EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I have also heard recommendations that were made at the Electoral Boundaries Commission meeting that was held there.
I have also met with the hamlet and council of Arviat.
They’re all in support of this Bill 22 and having another MLA in Arviat.
Arviat is the fastest growing community in Nunavut.
The present population is nearing 3,000 people.
It’s felt by all of the community that we need to have fair representation in the Legislative Assembly.
So by voicing these thoughts and the concerns of the people of Arviat, and again, respecting the boundaries commission, and in lieu of Nunavut growing as a whole, and the timelines that we have faced in front of us about visiting this again into the future, which would be a long time, I will be supporting the bill in its original state, as it is right now.
I am very proud to do so and I thank the commission for their hard work.
One of the things I would like to make abundantly clear is I agree 100 percent with what the Member from Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove had said yesterday when he spoke to the principle of the bill in terms of the quality of the report and the good work that the commission has done, and echoed by many other ministers.
I am not disputing the quality of the report. The lines which have been set up for boundaries, I am not disputing any of that.
I’m not making extra work or adding anything to the bill other than the actual date that it comes into force.
My suggestion, which will come through my motion, is to postpone this until a later date when the territory, as the member from Nanulik’s communities have pointed out, is more financially able to handle three new MLAs and the costs incurred with that.
Although I do have comments on this bill, before I do that, I would like to say that pursuant to our Rule 45(2)(a), I move that we remain in Committee of the Whole until we are finished with Bill 22 here today.
The motion is in order. It is not debatable.
Did you want to make a comment?
Mr. Rumbolt, please.
I guess before I start, I should state for the record that I put this motion into the House to put Bill 22 into Committee of the Whole because I’m a member of the MSB board, but I still have the right to vote either way on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, being from the only riding that was not affected by this commission, it puts me in kind of a little bit of an awkward situation.
I was thinking that because of that reason, maybe I should not have to vote on this, but as I thought it through, this is something that affects the whole of Nunavut, so I feel that my vote on this will count.
Having said that the riding of Hudson Bay wouldn’t be affected, the commission did take it upon itself to move the boundaries of Hudson Bay further out into Hudson Bay to give Arviat more space to go on the waters.
Mr. Chairman, I respect all the fine and hard work done by the commission on this task. I think they did a lot of good work. A lot of hard work went into this.
It was no easy task. I also respect all the input from affected communities to help the commission come to their conclusions. I also respect all my colleagues here today who are voicing their reasons why or why not the boundaries commission’s findings should or should not be accepted here today.
I also realize that Nunavut has a growing population and a need for more MLAs to represent our growing population may be a reality, but I’m just not sure if that reality is now or in the future.
Mr. Chairman, there is also the cost factor of increasing the number of MLAs. I hear that the O&M cost for new MLA positions will cost the government over $1 million a year plus the added cost of renovations to this building to accommodate new MLAs because of the lack of space.
With the costs associated with this bill, a couple questions come to mind. Given the financial situation of this government, do we need to add extra costs to our government?
Could this $1 million a year be better spent to serve the people of Nunavut better?
I guess in closing, the question remains how I will vote here today.
In the short term, I thought about the financial situations of Nunavut and hopefully those financial situations can be overcome in the near future. I think, for the better of Nunavut in the long term, I will vote in favour of this motion today.
It’s a very important day here that is going to affect and change the structure and face of Nunavut.
It is very difficult to take this in, not because I don’t have the ability, but in a sense, the work has been done. There have been mechanisms in place in order to ensure that the people of Nunavut were able to voice their concerns. The Electoral Boundaries Commission advertised through all kinds of media to get people to provide their input.
If this bill goes through, my community won’t be able to have effective representation for a number of years, for a long time. Baker Lake is growing. We’re expanding just as much as any other community.
During this time, Baker Lake won’t be able to have fair and equal representation because of the large number of population growth too with the economic use of natural resources.
I understand that the people of Baker Lake had an opportunity to be informed by way of media, television, radio, posters, and advertisements.
Just like anybody in Nunavut, the community had an opportunity to voice their issues and concerns.
Though I do appreciate the growth of Nunavut, I have spoken to several people back in Baker Lake, quite a number actually, and I think the realization is that with the proposed boundaries, there’s a question I have to ask.
It’s no slight or disrespect to my colleagues in the Kivalliq, but in the electoral boundaries’ proposal, the map shown for L19 for Rankin Inlet North, the boundary crosses way into Baker Lake lands. In fact, even more so than our own community, we have the Kazan River and those traditional hunting area grounds which will greatly affect our community in terms of land title, use, and partnerships.
This is going to drastically change the face of Nunavut and Baker Lake will be impacted in such a way that it appears we’re losing a lot of our boundary.
