EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Maybe it’s only I, who has a concern about this type of contribution from private companies, because Qallunaaq tend to have more money, they usually have more private businesses.
More Inuit are starting to get well established businesses and there are different birthright corporations out there, but Inuit who own their businesses while still small businesses are already losing out because the big corporations already make contributions.
If this clause applies, there would be contributions being made by the non-Inuit corporations and they could conceivably get more support from the individual, especially if there was a tendering process whereby the contract hinged between two companies, an Inuit business and the large corporation.
The member would recall the previous contribution and use this against the Inuit business.
In regards to clause 168 (3), I would like to know for what reason was this inserted.
Is it because you want huge contributions made to potential MLAs or did you want the MLAs to be bought by those corporations who are well versed in the contracting procurement business.
I would like to know why this was drafted.
There is no change to the current law, so this is what we’ve, what you’ve got at the moment.
There are a couple of factors.
One is that, there is a generally limit on the maximum amount of contributions that can be made and it is 1 thousand 500 dollars, although there is an exception for transportation services.
And of course, volunteer labour, but there has been no change to what’s currently been the practice and the law here in Nunavut and there are no instructions to make changes on this in this regard, but perhaps I misunderstood the member’s question.
My question was, what was the intent of this (3)?
Right now, we are in a situation where most companies are owned by big companies with big dollars, who might not necessarily be small Inuit residents in the communities.
Right now, the big companies know what contracts are coming forward and of course they would be contributing to a lot of MLAs if they could.
The Inuit companies would then suffer because they wouldn’t have very much to contribute.
That’s not my question.
My question is, what was the intent of this (3) in your culture I suppose; according to my Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, it’s just not making sense.
Now I understand the question much more clearly.
The concept behind it is that individuals, like living persons have a physical location that is easy to identify, although in some cases as we’ve seen with residency, it may not be quite so easy.
But, the idea is that living people have a residency as a way to identify where they are and whether they have a right to make a contribution to a candidate.
Now, when it comes to corporations, these are legal persons but they have no body that is easily identifiable.
They carry on business.
That is sort of the criterion that’s used to identify where they are located.
So, the head office might be in Iqaluit, but they might be actually working in Rankin Inlet, so in that case it’s not the head office is used as the place to identify where the company is but where its actually doing commercial activity.
So, carrying on business is where its actually conducting it work and its business.
So, that is the means by which to identify the right to make a contribution if they are working and carrying on business in a place, then they can be affected by the government member for that place so that is why that’s used as the criterion for corporations.
I think Ms. Kusugak would like to make a supplementary.
Ms. Kusugak: Mr. Chairman, when we set about to create this act we used the recommendations that we had and then only altered those in light of like changes across the country that were important or differences in changes of laws and so, where we altered, we did not alter this from the old act that we had.
Those were the conditions under which people ran last time when there was no instruction from this body to change that section, so that why it virtually remained the same.
Any further comments, Ms. Thompson.
Committee Motion 003 – 1(6): Amendment to Clause 168(1)(b)English Version of Bill 14
I move that the word “and” be added after paragraph 168(1) (b) in the English version of Bill 14.
Agreed, opposed, carried.
Clause 168.
Maximum contributions, which number is that?
Clause 168 (5) (interpretation ends) no individual corporations will make a contribution to candidates exceeding fifteen hundred in total during an election period.
Go back to my airline friends again. 168 (5).
Fifteen hundred dollars in total during an election period.
Is that in cash or in kind, how is that contribution of fifteen hundred placed here.
What’s that mean?
Ms. Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 168 (8); where transportation services are given as a contribution of goods or services, the value of the contribution may exceed 15 hundred dollars during an election period.
That was an exception added at the request of the committee and this Assembly to allow for the variation in travel costs for various constituencies that obviously have several communities or none at all.
So, this is a variation to assist those people.
Mr. Arvaluk: Okay.
So are 15 hundred dollar contributions from individuals or corporation is consistent with other Election Acts.
Ms. Kusugak: Yes, Mr. Chairman and it hasn’t changed from the last Elections Act that we had.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 169.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 170.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 171.
Clause 171.
A financial agent may accept an anonymous contribution, even from someone that they know, not exceeding 100 dollars.
Contributions exceeding 100 dollars where a financial agent receives an anonymous contribution, the financial agent they are to do this.
Can you clarify that please?
The idea here is that for the purpose of maintaining an honest election, you need to identify people who are giving money to candidates and if a candidate gets a gift of a bag of money and there’s no name on it and that is more than a 100 dollars, it either has to be somehow returned or it would be given to the consolidated revenue fund.
But the idea is that, you can pass the hat around and collect cash but if you collect cash more than 100 dollars you have to know who it came from and record it.
If I got money from an anonymous donor, an anonymous contribution and it exceeded 100 dollars, I would consider it a contribution to my election campaign funds and would not want to give it to anyone else.
If I wanted to keep this anonymous contribution and it exceeds 100 dollars, I would be breaking the Act and I’m sure that I would be liable in a court of law, even if I did not know who had submitted that bag of money.
I think that we have to make an amendment to this 171.
Chairperson (interpretation): Is that a question Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Can we redraft it so that it is clearer in the future?
I do not think it should be sent to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The anonymous contribution is given to the candidate’s campaign, it should not matter who submitted the contribution.
Ms. Kusugak: I think this is the same as it has been in previous Acts, as well.
And I believe, it speaks to the kind on things that Ms. Thompson was suggesting, you know, that an election is not improperly being influenced.
