how it it’s going to be from now on; we weren’t given a voice; they didn’t even go to our community to hear those wishes and concerns of the people.
Today with this present government we go on consulting tours so that we’ll give you innovative ideas and to have pieces of legislation that were made for Nunavut.
Although the Minister’s roles and responsibilities have to keep going but it seems like they are not making the decisions on behalf of the people of Nunavut that they represent.
It is about time that you’ll get closer to the people of Nunavut and here we are we are trying to use alien rules in order to remove a certain Cabinet Member.
Yet, we are the legislators who draw up those pieces of legislation so that they are Nunavut made.
But if we do that then the Nunavut Government will have a made in Nunavut government.
And of course, the people out there and the other governments can learn that we are a unique government.
We learn a lot of things everyday; we have students who we are paving to take our places and for those of us who are older who did not go through the formal school systems were taught by the mothers and the fathers and have learned the traditional values of the ancestors and there is nothing in the policies and legislation that is integrated Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit portion.
When I was in Calgary in 1996 on a workshop, there were legislators who were there in that workshop and also an instructor who said, we don’t have written traditional laws, what are we going to do and he responded and said that they are there; you use it on a daily basis and that was exactly true.
This is something that has been my foundation in whatever I do and I do that, even though I am unilingual.
This is the comment that I wanted to make in order to keep the momentum going I will not be supportive of the motion.
I’m really enjoying the discussion at this point because I grasp everything that is being discussed and listen to everybody’s point of view.
If we are frank and open, we will get everything out in the open.
Like I mentioned earlier because when we started talking about suicide we have no choice but to talk about it in the open because it has become a crisis situation - in the past nobody talked about suicide; we have no choice but to talk about it out in the open because it’s become a crisis situation because in the past nobody talked about suicide.
That’s why I’m saying that as Inuit, we are very much right to the point and very blunt about discussing things.
I really believe \the cabinet ministers must work in unity, have a consensus, because they are a consensus government; they must do their work together.
The discussion that we’re having today, the motion to remove someone is based on a technical issue.
It seems to me that the petroleum products issue that is behind the whole is really just an excuse, not the real reason for this current action.
If it gets passed, it will be passed.
It will be carried.
There’s no other way because if the cabinet has already decided to remove a Minister it’s going to be accomplished. It’s going to pass.
The reason for making this removal doesn’t seem to be a valid one.
Although we have been given a chance to speak on it, which is all we can do, express our views on it.
Mr. Speaker, he made one minor mistake and although we have a lot to say on more important issues, like I mentioned this morning, there’s a lot of things that we need to do.
That one little issue is the cause of the whole thing being used as a technicality.
It is nice to be given twenty minutes apiece to speak to the issue, while we barely have anywhere near that time to discuss other matters. It is great to have that amount of time to discuss one issue!
Someone mentioned earlier that Inuit traditions are being used here.
I couldn’t disagree more!
A rebellious person would have been given a slap and a warning not to do it again, and the next time he would be told he is on his own and to leave; that one little issue that is being used to remove the minister.
Now you’re saying that we’re using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit that is absolutely nothing.
There’s absolutely nothing in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit that we’re using in this procedure and in this process.
Maybe they go through a process where they have disciplinary avenues for doing things like we did from our ancestors we use the same view; do this again, I’m going to do this to you next time if you do something bad.
That’s how we did it in the past.
I’m in my 50s; I understand my tradition but my colleague here knows even more about my Inuit tradition than I do.
The leaders, cabinet leaders are younger than me.
I am wiser than them because I’m older and since they’re younger than me, they have not even caught up with the concept of what it feels like to be Inuk.
They have gone through the education system.
They have been taught about the academics but they have no concept of my traditional unilingual values and principles.
This little thing that we’re going through is a very small technicality compared to the whole Inuit tradition.
We’re going through a whole situation right where the media, CBC reports only the negative parts of what we’re discussing.
I don’t know how many people said the removal of Jack Anawak is based on inadequate reasons and he should only have been given a warning.
Also, if we’re doing it in this way, the younger people according to the cabinet members are removing the sole elder in the cabinet.
You call this Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
Those people who say they know about Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, you don’t know what Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is and I’m trying to explain it to you.