I don’t know how the Electoral Boundaries Commission decided that Rankin Inlet North/Chesterfield Inlet’s proposed area exceeds its boundaries way into Baker Lake.
With this, I know for a fact that my community has had a chance to voice its concerns, but this decision is up in the air for me.
I support Nunavut in expanding, but as well, with the fiscal restraints, people are questioning how we can continue to spend when we have financial troubles in Nunavut, which is why I kind of said earlier on in my statement, Mr. Chairman, that it’s a very difficult choice for me.
Baker Lake will need another MLA very soon and, if this passes through, we’re going to have to wait for a long time.
At the same time, the gist of what I’m saying, Mr. Chairman, is the people of Baker Lake have difficulty with having to have the boundary changed for our riding.
So at this point, I’m not prepared to make a statement as to whether I’ll be for or against.
So with this, Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that there are residents of Baker Lake rather very confused as to how our boundaries can be lost to the south of Baker Lake. It’s a very vast riding that Rankin Inlet North would be taking up from our own boundaries.
So with this, I can’t state that I will be for or against at this time.
I think it’s very important that the people of Baker Lake understand that this changes the whole landscape and boundary. I do have a problem with the extended boundary for my colleagues in the east from the coastal area.
We, as mainlanders, will be losing a lot of our riding. This land is very traditional to us. We have the Harvaqtuuq/Kazan people and that area has traditionally and always has been Baker Lake, but we do share the land with our fellow Kivallirmiut.
I find it very troubling that we have lost a lot of that boundary to the south of Baker Lake.
With this, it’s just very difficult to determine my present vote at this time.
I just wanted to make a statement for the people of Baker Lake on behalf of Baker Lake for the record that there is an opportunity for their voices to be heard. At this point, I’m not fully prepared to vote for or against.
Mr. Speaker, did you want to make a comment?
Just to clarify a couple of questions that the Member for Baker Lake had, I think he indicated that he thought if this goes ahead, they would have to wait a long time before the next electoral boundaries commission was formed.
Regardless of whether this goes or not, the next electoral boundaries commission is not until 2022. So our decision today on this bill doesn’t affect when the next electoral boundaries commission will be struck.
As far as his concern regarding the rationale for changing the boundaries for the constituencies, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is an independent body with a mandate to provide recommendations for the Legislative Assembly’s consideration. I believe that the report that has been in the public domain since June basically speaks for itself.
As far as his concerns, I think the other important thing to remember is that I would assume that these boundaries are for election purposes only.
I am going to make a brief comment.
First of all, I would like to thank the commission.
The hamlet was asked if they would like to see the Electoral Boundaries Commission come to their community. Although the Igloolik Hamlet Council and the Hall Beach Hamlet Council were late, it was good to have the commission listen to the residents of Igloolik and Hall Beach.
I thank the commission for coming to my communities of Igloolik and Hall Beach.
If we look at Igloolik and Hall Beach, the population is 2,421 and they have one MLA.
If you look at the population of all the other electoral boundaries, it was thought that Igloolik and Hall Beach will require another MLA. I thank the commission for doing their work and putting the request made by the two communities. I’ll be supporting the bill.
In Aggu, which used to be an outpost camp but few people are living there now, I’m sure the outpost camp would be populated again in the future.
If that didn’t change, the MLA from Kugaaruk would have represented the outpost camp from Igloolik.
That has been rectified. If there was an outpost camp in the Aggu area, they will now be part of Igloolik.
I would like to thank the commission again and I am satisfied with the boundary lines. I just wanted to make that comment.
My constituents have directed me to vote in favour of this for good reason, Mr. Chairman.
When we started discussing the electoral boundaries, I had to make a decision. First of all, why, when we have three ridings in Iqaluit, do we need to have four ridings?
I thought about this for a long time.
During the consultation of the electoral boundaries, the commission was very receptive and visited nine communities.
I’m sorry that there was a low turnout in Iqaluit back on January 11, 2011. The meeting was open to the public.
I would like to thank Justice J.E. Richard, Kirt Ejesiak, and Gordon Main for a job well done.
They gave us documents, informational items, and we were able to provide feedback on their boundary commission questions.
Based on the estimated population growth numbers for 2010, our population estimate was 7,054 residents and it is obvious that the population has grown since.
Back in 1999, although I’m not reading off any documentation to back it up, I believe our population was a little over 3,000.
Our population has doubled since that time.
If we are to wait another 10 years, with the population growth being the greatest here in Iqaluit, it is apparent that at this current rate, the ratio of residents to MLAs will not work with only three representatives if we don’t approve this electoral boundaries recommendation.
Even if we extrapolate the current rate, if we look at 2022, there is no way to know.
The population is close to 10,000 residents and perhaps it will reach 20,000.
