EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I know when the minister was before us in committee meetings, there was talk and mention about the distinction and the differentiation between the registered nurses and this classification is different and they wouldn’t be put in situations where they would be taking on responsibilities of a registered nurse.
I’m just wondering if you could clarify with me. In my mind, it’s talking about the fact that under emergency situations, they are going to take on the roles that registered nurses would take on, and then on the third clause, under 25, it says that they won’t be held responsible for any mistakes they make.
That just confuses me a little bit.
The Act does not restrict what could occur in an emergency because it is just that, it’s an emergency.
In day-to-day operations, licensed practical nurses work with what we call stable clients. They are clients whose health status is not likely to change any time soon. We have elders who have had chronic emphysema for many years and their health status has not changed.
But, as an example, there could be a day in a long-term care facility where somebody’s heart stops and where they have a heart attack, which you cannot foresee.
That is a case where a licensed practical nurse would have to then do beyond what they have normally been while they are waiting for other assistance to arrive.
That would just be an example of a case where an LPN would have to provide emergency services.
Again, in one of my member’s statements, I was talking about the social workers who I feel sometimes are put in unrealistic situations where they are spread so thin with some of the duties that they have.
I wouldn’t want some of these practical nurses to be in the same situation.
The reality of the situation in the smaller communities is, you know, we’re just dealing with the tabling of the Suicide Prevention Strategy. When a suicide happens, everyone is responsible and everyone gets involved.
So I can see the practical nurse being called in to help with that, or if there is an emergency or a search and rescue, and someone is brought in, in terms of a situation that happens when you’re doing medevacs, I could see them being called in again.
To me, that might wear on the person who is doing the position and we might have complaints coming to us as regular members or as MLAs saying that this is not what they were supposed to be doing.
So I just wondered if this is sort of not going to happen on a regular basis, you’re saying.
Mr. Monpetit: Mr. Chairman, I would expect that this does not happen on a regular basis. This would be an extreme emergency condition or a situation.
Are we on clause 23, 24, or 25?
Chairman: We’re on clause 25.
Chairman: Okay, we will go back to clause 25.
Chairman: Is the committee agreed to Bill 35 as a whole?
Chairman: Is the committee agreed that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 35 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading? Is the committee agreed?
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the members.
We also had discussions when I had a meeting with the standing committee and I would thank you very much for Bill 35.
What it does is it replaces the Certified Nursing Assistants Act.
I would like to urge the people out there to make sure that they go into the Nursing Program in order to increase the numbers and work in the health-related fields.
I thank everyone who is listening to us and also our Legal Advisor, Barbra Harvey, and the Department of Justice for helping us when we were dealing with matter.
And you yourself, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I appreciate you showing up with your witnesses to answer some tough questions there.
Would the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort the minister and witnesses out.
I would now like to ask the Minister responsible for the Department of Justice, Mr. Peterson, to make his opening remarks on Bill 37, tobacco damages and health care.
Bill 37 – Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to present the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.
Bill 37 is being proposed to bring Nunavut into conformity with tobacco recovery legislation currently in place in other Canadian provinces.
I would like to emphasize that this is an important first step as it would enable our government, at some point, to take legal action against the tobacco companies in order to recover the substantial costs that Nunavut has incurred over the years resulting from tobacco related illness.
Tobacco use is deemed to be a major contributor to rising health care service costs for Nunavut and other jurisdictions within Canada and internationally.
I agree with the concerns raised by this committee in relation to ensuring Nunavut takes measures to see that capacity is in place prior to initiating any legal action against the tobacco industry. This will become an important next step following the creation of this legislation.
I hope Bill 37 will receive strong support from members of the standing committee given the laudable objective of this legislation.
Chairman: Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the minister and the witnesses in.
Minister Peterson, please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is Janet Slaughter, Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice, and to my left is Thomas Druyan, a Legislative Lawyer with the Department of Justice.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, Mr. Okalik, have comments?
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the minister and his officials for taking the time to make an appearance with the standing committee.
We had good luck with the minister and his officials, and the standing committee gives Bill 37 its support.
We know that this is a major contributor to the rising health care service costs and tobacco use is one of the additives that our constituents use, so we have to do ways and means in order to alleviate some of the addictions.
We have tried different avenues to decrease the number of tobacco users, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that we have to start educating the harms of tobacco use, especially at a young age.
I am very pleased, minister, that you are doing all you can to reduce the use of tobacco.
