EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Of course, as I mentioned the other day, patients and clients come first. Anything we can do to improve services to Nunavummiut, we will take them seriously.
I have consistently maintained that the design and delivery of social services programs in Nunavut must come from the ground up, not from the top down.
Due to these reasons and with the critical shortages we already face with social service workers, how is the government working to achieve this?
I thank Mr. Curley for his question and comments. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Curley knows that I believe in it as well.
The people in the communities know best how to do certain things and they can make good recommendations to the government, to all organizations. It’s important to listen to the voices of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I have to complement Mr. Curley as a former Minister of Health and Social Services.
He did the Knowledge Forum and we got a lot of good input from people across Nunavut, elders included.
He commissioned the Child Welfare League of Canada consultations that went around all the communities.
I participated in Cambridge Bay.
Those reports plus the report from the Auditor General of Canada have largely formed the basis for the work that’s undertaken under the Social Services Transformation Plan.
We’re building upon what Mr. Curley initiated when he was the minister.
Question 510 – 3(3): Improvements to Nunavut’s Education System (Tapardjuk)
I would like to direct my questions for the Minister of Education.
I am very proud that they had a major meeting here in Iqaluit.
Here it indicated that they would like to strengthen and train the employees.
This is with regard to the Circumpolar Conference on Education for Indigenous People.
Even if you have achieved grade 12, we don’t come to par with the grade 12 graduates in the rest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, is your department going to look at the education system so that we become up to par with the rest of Canada?
Yes, they had a very good meeting at that time. They worked very closely together and they identified their needs in their own communities. This also is another goal we want to implement to that end.
Again, another important matter that cropped up was acknowledging other partners and working with early childhood education program delivery agencies.
This includes looking at improvements to the quality of education within the school system, such as innovative thinking or innovative ways of improving education.
Additionally, we looked at how we could utilize the long-distance Internet education media and how to use that in our communities to offer more choices to our students.
Other issues were voiced, particularly in improving our quality of education through cooperative means. The groups brainstormed these issues in the plenary sessions.
They also identified that educators have to re-engage parents, families, and communities so that we work together in this field.
(interpretation ends) Parental and community engagement priorities were discussed; roles that education plays in our changing world; the experiences of students and communities as they relate to students; causes and costs of disengagement; and transforming the education system to engage family and communities.
(interpretation) I just reiterated that in English.
They covered a variety of subjects and they’re also signing an agreement some time in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I wanted to know was once the Education Act is enacted and since we’re looking at improving and reinstating the usage of the Inuktitut language, are there any hindrances or challenges we might find in the new Act?
For example, when my grandchild achieves grade 12, will her education quality be up to par with the rest of Canada?
I would like a response to that question, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Tapardjuk. Minister of Education, Minister Aariak.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize for making a long reply. Yes, the Department of Education is doing an assessment on the quality of our education and they are looking at the assessment and review policy.
Just recently, we started hearing about our grade 12 graduates who don’t meet the grade 12 standards in the south.
So we’re starting to do an assessment and review of the education system and how we can make changes so that we get a true grade 12 graduate at the end of the day. So that’s what we are doing now.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Minister of Education.
On behalf of my constituents, I would support this assessment and review.
If there is going to be an assessment with your department, are you going to give us a report or give us an update once that review process is over? Will we see improvement or changes afterwards?
The assessment and evaluation process has started. However, they don’t want to rush to make a report. I’m sure that at the end of this assessment and evaluation, the results will be given to the House and the communities, but I can’t say when that will be coming about.
You are finished? Okay.
Members will, indeed, note that the time for question period expired. We will move along in our orders of the day.
Through you, I would like to ask my colleagues and you that I wish to go back to Item 5, Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
I would be more than happy, through me, to convey that to your colleagues.
There being none. Please proceed, Mr. Ningark.
It is a privilege and an honour to recognize a young lady from Kugaaruk. His name is Josephie Serkoak.
He is here for the Adoption Commissioner’s meeting. I think we all can appreciate the services they render for the people of Nunavut.
Welcome, Josephie.
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery. Ms. Ugyuk.
Ms. Ugyuk: I wish to be so distinguished like my colleague, but it’s pretty hard.
(interpretation) I would also like to recognize somebody from Gjoa Haven, Kelly Putuguk, who is in custom adoption.