I’ll switch to English to read a passage in the report. (interpretation ends) The main issues confronting the commission could be summarized as follows: the present configuration of 19 constituencies does not appear to comply with every citizen’s charter guarantee of effective representation in the legislature, in particular, relative parity of voting power.
(interpretation) With that in mind, the ratio by which the people need to be represented, I will draw your attention to such issues as the lack of housing.
During the consultation, nobody said that they’re going to start working on the shortage of housing.
People in Iqaluit are aware that nobody approached me to oppose this.
However, I received a correspondence from the City of Iqaluit, which wants me to support this bill, and they wanted the ridings’ names changed.
I had to consider a lot of information. For that reason, I will be in support of this bill.
To remind members, I am just the Chairman.
With respect to this report submitted by the commission, I want to start by expressing my appreciation for its hard work.
Under page 18 of the report, it states that where an MLA represents more than one community, the perception is that the community that the MLA is from gets better represented than the other community.
In the future, MLAs will be asked to represent all of their communities equally. If they live in the other community, they have to ensure that they treat the other equally.
This is what is written in this report and I appreciate the comments written for our benefit by the commission.
Does anyone else have comments?
I have no more names on my list. (interpretation ends) Mr. Shewchuk, did you want to make a comment?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I’m not quite sure if this is the appropriate time to do this, but when we do vote on this, I would like to call for a recorded vote.
Chairman: Mr. Shewchuk, thank you and we will take that request. We’re just trying to figure out exactly when will be best to do it.
Any other comments/questions?
(interpretation) I have no more names on my list.
I believe that you have a copy of Bill 22 in front of you.
(interpretation ends) There seems to be some members with the bill in front of them and others without.
I am request that we take a 5- to 10-minute break to make sure that all of us have a copy of the bill. So we will be back in 10 minutes.
>>Committee recessed at 12:18 and resumed at 12:27
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan): Welcome back, committee members.
Mr. Enook and I had agreed to switch chairs for a few more minutes.
Mr. Enook wanted to be given a chance to comment on Bill 22 before we actually get into the vote and the clause by clause. So I will allow Mr. Enook to proceed.
I am the member representing Tununiq, which is the community of Pond Inlet. I am honoured and proud to represent Pond Inlet here in this House.
Ever since I was elected, I have tried to ensure that I voice Pond Inlet’s wishes, concerns, and beliefs.
I have consulted with my constituents about this matter. They have provided me with a clear direction, Mr. Chairman, that they want me to present their comments and concerns about this work.
I concur with all the comments made by my colleagues as we totally respect the Electoral Boundaries Commission for carrying out a very difficult mandate.
They worked hard to the best of their abilities.
We are proud of them and we don’t want to waste their hard work on this very important issue for our future.
Sometimes, for example, when we are voting on an issue, even though we know what kind of an outcome it will have, we want to speak to the principles of what we believe in.
I will talk about my beliefs as well as those of the community of Pond Inlet.
Although I have a bit of an expectation of what the outcome will be, for the record, I’m sure that if I needed to be reminded in the future, they can do so with respect to the kind of comments I made.
The Electoral Boundaries Commission did their work very wisely.
We were elected in our communities because they look up to us.
When we don’t agree with that, does that make us unwise?
I don’t think that anybody should be called foolish because they didn’t agree with an issue, as some members stated yesterday.
I know that Nunavummiut want to have good representatives and we want to represent them very well.
I and the residents of Pond Inlet still don’t believe how we can use $1 million annually.
We will have to find that money.
Where is it going to come from?
The communities have needs and requests and they have been denied due to the lack of resources or funding time and again.
Many people in society live in great poverty, but then we say that we can find $1 million right away for three new MLAs.
Chairman (interpretation): Hold on, Mr. Enook.
There is a point of order on the floor. I would like Mr. Curley to elaborate on his point of order.
Hon. Tagak Curley: Mr. Chairman, I would urge that my point of order is that it’s imputed or one of the speakers may have inferred that either someone is not wise.
In Inuktitut, it is quite clear. (interpretation) The comment was that someone was coined as being unwise. (interpretation ends) I think that is offensive to the House and I would ask the member to withdraw that statement.
Mr. Enook, if you understood the point of order and you disagree with it, I would like you to elaborate.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I don’t agree with that. Could you deal with that issue?
I’m sorry, my colleagues.
As the Chair, Mr. Enook didn’t mention a name in his comments, so we have to respect his expression of wisdom.
So therefore, at this time, I find that there’s no point of order.
Mr. Enook, please conclude your statement.
As I stated earlier, Nunavut communities and the residents are always in shortage of their needs that are very important.
The majority of the time, we cannot approve their requests because of lack of funds. We always say that there’s no funding.
The money is not going to appear out of nowhere.
I hope I can be respectful if I say that if we can come up with $1 million for three additional MLAs, we would be congratulated.
We want to represent our communities fully and I agree with that wholeheartedly.