I would like to inform the House that we are in support of Bill 37 and I would like to give the other members an opportunity to voice their concerns and questions, if they would like to do so, Mr. Chairman.
If not, we will now proceed to the clause-by-clause review of the bill starting with page 1. Bill 37, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. Clause 1.
Chairman: Clause 4 Do you agree?
Chairman: Does the committee agree to Bill 37 as a whole?
Chairman: Does the committee agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 37 can be immediately placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wholeheartedly thank the standing committee for the support of this bill.
We did have a good discussion, a good exchange of correspondence on this bill.
I know that the standing committee scrutinized it very carefully.
Everybody is aware of the magnitude of the damage that tobacco causes to the people of Nunavut. I think over 70 percent of the adult population in Nunavut smoke.
The smoking is one of the largest contributors in the deaths of Nunavummiut and one of the largest contributors to the health care costs.
I think it is very important that we, as a government, step up and join the movement across Canada. All of the other provinces are enacting similar legislation and filing claims against the tobacco industry. This will give our government and our territory that opportunity join our colleagues across Canada and take on Big Tobacco, and hopefully in changing the tides of health in Nunavut.
I would like to thank my officials for their work on this important legislation; Stephen Mansell back in the office, Norman Tarnow, Thomas Druyan here, and Janet Slaughter.
Chairman: Thank you and your witnesses there.
Would the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort the minister and the witnesses out.
With five minutes to spare, I would like to move that we report progress.
Your committee has been considering Bills 35, 37, 40, and 41, and would like to report that Bills 35, 37, 40, and 41 are immediately ready for third reading.
Bill 38 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 38, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012, be read for the third time.
Bill 39 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2009-2010 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 39, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2009-2010, be read for the third time.
Bill 40 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2010-2011 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 40, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2010-2011, be read for the third time.
Bill 41 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2010-2011 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 41, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2010-2011, be read for the third time.
A reminder of a meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislation tomorrow at nine o’clock.
Orders of the Day for October 28:
Tabled Document 207 – 3(2)
Tabled Document 209 – 3(2)
Tabled Document 210 – 3(2)
Tabled Document 212 – 3(2)
This House stands adjourned until Thursday, October 28, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 18:00  Appendix – October 27, 2010
Recommendations for Amendments to the  Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut and Other Matters
2nd Session of the 3rd Legislative Assembly
Ron Elliott, MLA
Paul Okalik, MLA
Co-Chair
Moses Aupaluktuq, MLA
Hon. Keith Peterson, MLA
Johnny Ningeongan, MLA
www.assembly.nu.ca
Recommendation #1: Referral of House Bills to the Committee of the  Whole Following Second Reading
At present, the Rules of the Legislative Assembly provide that all Bills, except for appropriation acts, are referred to a Standing or Special Committee following second reading “unless otherwise ordered” by the House.
House Bills are developed under the authority of the Management and Services Board of the Legislative Assembly.
As a matter of practice, Bills that propose to amend or establish statutes that fall under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly itself are ordered directly into the Committee of the Whole following second reading. These are:
Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act
Integrity Act
Nunavut Elections Act
Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act
Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act
The Order of Nunavut Act
Flag of Nunavut Act
Floral Emblem Act
The Speaker appears before the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of House Bills.
However, in the absence of a clearly-defined procedure in the Rules for accomplishing this, sponsors of such Bills have had to seek unanimous consent to have such Bills ordered into Committee of the Whole immediately following second reading.
The Standing Committee is recommending an amendment to the Rules that would simplify this process by deeming House Bills to have been ordered into the Committee of the Whole following second reading.
It is important to emphasize that all Members of the Legislative Assembly will continue to have a number of opportunities to give full consideration to House Bills.
By convention, all House Bills are reviewed by Full Caucus prior to their introduction in the House.
Following their referral to the Committee of the Whole, all Members have the opportunity to consider the Bill at the clause-by-clause stage.
Recommendation #2: Consolidation of Items 11 and 12 in the Orders of  the Day
At present, the Rules provide for two separate items in the Orders of the Day dealing with reports of Standing and Special Committees: “Reports of Standing and Special Committees” and “Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills.”
From time to time, some procedural confusion has arisen with respect to the appropriate item under which a Committee should report to the House with substantive findings regarding a Bill, as opposed to a routine procedural report indicating that a Bill is ready to proceed to the next stage of the legislative process.
The Standing Committee is recommending that the two items be combined into a single provision: “Reports of Standing and Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters.”
This would simplify decision-making with respect to when a Committee should report back to the House on matters under its consideration.