We are going through a very hard situation today and I think what I stated earlier has to be a priority, that if we recognize the human right of Canada doesn’t reflect the needs of the Inuit people.
Like I mentioned earlier, I think our government needs to recognize us, we are here as Inuit people, beneficiaries, because Inuit are here we have a government and they receive funding from the federal government because of the Inuit and our land.
I’m glad we are able to speak on this issue because at least the staff in the departments will know what we’re seeing and where there needs to be improvement to improve the government system.
I was so happy when Anawak became the Minister of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth because that was the only department that was able to voice the concerns of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and implement them in the workforce and I was so unhappy when his portfolio was removed from Culture, Language, Elders and Youth and then given to the youngest Member of the Cabinet.
Because the content of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth is a very comprehensive portfolio, it should be under someone who is wise and our elder.
You could give me a Point of Order.
What I’m speaking is true.
In Hall Beach, people who cannot speak English are forced to live in the English way.
This does not help anyone.
I am thankful I am given 20 minutes to speak my mind.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the motion.
I understand that there was a motion given.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the motion because a motion was table to improve the process or the procedures of the government and I agree with that there’s room for improvement so that we don’t have any more suicides.
We need to be truthful in what we do and make sure that they train our social workers and counsellors to meet the needs of our Inuit people.
Thank you I’ll speak to this again later.
Do not get scared, I am going to be using my hands.
As MLA’s, we represent communities and as MLA’s we have to abide by the rules and we have agreed to the rules and we have stated that we have been told that we have to incorporate any values into the system.
For example, in the Court System, we do have elders involved who know Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, but to the Motion, I am in support of the Motion because for the future Members, like we have heard, there is a twenty-two year old in Greenland that is a Member of the Legislature of the Home Rule.
This might happen in the future, and if this happens then they will have to amend all the rules that they might have.
For that reason, the voters, I am sure, will disagree with me, but I will be in support of the Motion because we have to abide by the rules that are set forth, because we have to follow the rules in order to operate and function properly whether we are friends or not.
Jack Anawak is my good friend and I would like to see him keep his portfolio, but according to the rules that have been set, I am going to support the Motion because if I commit suicide, nobody else can revive me.
I just wanted to make that point.
I felt that I am wiser since I am older than Enoki.
I have a very brief comment to make to the Motion.
Yes, we need rules to follow in order to operate functionally.
I have a mother who is 88 years old.
When I was a social worker and I was really frustrated, I would ask those questions, as an elder, I am sure you run into all of the Legislation of the Government and she told me, “You tell me that you, as a social worker that you want everyone to take care of their children and not abuse their children”.
She told me what my responsibility and duty was at my work and she told me a long time ago they had many traditional rules and they followed their rules so much that they ended up killing another individual.
A woman had to deliver her baby in an igloo by themselves and no one could enter that tent and she told me all about these traditional rules and I started thinking, oh, I am so glad it is today, because we can now have rules that can keep you in line.
To the motion, today, I would like to say, if we can have a Minister without a portfolio; then why are none of us on this side are a Minister?
Any one of the Ministers should hold their portfolio because the majority of the Members are sitting on the regular Members’ side.
If anyone is going to be a Minister, they should have a portfolio to hold on, if they do not have any portfolio, perhaps, we have the right to be Ministers too, without portfolios.
For that reason, I will be supporting the Motion because Members of the Cabinet and each Minister should hold a portfolio because there is a lot of other business to deal with.
Yes, I know that we are a very young government and Inuit beneficiaries have a very good entity, which is the NTI, which could deal with Inuit traditional laws.
This government is a public government and they’re the government for all the people of Nunavut, not just the beneficiaries.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the motion because we need a minister who holds a portfolio.
I don’t want to be misunderstood.
I’m not saying I don’t want Jack Anawak.
That’s not what I’m doing.
It’s not personal; I have nothing against Mr. Anawak.
If that happens to the Premier, I’m sure we would take it as serious.
I want the public to understand that we’re not trying to oust a Member here, we’re just deciding if he should hold the portfolio or not.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would say that all the Members of the cabinet should have a portfolio to hold on to.
Mr. Speaker, this is not easy for any of us.
There’s not one person in the House who relishes or is even going to enjoy what’s going to happen today, whatever way it goes.
And the person in this House who says they want to see it happen, to me is not a good person.