At this time, I cannot support this bill.
I agree with the intent, but the Minister of Finance keeps telling us to be prudent and that there’s limited funding available. So how can we come up with $1 million in a short period of time?
So I won’t be able to believe myself because the people in our communities work very hard due to lack of resources, but we can come up with $1 million right away.
We can all represent people, we are very capable representatives, and we can work harder to represent our people if we want to.
Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I will be voting against this bill.
As the Chair, one doesn’t want to be in favour of one side or another, so Mr. Enook and I will exchange seats.
When you come to the Chamber, please put your cell phones on silent mode.
We’re now going to exchange seats.
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan, for giving me the opportunity to make general comments.
I have no further names on my list for general comments.
We will proceed with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 22.
I’m sure everyone has a copy of Bill 22.
Mr. Tapardjuk. (interpretation ends) Sorry.
Committee Motion 005 – 3(3): Amendment to Schedule of Bill 22 (Tapardjuk)
I would like to move a motion to Bill 22.
I move that the schedule to the bill be amended by:
(a) striking out “Igloolik North” in part 1, Names of Constituencies, and replacing it with “Aggu”; and
(b) striking out “Igloolik North” in part 2, Maps for Convenience of Reference, and replacing it with “Aggu.”
I’ll do that one first and then do the other motion afterwards.
Committee Motion 006 – 3(3): Amendment to Schedule of Bill 22 (Tapardjuk)
I would like to make a motion while we are in this committee.
I move that the schedule of the bill be amended by:
(a) striking out “Igloolik South” in part 1, Names of Constituencies, and replacing it with “Amittuq”;
striking out “Igloolik South” in part 2, Maps for Convenience of Reference, and replacing it with “Amittuq”
At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Kusugak.
While we are on this topic, I would like to raise a question to the Elections Nunavut officials.
Based on the names in the riding, it has an identifier, but it just states Rankin Inlet North. I believe that Chesterfield Inlet should be included, but I’m not sure if that was just a clerical error.
Perhaps it will be better if I ask the question in English. (interpretation ends) Is this a typo?
Is it supposed to say “Rankin Inlet North and Chesterfield Inlet” and it was forgotten to be included as such?
If I could get clarification on that.
The report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission says “Rankin Inlet North.”
That was the way that they presented it and that’s the way that the schedule was drafted based on the report.
I want to ask the officials.
In my prior comments as to how the boundaries were established, specifically I’m referring to Baker Lake as well as the Rankin Inlet North boundaries, how was it determined as to the extent of each riding boundary?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Aupaluktuq. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker.
We can’t answer that. It’s the Electoral Boundaries Commission that came up with those boundaries and the task that Elections Nunavut had was to draft up a bill based on the report that was provided to them by the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
So we can’t answer that question on behalf of the commission.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) We will continue with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 22.
Clause 2, as amended.
Clause 3. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
I had my hand up quite a while back and no one saw me.
I was going to ask if we needed to correct the way the names are spelled. When can we have that opportunity to make changes?
As with any legislation, there is also always an opportunity to bring forward amendments at any time in the future once it has been passed.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) We will continue.
Committee Motion 007 – 3(3): Amendment to Clause 3 of Bill 22 (Elliott)
Everyone should have a copy of the motion that I’m about to present.
Mr. Chairman, the motion is that clause 3 of the bill be amended by striking out “Third Legislative Assembly dissolves, but no earlier than six months after the day this Act receives assent” and replacing it with “Fourth Legislative Assembly dissolves.”
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation) To the motion.
I wanted to take the opportunity to speak towards my motion again.
I have mentioned some of my comments in terms of why I’m putting forward the motion. Again I would like to state that for clause 1 and clause 2 of the bill, I’m in favour of what’s being proposed and I’m in favour of the increase in terms of the good work that the Electoral Boundaries Commission has done through the Hon. Justice Ted Richard, Mr. Kirt Ejesiak, and Mr. Gordon Main.
In respect for Mr. Ningark, who is not here, as I represent three communities, I recognize how hard it is for him in being able to travel between two regions of Kugaaruk and Repulse Bay.
With that being said, in Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay, I am being told constantly and also during the review of the electoral boundaries, it was made clear to me that those two communities would love to have representation with a separate MLA because of the unique situation, much like what’s in Sanikiluaq.
The good people in Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay, I think, constantly are aware that the population does not warrant an MLA.
In terms of putting forward the motion that I’m putting forward and kind of pushing those aside and looking at it from a different angle, I had spent most of the summer trying to think of a way of handling the situation.
When we were presented with the Electoral Boundaries Commission, like I had said, it’s great.
I’m sure if we go to every community and say, “Would you like to have another MLA?” Everyone would say, “Sure, I would love to have someone represent us,” but at what price?