I, too, would like to recognize a constituent from Cambridge Bay, not only a constituent but also a very good friend of mine and a friend of my family for many decades. She has done a lot of great work in Cambridge Bay on adoption issues. Her name is Susie Koaha, sitting over here.
Tabled Document 311 – 3(3): Implementation Update on the Evaluation of Business Development Centre, September 2012 (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the implementation update on the evaluation of the Business Development Centre, September 2012.
Motion 041 – 3(3): Extension of the Review Period for Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act (Ningeongan)
Maybe you can help me out with the procedure here.
I heard the motion and I oppose the motion. Could you advise me of when the proper time to speak to the motion is, please.
Speaker: Right now, Minister Shewchuk.
You wish to speak to the motion?
As the Minister of Justice, I rise before you today to speak to Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act.
This is a very important bill, and I rise to voice my opposition to the motion.
The committee has been given extensive responses to all of its written questions, and I am available to discuss this bill further during my scheduled appearance before the committee next week.
The removal of section 40 of this bill would coincide with most jurisdictions in Canada.
An unfettered choice of counsel poses concerns as it does not give the Legal Services Board the ability to scrutinize the qualifications or the costs of chosen counsel.
With a number of section 40 matters on the docket, it is important that we remove this section and give the Legal Services Board management the ability to ensure qualified, experienced lawyers are assigned to those most serious offences as soon as possible.
Providing conflict of interest protection for the Legal Services Board lawyers is important to the administration of justice in Nunavut.
The Legal Services Board conducts the vast majority of our cases in Nunavut.
Currently, Legal Services Board lawyers are open to professional and civil liability for conflict of interest.
With the Legal Services Board conducting so many cases, it is nearly impossible to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
This bill should be passed as soon as possible to allow the legal services lawyers to focus on their clients and not have to worry about professional sanctions.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members not to support this motion so that we can proceed with this bill as scheduled.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) I will be speaking in Inuktitut.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, (interpretation) we can say that the (interpretation ends) members on this side (interpretation) are not opposed, but there are quite a few questions that we still have and I’m sure that we can complete this before the end of our mandate.
Again, there are quite a number of issues outstanding and it’s quite a thick bill.
We need additional time and I do believe that if we make an extension, it will give us the opportunity to review, but I can tell you that it could be done before the end of our mandate, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Are there any more comments to the motion?
As the former Minister of Justice for the Department of Justice and responsibility for the Nunavut Legal Services Board, I’m well aware of the work that the Legal Services Board performs on behalf of all of our people we represent in all of our communities across Nunavut.
It’s a system that has become very complicated.
We do need good lawyers, we need to attract good lawyers in Nunavut, and we have to encourage lawyers that Nunavut is a place where they’re not putting their professional careers at risk.
I believe that this issue was raised when I was Minister of Justice and I appreciate my colleague for continuing to pursue it.
I believe that it’s important that we pass this legislation as quickly as possible.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this request for extension.
As the minister said, he’s available to answer questions next week and we are here until March 20.
There’s plenty of time to get the information out there.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Peterson. Are there any more comments to the motion?
I don’t have the questions that the chair had and we outlined those in the letter to the minister. I don’t have a copy of the responses the minister made and I don’t know whether they were lost. So I don’t want to make guesses, but we just recently got the reply.
We haven’t had time to scrutinize it because of other matters that we have to deal with.
We, as elected by the people, have to know exactly what implications these laws will have.
We’re not opposed to this bill, as my colleague stated, but we need additional time to review the bill properly. We are MLAs. We review laws and pass laws.
We would like to see the review extended by 120 days. We want to know exactly what kind of implications this bill will have and we don’t want to just rush the review of the bill.
So I suggest you vote for the motion.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Tapardjuk. To the motion. Mr. Elliott.
My comments are similar to what Mr. Tapardjuk’s are in the sense that I don’t believe any of the regular members are opposed to what’s in the bill and the changes that the government wants to make. It’s more of a matter of time where we, as a committee of legislation, will have the time to sit down and review the bill properly.
I know there were some concerns in terms of the government funding and the ability to fund lawyers, and whatnot.
At this point, with the information we have received, it doesn’t seem to support that.
So I’m sure the minister will be getting information from the chair seeking more information to justify some of the claims that have been mentioned in the bill.
I think it’s wise, as legislators, to make sure we have all the information before making a decision.
We don’t want to rush into something, so we’re asking the government for a little bit more time to reflect and make the best possible piece of legislation that we can.