I don’t enjoy it.
I certainly don’t enjoy it.
I got off the plane in 1971 and Jack Anawak was one of the first Inuit that I met in Rankin Inlet.
I’ve know him ever since.
Here’s the issue, Mr. Speaker.
I’ve been angry with this government for four years.
I don’t like how it works.
I don’t like the system.
It’s new and foreign to me also.
You go to any jurisdiction in Canada, any jurisdiction and you’ll have the politicians saying the same things, we don’t like the way it operates.
But I’m telling you Mr. Speaker, thank God its Canada.
Thank God we have some kind of sense of rules that we have to operate under.
I know it might not be conducive to Inuit culture.
Rules are not conducive to any culture.
But I’m glad that we have them in Canada.
Can you imagine if we had the Iraqi rules where we’d be today?
I hate to make a comparison between Nunavut and Iraq.
I’m glad that the rules that we got, which I don’t like either, and everybody knows that I’m vocal about what I don’t like in this government.
But fortunately for all those people who worked 30 and 40 years to build Nunavut, Arvaluk, Amagoalik, Quassa, and the personal sacrifices that they gave, the tumultuous lives they had, being away from their families, they did a wonderful job.
I can say, for somebody who’s lived up here for 30 years, I think we’ve got a half decent system here.
It might not be perfect but it’s not bad.
And I believe in consensus government.
The responsibilities that these Ministers have to deal with, I made the decision early in my political career that I didn’t want to deal with it.
Because when you are a Minister, you’ve got to give up your own constituency.
You’ve got to represent everybody out there.
So, every one of those Ministers has to forget about their constituency.
And everybody who is a Minister or has been a Minister knows, when they’re back in their community, people are mad at them because they’re taking someone else’s concern ahead of theirs.
It’s a very tough decision to become a Minister.
I know when these people become Ministers, they try to represent everybody and it’s difficult because they go back to their communities and they say you’re never there.
I’ve heard it about every Minister on that side of the House and I don’t envy any of them.
On that point, when I vote for you guys, when I vote Ministers, I’m saying hopefully they will represent my riding also on the big picture.
Unfortunately for us, along the way, we get elected and come into the House and we’re going to change the world.
We’re all going to change the Nunavut system, take it in a different direction and make everything great, but unfortunately on our way to doing this, in every one of our communities, we’ve got suicides, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, assaults, we've got everything.
And that’s taking up our day-to-day lives, dealing with our constituencies and trying to make them better places.
Sure, if we had the time to detach ourselves from our daily responsibilities to go out there and make it a better place, which we are trying to do every day in this House, it would probably be a lot better than what we've got now.
Sure, it’s not great and it’s not the answer but give us some credit for it and what I hear around here, I believe what my colleagues are saying.
There is passion in their statements and they put their lives in it.
I represent a large constituency and I listen to my constituency also.
So it’s unfortunate that this is happening today, but like I say that is today.
I was in your riding of Taloyoak two years ago and I was angry with the government and complaining to the mayor, I said; "You know, I don’t know what we are doing". Dennis Lyall said; "Relax Glen, this territory is only a baby and it’s going to take years for it to get to where we want it to go."
That’s the first advice I heard in four years as an MLA, relax, take your time and somebody else said it, I believe that Jobie said it.
There’s a 22-year-old MLA in Greenland right now, the next election we might have some 22 year olds and their ideas and the way they operate this Assembly are going to conflict with whoever else is here now and in the future.
Some of us are young and some of us are old and some of us are not going to be here next time and there could be a new younger group with different ideas that say we can do it better.
So on that issue, what I have noticed in the last four years is teamwork; we need team work.
Our function over here is to make sure that group over there, acts as a team and we try to do it sometimes.
Sometimes it may look like we don’t have concentrated plans but our concern is somebody sitting behind me said: "Glen don’t forget, people are the government not government are the people." That is another good piece of advice that I’d like to go by.
But my problem and the reason that I support the motion today is that I have known everyone of you for four years and we have to have teamwork and when the team’s not working together, you’re not operating the way a team should.
So, Mr. Speaker today I’m going to support the motion.
Speaker (interpretation): To the Motion 002-1 (6).
We will deal with this after your comments have been made.
