EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, Bill 40 also ensures that the representative for children and youth assists families by keeping them informed and involving them wherever possible in decisions and actions concerning children and youth.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 40 is built on broad consultation with Inuit and the public members. I am very proud of the work that the Government of Nunavut has done to solicit input.
The Government of Nunavut conducted consultations in person and by teleconference with stakeholders throughout Nunavut.
A questionnaire was posted on the GN website.
Information was also gathered from questionnaires distributed to each Nunavut resident during the review of the Child and Family Services Act.
A toll-free telephone line and voicemail box to solicit feedback was operated in all our official languages.
We also received written, faxed, and emailed submissions.
As part of the two-day territorial Validation Forum on the Child and Family Services Act held in Iqaluit in February 2011, the Department of Health and Social Services discussed the proposed Recommendation #7, “Establish an Office of the Territorial Child and Youth Advocate” with the public, regional Inuit associations, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, social service providers, community leaders, government employees, and stakeholders from across Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, consultation sessions also took place with Nunavut Sivuniksavut students, youth detained at the Isumaqsunngittukkuvik Young Offenders Facility, and regional Inuit associations’ youth coordinators. As well, the project consultation document was shared with grade 10 to 12 students at our schools.
Mr. Speaker, to work on Bill 40, we also formed a representative for children and youth advisory committee that has met on a bi-weekly basis since May 2011.
The committee is comprised of the following representatives: a youth representative; two representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated; the Department of Education; the Department of Justice; the Department of Health and Social Services; the Department of Culture and Heritage; the Legal Services Board of Nunavut; the Nunavut Housing Corporation; and the Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs project team.
Mr. Speaker, during the consultations, we received a lot of support for our work.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to single out the very important support that we received from NTI.
This is the letter that I just tabled a moment ago. On June 1, 2012, President Cathy Towtongie, on behalf of NTI, wrote, “This legislation will provide a much needed voice for children and youth in Nunavut. This will be an opportunity to ensure that the rights of our children and youth are upheld and protected.”
Mr. Speaker, President Towtongie continued by noting that “This legislation is a product of partnership in the truest sense of the term.”
Mr. Speaker, we also took advantage of our consultation process to engage with children and youth. We held a very successful National Child Day Drawing Contest. Mr. Speaker, 154 submissions were received, covering such themes as the right to culture and language, a safe family environment, the right to play, the right to have food, the right to an education, the right to a clean environment, and of course, the right to be loved.
The submissions motivated us to work harder to protect our children.
My department and I have also worked very closely with the Standing Committee on Legislation since Bill 40 was first introduced in the House on June 6, 2012.
Mr. Speaker, we have welcomed the scrutiny of Bill 40 and have sought to provide all the information requested by the standing committee in a timely fashion. Mr. Speaker, we have appeared in front of the standing committee on two occasions when we responded to the in-depth examination of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the standing committee requested a further 120 days to scrutinize Bill 40 on November 2, 2012 and, Mr. Speaker, we welcomed that scrutiny.
One of the reasons I have heard for the motion requesting another 120 days is the standing committee’s wishes to consult with the public on Bill 40.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee has had opportunities to consult with the public.
The Legislative Assembly sent a callout for submissions last June via Assembly’s website.
I understand that to date, the standing committee has not received any submissions from the public.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is because of the very extensive consultations that the government undertook in developing Bill 40. People have had their say and we have listened and incorporated their concerns.
Mr. Speaker, more public consultations are unlikely to be an effective use of our time. We all know that the spring and summer are not a good time to hold consultations, as many Nunavummiut are away from their communities and are out on the land.
Mr. Speaker, should the motion for another 120 days pass, Bill 40, the proposed Representative for Child and Youth Act, may not be dealt with again until the fall sitting of the Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my statement by quoting some very eloquent words that were said in this House on May 31 of last year by hon. member from Nattilik Jeannie Ugyuk. The member from Nattilik said, “I strongly believe that we should not be afraid of initiatives such as this. This is an important opportunity for us as a society to take on greater ownership and responsibility for the well-being of our children in a way that does not undermine the responsibilities of parents and families.”
The member from Nattilik went on to say, “Mr. Speaker, I see the child and youth representative as having the responsibility of ensuring that the government is living up to its obligations with respect to what should be provided to children and youth.
I see the child and youth representative as having the responsibility of reporting his or her findings to us, the elected leaders, for action.”
Mr. Speaker, we should ensure that Bill 40 continues to move through the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of the legislature to carefully consider this motion. The time for action is now.