With the nature of this bill being very important, when we come to a vote, I wish to have a recorded vote undertaken on this motion.
I’ll ask all those in favour of the motion to please rise and sit down once I have called your name.
All in favour, please rise.
All those opposed to the motion, please rise and sit down when I call your name.
The results of the vote are 11 for, 7 against, and 0 abstentions.
We will go back to Item 17.
Motion 042 – 3(3): Extension of the Review Period for Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Justices of the Peace Act (Ningeongan)
WHEREAS Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Justices of the Peace Act, received second reading on October 26, 2012;
AND WHEREAS Bill 44 has been referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation for consideration;
Once again, as Minister of Justice, I rise to speak to Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Justices of the Peace Act.
Mr. Speaker, this is another very important bill that we are introducing into the House, and I do rise today to voice my opposition to the motion.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the committee has been provided with extensive responses to all of its written questions and concerns.
I’m available to discuss this bill further during my scheduled appearance before the committee next week.
As well, the committee has asked for a number of amendments which I have agreed to.
Mr. Speaker, last month, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court determined that Nova Scotia’s JP program was unconstitutional.
This ruling was another in a line of court rulings finding JP programs invalid because they lack adequate independence or autonomy.
This bill was brought in direct response to case law and an appeal from our court.
The Nunavut JP program is essential to the administration of justice in Nunavut.
We must pass this bill to allow for more independence and the hiring and compensation of JPs to ensure that the program is operating within the law.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that members not support this motion so that we can proceed with this bill as scheduled.
If I may, in short, indicate to the minister, the sponsor of the bill, this bill will be passed during the mandate of this Assembly.
There is no way that we’re trying to delay it.
We’re going to make it more effective.
There are questions.
There are also provisions in the bill.
The standing committee members have asked questions, but during our deliberations today, there was obviously not enough adequate time to deal with the questions that were submitted to you.
It is quite a major bill, including the legislative proposals from the government that we were asked to approve, which we did.
So in short, Mr. Speaker, nothing in the motion says that this bill will not be passed during the mandate of this Assembly as scheduled. I believe the schedule that we have is a mandate of this Assembly.
So it will be passed, but we need more time to do the work as the 120 days have expired already.
We’re going to simply have to have more days.
Indeed, I could also repeat the reasoning for trying to make improvements to the bill.
We have reviewed part of the bill, but we still have several concerns. In particular, your response to the chairman’s requests was just received recently and we haven’t had the opportunity to review it.
We want to ensure this bill, meant for Nunavut, is relevant to our constituents because they take pride in having this Nunavut government. Additionally, they also believe that their representatives, when considering bills, will enact legislation that benefits our residents.
We aren’t necessarily fighting this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Rather, we want an opportunity to review it further based on our mandate as elected officials, as our constituents elected us to provide oversight and review of proposed legislation. Due to these reasons, we are not against the bill. However, we want further understanding of the provisions to ensure that it fits all Nunavummiut.
I want to see this bill passed, but I also want you to give us a further extension to review it, Mr. Speaker.
We’re not going to be voting against this bill; we just want more time to review the bill and that’s why the motion was brought forward.
Once again, the committee has indicated the importance of Bill 44.
Tomorrow, I will table the standing committee’s letters and responses on this bill for the public to see.
In the meantime, I ask for a recorded vote. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again I would encourage all of the members to vote in favour of the motion.
Once again the committee is asking for an extension to be able to review.
As the minister had spoken already, the possibility of getting a meeting with him next week if the committee is willing to, there is a possibility if our schedule… . As he said, it’s not like we’re saying this is it and we won’t discuss it in this sitting or during this sitting, so there is still a possibility of continuing forward with it.
I’m not sure, in terms of the government being afraid, that it’s a stall tactic of some sort.
It’s more, as legislators and the longer we do this, now that we’re in our fourth year, we want to make sure that we’re passing pieces of legislation that are for the best of our constituents and actually are of benefit to our constituents.
With that said, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
A recorded vote has been requested again for the motion.
Again I’ll ask all those in favour of the motion to rise and sit down once your name has been called.
I ask all those opposed to the motion to please rise and sit down when I call your name.
Again the votes are 11 for the motion and 7 against, with 0 abstentions.
Bill 47 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2012-2013 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 47, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2012-2013, be read for the first time.