The provision is also broadly similar in concept to Item 19, “Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters.”
Recommendation #3: Responses to Petitions and Returns to Oral and  Written Questions
Earlier this year, the government requested an extension with respect to its responses to two petitions.
This was the first time that a request of this nature has been made.
At present, however, the Rules of the Legislative Assembly are silent with respect to the granting of extensions to responses to petitions, necessitating that the extension be granted on an ad hoc basis.
The Standing Committee is recommending that the Rules of the Legislative Assembly be amended to provide for a clear process by which requests for extensions can be made.
The proposed provisions parallel existing provisions concerning extensions to returns to oral and written questions.
A related matter considered by the Standing Committee concerns the appropriate point in the daily order of business at which a response to a petition should be presented to the House.
The Orders of the Day currently provide for two distinct opportunities for returns to oral and written questions to be presented by Ministers or the Clerk: “Returns to Oral Questions” and “Returns to Written Questions.”
However, there is currently no specific item in the Orders of the Day concerning responses to petitions.
The practice has been for the Clerk to table government responses to petitions at the item “Tabling of Documents.”
In order to provide for a specific point in the Orders of the Day for the presentation of responses to petitions, The Standing Committee is also recommending that the Rules be amended to establish the item “Responses to Petitions.”
The proposed provisions will parallel those that are currently in place with respect to the item “Returns to Written Questions.”
In its review of these matters, the Standing Committee also considered the existing provisions concerning returns to oral and written questions.
Although Rules 39 and 41 provide for extensions to returns to oral and written questions, they do not specify a minimum or maximum length of time allowed for extensions.
At present, the rules allow for an indefinite number of extensions for an indefinite period of time, given that the discretion to determine when a return will be provided currently rests with the responding entity.
The Standing Committee is recommending that there be greater consistency between Rules 39, 41 and 43 and that the rules provide clear limits on the number of extensions that can be granted.
Recommendation #4: Fixed Sitting Calendar and Sitting Hours
As of June 10, 2010, the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut has held 437 sitting days.
Although the Legislative Assembly does not have a fixed sitting calendar, its practice has been to hold three “seasonal” sittings during a calendar year:
Winter sitting (January-March time period);
Spring sitting (April-June time period); and
Fall sitting (October-December time period).
Section 18 of the Nunavut Act provides that:
“The Assembly shall sit at least once every twelve months.”
Subsection 6(3) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act provides that:
“Pursuant to section 18 of the Nunavut Act (Canada), the Legislative Assembly shall sit at least once every 12 months.”
The Rules or Standing Orders of a number of Canadian legislatures provide for a fixed sitting calendar.
In some cases, the exact sitting dates for a given calendar year are prescribed in the Rules or Standing Orders.
For example, Standing Order 28 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons provides in part that:
“When the House meets [on] the Friday preceding the week marking the  mid-way point between the Monday following Easter Monday and June 23, [it shall stand adjourned until] the second Monday following that Friday or, if that Monday is the day fixed for the celebration of the birthday of the Sovereign, on the Tuesday following that Monday.”
Rules 3(2) and (3) of the Rules and Procedures of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan provides that:
3(2) Each session of a Legislature shall commence the first sitting day of the fall period as follows:
from the fourth Wednesday of October for 25 sitting days;
(b) except when the fourth Wednesday of October coincides with the date of a general election as prescribed by The Local Government Election Act, then from the fourth Thursday of October for 25 sitting days.
3(3) Each session of a Legislature shall reconvene for a spring period of 40 sitting days, concluding on the Thursday before Victoria Day as follows:
(a) The Thursday before Victoria Day shall constitute the Completion Day of the spring period of sittings, provided there are no fewer than 28 sitting days between the proposal of the Budget Motion, moved pursuant to Rule 30, and the Thursday before Victoria Day; or
(b) If the Budget Motion is moved at any time within the interval of 29 sitting days prior to the Thursday before Victoria Day, the Completion Day shall be postponed to the 29th sitting day after the Budget Motion is moved.
A number of legislatures provide for minimum and maximum numbers of sitting days during a given calendar year, without specifying the exact starting dates for a given sitting.
For example, Rule 75 of the Rules of the Yukon Legislative Assembly provides that:
75 (1) There shall be a maximum of 60 sitting days per calendar year.
(2) When the Government has introduced all legislation, including appropriation bills, to be dealt with during a Sitting, the House Leaders shall meet for the purpose of achieving agreement upon the number of sitting days for that Sitting.
The minimum number of sitting days for any Sitting shall be 20.