I’m not quite sure where to start on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this initiative started in the year 2000. That’s like 13 to 14 years ago, if you can believe that I’ve got the timeline right, I’m just going from memory.
Mr. Speaker, the Kitikmeot originated the idea, but we took it to all the mayors in Nunavut. At the board meeting in Cambridge Bay, the mayors supported that.
At the NAM AGM, there was a unanimous resolution of support for the creation of what we called at the time a child advocate.
The government of the day was working on that initiative, then the legislative proposal fell off the order paper, and then they did the time left to that government and it fell off.
When I was elected MLA, I brought it up in the House in the Second Assembly numerous times asking ministers and lobbying.
It didn’t get very far.
I was very hardened when I became a minister in this Third Assembly. At the cabinet retreat, we discussed how important children and youth are to our territory.
To some people, maybe they’re not important, but to most of us as parents and adults, they are important; more important than anything we can imagine, really, when you think about it.
At the Nunavut Association of Municipalities AGM in Cambridge Bay a couple of years ago, it came up again. There was another unanimous motion of support for the creation of what we called the child and youth representative at that time.
Again, they were well aware that there was an initiative by this House when we gathered here I think it was in October 2009 and we had pushed forward on this child and youth representative. NTI has always been supportive and I’m glad the Premier reiterated their support.
Over that time of 10 to 13 years here now, we have fallen behind other provinces and territories in Canada in the creation of a children and youth representative or a child advocate.
When I started on it, I think it was only seven provinces. I think most provinces have a child advocate. Yukon’s wasn’t even on the radar when I started talking about it and raising it, and now they have one.
I was fortunate with some of my colleagues to have an opportunity to talk to the people and put that in place a few years ago and it’s having some success over there.
The Child Welfare League of Canada was retained by the Department of Health.
Under my predecessor’s leadership and initiative, he commissioned the Child Welfare League of Canada to do community consultations on the Child and Family Services Act, including the initiative of a child and youth representative.
I was at the community meeting in Cambridge Bay when they were there. There were over 50 people there.
Everybody there said that we need this child and youth representative. So there is at least one community in Nunavut that knows how it will benefit children, youth, and families. It gives the children and youth of our territory a voice.
Now, I read the summary report of the Child Welfare League of Canada, and if the numbers are to be believed, over 1,000 Nunavummiut had an opportunity, either through community meetings, town hall meetings, or online presentations, to give their input.
With a population of 33,000 to 34,000 people, that’s really significant.
Last summer or June of last year, the standing committee went online. They advertised to give everybody in Nunavut an opportunity.
It was well advertised.
People from my community were aware of it, but they didn’t see any concerns because they supported it.
So they didn’t feel that they needed to send a letter in saying that they support something.
They just felt that this House was well on its way to passing this legislation.
There may be some people out there in Nunavut, I’m sure, who are concerned about it.
I don’t think that we should be concerned about a child and youth representative.
After all, it’s an independent officer of this House who will represent children and youth.
It will give the children and youth a voice and give their families a voice when they have issues with this government or any government or any legislation in this territory or this country.
It’s not a position that’s going to go out there under any legislation and apprehend children.
It’s going to give the people more clarity on the roles of government.
Mr. Speaker, when I was the mayor of Cambridge Bay and I had tough decisions to make, I would occasionally gather elders together in Cambridge Bay and we would go down to the Elders Palace and chitchat about things.
I remember elder Frank Analok. He gave me some good advice.
I was the elected mayor, but Frank was well recognized as a leader in the community.
He told me, “Keith, we elected you guys to make decisions.
We trust you to make those decisions.”
That was the best, sound advice I have ever received.
At a certain point in time, you have to make the decisions and live with it. You can’t keep consulting, consulting, and consulting because tough decisions don’t get made on important issues. I’m going to ask the House today, “Who is going to stand with me the people who are going to oppose this motion and stand with the children and youth of this territory?”
We have to move forward. You have to get it done. I will oppose the motion and I ask all of my colleagues to give serious consideration to oppose the motion as well.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Peterson. To the motion. Mr. Enook.
I’m not sure where to start either. However, I want my comments understood in the right context. With many of my constituents sharing our Inuit culture, I will make my comments in Inuktitut.
A majority of Nunavummiut tend to understand our comments easier when we speak in Inuktitut, especially our elders who are, for the most part, unilingual Inuit.
Mr. Speaker, let me start with the comments our Premier made regarding Bill 40, which is the child and youth representative draft legislation.
All the members here are in total agreement that our youth and children require proper advocacy and stewardship. We all agree on this need.