Bill 48 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2013-2014 – First Reading
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 48, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2013-2014, be read for the first time.
Bill 51 – An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 51, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, be read for the first time.
All those in favour. Any opposed?
First Reading of Bills. Minister of Health and Social Services, Minister Peterson.
Bill 53 – An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act – First Reading
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 53, An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act, be read for the first time.
Any opposed? The motion is carried.
Item 18. First Reading of Bills. Minister of Education, Minister Aariak.
Bill 55 – An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Iqaluit West, that Bill 55, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 49 with Mr. Tapardjuk in the Chair.  Before we proceed to the Committee of the Whole, we will take a 20-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:37 and Committee resumed at 16:07
Chairman (Mr. Tapardjuk) (interpretation): Thank you, members. I would like to call the committee meeting to order.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following item to deal with: Bill 49.
We wish to continue with the review of the Department of Community and Government Services, followed by the review of the Department of Health. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Are we in agreement that we will continue with our review of the Department of Community and Government Services?
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Community and Government Services – Consideration in Committee
Minister Kusugak, please introduce your officials. Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
I am pleased to be here. Mr. Chairman, on my left is my Deputy Minister, Mr. Roy Green, and on my right is our former Director of Finance, Ms. Alma Power, and I thank her for being here with us.
We’re on page J-7. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. (interpretation) Community and Government Services. Protection Services.
Before I recognize Mr. Enook, if you look in the business plan, it is on page 145. Mr. Enook.
It’s not necessarily written here under J-7, but I wonder if I can ask a question on the minister’s opening comments, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Yes, you may proceed, Mr. Enook.
Protection Services, I assume, includes all things, including safety issues. I assume it also includes search and rescue organizations.
I want clarification from the minister. He has stated, and I will quote, “The number of search and rescue incidents is on the rise in Nunavut.
In 2012, there were 178 searches for 301 individuals.”
I want to ask why. I can understand it in two ways.
Maybe it’s because they’re now using the SPOT devices. Those are very good devices to use.
Once you press a button, you can automatically figure out their coordinates. I want clarification as to how it has increased, Mr. Chairman.
It basically reflects the increase in the number of search and rescue activities.
Totalled last year, in 2011, there were 163 search and rescue activities and this past year, some of the parties had multiple people, such as fathers and sons. However, over this past year, there were 178 searches, which led to that increase.
That is what we ended up with in conducting searches, as more hunters had to be rescued, and that is all they identify as the increase.
Hopefully that is understandable. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I may be misinformed, but I can’t find the Inuktitut translation, so I will read the English version.
I will quote the wording.
(interpretation ends) “The number of search and rescue incidents is on the rise in Nunavut.
In 2012, there were 178 searches for 301 individuals.” Iksivautaaq, my question was: do we know if this was a result of people starting to use the SPOT devices?
If it is, then it is, in a bad way, I guess, a good number if it’s the result of those SPOT devices being used. Does this number tell the department anything? Are there any indicators as to what this number means?
I hope that made sense.
This number actually indicates exactly what it is.
There are more searches regardless of whether they are SPOT activated or not. There are still searches.
In terms of SPOT, it’s not searching anymore, it’s gone to react to a SPOT activation, but it’s still in the searches. Although there have been more SPOT activations now, they’re still in the same category. There were still 178 searches for 301 individuals.
As one can appreciate, sometimes there is more than one person in a hunting party.
It is still at its total under the individuals searched for, but it’s still just searches.
If he chooses, I could break that down in terms of what, when, and where.
I’ll try to rephrase it.
Government Services and the Government of Nunavut, as all of us do, encourage the use of these SPOT devices in the event of an incident.
There were 178 searches.
Of those, how many of them were as a result of the usage of the SPOT devices?
Mr. Chairman, I’ll have further comments following the reply.
We already know the number.
Of the 178 searches from either breakdowns or being lost, 53 searches were as a result of the usage of SPOT devices.
From the 178, there were 53 usages of SPOT devices. One tends to think that it would be best to use SPOT devices so they can be found using the coordinates.
Due to that, it reduces long searches because they go directly to where the coordinates take them.
I will ask, Mr. Chairman. There were 53 SPOT devices activated. Is it higher than the previous years?
If it’s increasing, that means the SPOT devices are being used more. We encourage the hunters to use them. So it is evident that the hunters are starting to use these SPOT devices, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I’m glad to say that these are very good questions and the people have to be informed.