On my list again.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity I will try and make my comments brief.
I will try not to direct my comments on a personal basis or as to how the personal lives are as it is not in my nature to attack people personally.
Looking back at the issue, if anyone had good leadership in the Inuit culture, I will only speak on my experiences in the Inuit culture.
If there is a solid family unit they will have a good family if they have a good leader.
That’s what I have learned.
But if they didn’t have good parents they don’t know which direction to take and that’s where the family breakdown begins if there isn’t good leadership in a unit and that’s how we should see ourselves by working together we are working as a unit.
A lot of things today seem to come down to monetary value and so with the procedural issue we are dealing with, we want to somehow incorporate the Inuit culture within Government.
What I see today, at least operationally, Inuit culture has no place in Government at all.
We are using Government procedures and operations, it is like going backwards, as if we have taken a step backwards because the procedures take precedence over what the wishes of our people are.
We have stated in the House that we will use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, where is it?
It is nowhere to be seen at all.
It is not in use, there is no Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit applied here whatsoever, although we had made the commitment to incorporate it.
And our parents have always told us that we should help other people, we should help each other and that is what our youngest Cabinet Member has been told by his elders that he should help other people as much as he can.
And that is the advice that we get from our parents and our elders.
What I see today is that we seem to take the responsibilities away from this person.
We are their support for this person to ensure that this person take on his responsibilities as is expected.
So, where are we going forward with that?
If Inuit culture and traditions are to be incorporated, how are we going to use it in this situation?
I am not going for or against the motion, I am just speaking on my experiences with my culture, but it looks like we are taking a step backwards.
As the next election date is coming up, we are just worried about getting back in without really realizing what needs to be done.
We are just going backwards and are not accomplishing as much as we should be.
We should be incorporating Inuit knowledge.
I hope I made myself clear.
I wanted to make my comments short.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Speaker, I have known Jack Anawak for approximately 20 years, but not quite as long as my elder colleague from Baker Lake, but certainly quite a long time.
And, it was in those days that he was a Mayor, he was involved with the Regional Council, in the Private Sector and I also helped work on his campaigns when he was elected and went for re-election as a Member of Parliament for Nunavut.
Having said all of that, I know that Jack also is a hard working and dedicated MLA and certainly as a Minister in carrying out his responsibilities.
He also, as we all know, speaks his mind.
He speaks out on issues that he believes in and I remember on popular decisions, I remember him seeking elders' support on Firearms Legislation.
I remember him speaking out against voting in favour of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement.
And these were all minority positions at the time.
There is one thing that he does not probably remember or maybe he does.
At one point, I was working for the Kitikmeot Inuit Association in Cambridge Bay, there was an ITC Annual Meeting being held in Cambridge Bay.
I was asked by an elected official to represent KIA at those meetings.
A delegate challenged my status there, being a non-aboriginal person, and at that time, I believe he was a Mayor, but he was a delegate there, Jack came forward and spoke up on my behalf.
You know, saying it was my right to be there to speak.
So those are some of the things that I truly respect in Mr. Anawak, sorry Mr. Speaker, because he does speak out in what he believes in. But having said all that Mr. Speaker, I have to put all those things aside in dealing with this motion today.
Every Member of the Legislative Assembly here has a right to speak his mind, particularly on behalf of their constituents and we actually have a responsibility to do that.
Mr. Anawak has certainly done that in this case.
The question is, and the issue here is, speaking out as a Cabinet Member, contrary to a Cabinet decision, that’s really the focus of how this has all come about.
Now, the public at large, Mr. Speaker, really doesn’t understand the difference between a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a Cabinet Member.
I think that as regular Members would know, and I’ve encountered this myself in the past before I became a cabinet member, that as a government decision, you Members of the Legislative Assembly, it’s your decision and that’s reflected in a lot of decisions that the government makes.
So, a Cabinet Member has the additional responsibility of not only being a representative of their constituents, but as Members have said, of looking after their responsibilities of their portfolio that they’ve been assigned to, looking after the broader Nunavut interests.
I think we all recognize that.
Unfortunately, sometimes, these two things conflict, your responsibility as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for your constituents, your responsibility as a Minister for the Government for the legislature, the legislature who put you in as a cabinet member.
This is obviously one of those cases where that’s happened.