However, a few of us members continue to have concerns about the bill, particularly the reasoning as to why we need further consultation. What about our elders? What about the parents?
What about the guardians? What will happen to them if we enact this legislation?
As mentioned by our Premier, the draft legislation was introduced back in June 2012.
I think we can all agree that the reason for the delay in the process is that the regular members have had many questions regarding the bill’s contents. Additionally, I can further state unequivocally that some questions we raised weren’t responded to for a long period.
I can also state further that the last question we submitted through our chairperson took over a week to get a response and this question pertained to one of our concerns.
We are not just trying to slow down the process.
We require answers to our questions, especially as it was mentioned earlier that the membership here was elected to enact legislation and to represent our constituencies.
I am proud of this mandate given to the members and I want to ensure I exercise this carefully.
Mr. Speaker, the only way I can exercise my responsibilities is to hear about any concerns my constituents may have for any draft legislation.
Whether it is legislation I am approving or reviewing, if I don’t comprehend the language upon approval, then I shouldn’t be an MLA since as part of our duties, I need to ensure I understand the contents, who it will impact, and every citizen who may be impacted. I need to know these details.
I am proud to exercise my duties as an MLA and that I am able to vote on draft legislation and in any future bills. However, it is up to me to know the contents of what we are discussing, as any draft bill or legislation will apply to all Nunavummiut once enacted.
All bills should never be rushed to enactment, especially when we’re discussing our youth and children and the impact it would have on them, including their parents.
This draft legislation known as Bill 40 hasn’t been mentioned as being opposed to in principle. However, some of the contents are still hazy and hard to understand, at least to me personally.
I have too many questions yet on the bill.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a constant refrain we hear from our government is that the government is for the people of Nunavut.
Great! Let us embrace that role.
Another member mentioned that wherever possible, Inuit cultural principles should be used. Great!
Due to these reasons, and if we stand by this principle, then let us ensure we include all of our constituents. If we are going to stand by our words, then we should try to consult with more of our people, not just organizations like NTI, the RCMP, Social Services, or just our own public servants.
What about the ordinary people, our public, whom we should be consulting, especially if we’re going to put our money where our statements are, that we will utilize Inuit cultural principles?
Mr. Speaker, the bill we are currently reviewing will impact a lot of people in the future and we want more opportunity to do that. My parents, my older brother, or even my sister are not all computer literate and can’t respond through digital means. Not all of our people can respond via writing.
As my colleague Mr. Tapardjuk stated, as Inuit, we don’t all go rushing to the new technology.
Only sometimes it makes it easier when our constituents visit us to air their concerns.
Let’s go to the people and not through computers, not through the teleconference, not through letters or correspondence.
We’re not saying that we’re not going to all the communities.
We’re just saying that we feel all we have heard is one-sided.
What about the ordinary person who is unemployed, who is not an RCMP or a social worker, Mr. Speaker?
For that reason, we need some more time to consider this bill and I urge my fellow colleagues to support this motion.
If we don’t support it, are we not going to be one-sided?
We haven’t heard from the public, but we did hear from the different organizations.
What about the ordinary person?
I feel bad that we have not and I feel that we should get more feedback from the public if we’re going to use the Inuit societal values. I feel that that has not been reached.
If we don’t support this motion, then we’re not representing the ordinary public people on this issue.
In terms of speaking to the motion, I would have to say I disagree with my colleague with some of the comments that he just made.
I know it was most of us here that sat around in this House once the Tamapta Mandate was brought here and we sat as a group and decided that we would follow through on what it said in the mandate. We even decided to go five years rather than the four years or four and a half years to try and meet that mandate and we’re getting quite close to the end of it.
One of the main points that I remember in the Tamapta Mandate was to actually come up with a child and youth representative in the life of this Assembly, so I would like to see that happen. Some members spoke in terms of being opposed to it.
At the same time, I know that there has been some discussion about whether we have consulted or not consulted.
Sometimes it gets confusing, especially when people are listening back home, as to whether consultation is being done on the front-end of a bill or back-end of a bill.
If the government has done a lot of consultation, then in terms of our job as legislators, as members of the committee on legislation, we have been bouncing back and forth between the sponsor and the government asking questions.
There was a lot of support for the bill. The Auditor General of Canada put support into a child and youth representative. As the Premier spoke and Mr. Peterson spoke, there is lots of support that seems to be out there.
NTI seems to be in support of it with their letter.
I printed this off too because I wanted to remind myself about the fact that as the committee on legislation, this was our part, our dual duty to call upon people in the communities. I don’t know if it was mentioned in the translation about not working on computers and whatnot, but this was emailed out. It was also put on the radio.