The maximum number of sitting days for any Sitting shall be 40.
(3) When, pursuant to Standing Order 75(2), an agreement cannot be reached between the Government House Leader and at least one other House Leader representing a majority of the members of the Assembly, each of the Spring and Fall Sittings shall be a maximum of 30 sitting days.
A number of Canadian legislatures require that the Speaker or the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly table a sitting/parliamentary calendar in the House by a specified date.
For example, Standing Order 28 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons provides that:
“The Speaker of the House shall, by September 30, after consultation with  the House Leaders, table in the House a calendar for the following year setting out the sitting and non-sitting weeks between the last Monday in
January and the Monday following Easter Monday.”
Until recently, the start dates for the winter, spring and fall sittings of the House were determined by Full Caucus during the preceding sitting.
For example, the start date of the winter 2010 sitting was determined during the fall 2009 sitting.
These decisions were formalized by way of motion in the House.
Earlier this year, Full Caucus decided on the starting dates for the spring 2010 sitting and the fall 2010 sitting at the same time.
Informal consultations with the central agencies of the Government of Nunavut indicate that this has significantly facilitated planning with respect to the preparation of main estimates, capital estimates and proposed legislation, as well as allowing senior government personnel to plan duty travel and personal vacation in such a way as to ensure that there is no conflict with sittings of the House during which they may be required to appear as witnesses or be present to support their Ministers.
Although it would be possible to amend the Rules of the Legislative Assembly to provide for exact start dates and/or minimum and maximum lengths for its winter, spring and fall sittings, the Standing Committee recognizes that this would reduce the Assembly’s flexibility to accommodate the scheduling impact of unforeseen events, in addition to constraining the Assembly’s ability to sit for shorter or longer periods of time to accommodate the actual volume of business before the House.
In order to reach a balance between achieving more planning certainty with respect to the House calendar, while preserving reasonable flexibility to accommodate actual business, the Standing Committee is recommending that Rules 3-5 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut be amended.
In its consideration of this issue, the Standing Committee also considered the related matters of sitting hours and days.
The Standing Committee is also recommending that:
Nunavut Day (July 9) be designated in the Rules of the Legislative Assembly as a day on which the Legislative Assembly shall not sit.
The Rules of the Legislative Assembly be amended to clearly reflect the distinction between sittings and sessions.
It is important to note that a “sitting” and a “Session” are not synonymous.
Subsection 6(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act defines a Session as follows:
“A Session begins on the first day of the first sitting following prorogation of the Legislative Assembly and ends on the day on which the Session is next prorogued.”
The life of a Legislative Assembly is divided into a number of Sessions.
Some Sessions may last for only one sitting day, others may last for a number of months.
A Session is ended by prorogation (the Commissioner of Nunavut prorogues the Session). An Assembly is ended by dissolution (the Commissioner of Nunavut dissolves the Assembly).
A period of time between sittings within the same Session is referred to as a period of “extended adjournment.”
Friday’s sitting hours be changed.
At present, Friday sittings of the House begin at 10:00am and conclude at 2:00pm.
However, the practice of recessing for lunch prior to the House resolving into the Committee of the Whole effectively reduces the length of the sitting day by 1.0-1.5 hours.
It is recommended that the rules be amended to provide that Friday sittings begin at 09:00am and conclude at 12:00pm.
This change would obviate the need for an extended lunch recess and would not reduce the actual amount of time spent on House business.
In addition, more time would be provided to Members to engage in hotel check-out procedures on designated travel days, as well as providing more time for meetings of Standing Committees and other bodies.
It should also be noted that on those Fridays when Pages from outside of Iqaluit are travelling to their home communities, Paging services have not been available after 1:00pm.
Recommendation #5: Use of Portable Hand-Held Electronic Devices,  Laptop Computers and Other Technologies in the Legislative Assembly Chamber and Committee Rooms
In recent years, the use of portable hand-held electronic devices (e.g. BlackBerry Devices), laptop computers and other technologies has increased significantly in the Canadian workplace.
This increase has also been reflected in the procedures and operations of a number of Canadian legislatures.
However, the use of such technologies in the Chamber and committee rooms of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut remains limited.
By convention, the use of the following technologies by Members is not permitted at any time during sittings of the House or meetings of committees and caucuses:
Portable Hand-Held Electronic Devices;
Laptop Computers; and
Cellular Telephones.
A number of Members have expressed support for considering the increased use of such technologies during sittings of the House and meetings of committees and caucuses.