It was also put on the newspaper.
I believe it was on our Legislative Assembly channel as well to get the news out that the committee on legislation was doing our duty, as Mr. Enook said, not just the RCMP officers, social workers, mental health workers, or GN employees, we were asking for people in the community to actually step up and make the comments and speak out if they wanted to.
To me, this is sort of getting close to the end of the mandate. With some of the scrutiny that has gone on behind the scenes in our committee meetings, it has been great being able to talk and debate it out.
I would like to see us get into the House where we can get it on the record and make some final decisions before the time does run for this mandate.
At the same time, I think the last thing that I wanted to mention is that to me, this motion is more about fundamental differences of members’ opinions and not anything community consultation will do to affect decisions on any clause within the bill. With that, I’m going to be opposing the motion, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the mover of the motion. I also thank the government for proposing the Act. I also thank my colleagues who have spoken about this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed that when I was growing up, our people lived out on the land. We lived in tents, and there were only three families living out on the land in tents and sod houses. There were small children and adults.
We didn’t have social workers who were paid to look after us and there were no social workers dealing with Inuit societal values, Mr. Speaker.
There were people who were working on a volunteer basis without any education. They looked after themselves, their children, and their youth at that time, and they were adults.
Our parents and our grandparents worked that way without getting paid, but it came from their hearts. They looked after our children and youth by assisting them.
Before children before are born, they already have a name. If the child is going to be adopted by another family, the adoptive parents are already there to receive the child when it is born.
I would not mind having this bill deferred or delayed to get an extension to review this again because some people don’t have any computer skills.
Perhaps we can go to Rankin Inlet and the public can come in or we can go to Cambridge Bay and we can meet with the elders and the public or even here in Iqaluit.
We can all ask them again exactly what their thoughts are on this Bill 40.
This is what I support from the motion moved by Mr. Ningeongan.
I would also like to talk with the people who are real social workers, who are Inuit people with their societal values.
We didn’t hear from them as Members of the Legislative Assembly.
I will be supporting this motion.
I wish to inform members that I have no more names on my list.
Does the mover, Mr. Ningeongan, of the motion have the last reply?
I have no final comments to offer, Mr. Speaker. However, I ask for a recorded vote.
Debate is now closed on the motion. We will vote on it. There has been a request for a recorded vote.
I will ask all members in favour of the motion to please rise and then sit down when I call your name.
I will ask all those who oppose to the motion to please rise and sit down when I call your name.
You will note that there is no one left to abstain, so I will not ask anyone who is abstaining to stand up and sit down when I call their name.
The results are eight for the motion and eight against the motion.
I would say that the will of the House is not known as it’s a tie.
In order to allow the process to continue, a longstanding tradition to ensure that the process can proceed, I will be voting in favour of the motion.
>>School bus honking horn
It is all about timing, eh?
I declare the motion carried.
Did anyone have that orchestrated?
Bills 47, 48, and 49 with Mr. Ningeongan in the Chair.
>>House adjourned at 15:59 and Committee resumed at 16:26
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 47, 48, and 49.
We wish to continue with the review of the main estimates for the Department of Health and, if time permits, the Department of Education.
Are we in agreement that we continue with the main estimates for the Department of Health?
Chairman: Is the committee agreed that Mr. Peterson can bring in witnesses to the Chamber?
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Peterson’s witnesses in.
For the record, Minister Peterson, please introduce your officials.
To my right is Peter Ma, Deputy Minister of our Department of Health, and to my left is Monita O’Connor, Assistant Deputy Minister of Health.
Members, please turn to page H-4. Directorate.
I would like to ask Mr. Enook to carry on with his questions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.
I want to refer back to the Hansard and the question I raised regarding the last response by the minister when we were discussing the medical patients suffering from cancer, who suffer mental anguish and stressful situations they have to face all alone.
Mr. Minister, the response you provided raises further questions I want to ask and I want to quote the answer, although we don’t have the Inuktitut version as of yet, so I will try to translate it into Inuktitut.
He stated, “The practitioner in the health centres or hospitals are the best individuals to make the determination on whether an individual requires an escort.”
If you have a copy of the Blues, it’s on page 46 from Friday.
“They would make that recommendation and then the regional directors would either approve or not approve the recommendation.”
Mr. Chairman, I read in the media that Mr. Enook wanted an escort for people who are going out to the hospital with cancer. I did not say that, but for the record, the questions that I had were that who is sick and who is not, and if they’re able to have an escort.