That its clear who has given money and if you didn’t have a section like this, it would be easy for somebody to say, oh gee, I just don’t know where that money came from, or from a business or a corporation that wanted to, they could be providing money without attaching their name so that there would be no public record of the money.
It is not a change from the previous act and we were not asked to make a change in that area.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 172.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 173.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 174.
Clause 174 (a) the amounts given anonymously shall not be considered as a contribution or aid, no amount of money shall be received anonymously from any one person exceeding one hundred dollars and (b) the amounts given anonymously shall not be considered as a contribution for the purposes of calculating the one thousand five hundred limit in section 168(5).
I would like further clarification on that because we’re talking about the minimum and maximum contributable from anonymous donors.
I would like just like clarification.
The idea here, is that if you have say a meeting of voters and you pass a hat around, you can collect more than the 15 hundred dollar limit that you would normally have as for the total collected at the meeting, but if anyone wanted to put in more than a hundred dollars into the hat, they would have to identify themselves.
So, if you pass the hat around you get 50 dollars, 20 dollars, you don’t have to identify people.
But if an individual gives more than a hundred dollars, they put in 120 dollars you would have to record their name.
But the total collected at the meeting can, of course be more than be one person limit of 15 hundred dollars.
It can be 15 hundred times the number of people at the meeting – up to 30 thousand dollars.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 175.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 176.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 177.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 178.
My colleague beside me is pestering me.
Perhaps he doesn’t want to get re-elected.
Reading clause 178, only a financial agent or a person authorized in writing may enter into a contract to incur an election expense.
When we’re talking about a contract, I think it was the previous clauses before that, where contractors can work with the candidate, Mr. Chairman.
I would like that further clarified please.
Mr. Chairman this item here basically means that every one of us in the past has an official agent and that person is in charge of accepting monies as donated to your campaign.
They are also responsible for paying the bills that you incur and that has to be done by that person, that’s all this clause indicates.
Clause 178.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 179.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 180.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 181.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 182.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 183.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 184.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 185.
Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the return of the deposit and I know that I recall from the consultations that we did and it was a concern felt by some of the members and some of the witnesses that we talked to that, I think if memory serves me correct, the return of the deposit depended on the percentage of the vote that you received.
And another problem or challenge that was faced, also is a fact that sometimes if candidates ran and weren’t successful, they weren’t really and they didn’t get that percentage of votes, they didn’t get their money back and there was no incentive for them so they weren’t filing the returns.
And one of the suggestions was that it was felt that if you changed it to getting your deposit, take away the requirement for a percentage of the vote and just put in there that a candidate had to file the return might be more of an incentive to get those returns filed in a timely manner.
And that the candidates would get their money back and I’m just wondering again, and I commend the drafters of the legislation if that’s what this section does it’s just another example of the concerns and recommendations.
The concerns heard by the committee and the recommendations made by the committee been accepted and incorporated into this legislation.
So, I’m just wondering if that’s exactly where this came from.
Ms. Kusugak: Yes Mr. Chairman, that’s exactly where it came from, the committee’s recommendation.
Mr. Tootoo anymore.
I think this is debatable.
Committee recommendation, fine, but a whole lot of people in the communities will disagree with it.
Although the 200 dollars is not very much, it sort of opens for those who will get the 200 back anyways, that means no loss in expenditure, no loss of money if you bombard, I guess what I’m getting at here is the communities, people in general, take the election seriously, they want to be represented strongly as possible in the Legislative Assembly when they elect that person.
But if you’re not going to get your $200 back, and you know you’re not going to get elected, by virtue of the community knows you, you can say whatever you want to say and some naive people will believe what you’re saying is actually true.
Bizarre things like, you know, I will help the Anglican vestry to get some parish hall or something, which is not in the Financial Administration Act.
I’m just using that out of the blue, but having to lose nothing, if you don’t get certain amount of votes, at least some show of respect from the community, could jeopardize the importance of the election.
I don’t know if I am making any sense, Mr. Chairman, but I guess what I’m trying to say is let’s try to keep those because people are serious about it.
Just try to keep those who are serious in trying to win the election, be nominated with $200 for those who go in there just for fun, for fear that they are not going to lose their $200, you know, I mean $200 is small.
Not just 100 people running in Kimmirut or Grise Fiord for that matter.
See what I am getting at?
Did you weigh the pros and cons of this one after the commissioner’s recommendation?
Mr. Speaker
Mr. Chairman this, I understand the point that the member’s making.
At this point, all I can say is that this recommendation came from the committee, it was supported and approved by the legislative assembly and we just felt that it was the appropriate thing to do, was put it into the new act so that’s why it’s there.
There was support from the total assembly on this.
But I understand the the point that the member’s making.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Perhaps we’ll come to it, but the amount of money that was deposited by a candidate, how many days does it take to, perhaps maybe 30 days to get your deposit back?
Or do I have a limited number of days before I can get my deposit back, or how does it work?
Mr. Orr: Mr. Chairman, if the candidate gets the return filed quickly of coarse they have a certain amount of time available for that, assuming they have their return filed on time, then I assume that the normal … would kick in and they would be with the normal period of time for payment on any depth of the government has.
I think it’s 30 days normally.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, is that it?
Clause 185.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 186.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 187.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 188.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 189.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 190.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 191 Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 192.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 193.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 194.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 195.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 196.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 197.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 198.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 199.
Iqaqrialu.
It’s Clause 199, resignation provision.
If the resignation of a returning officer shall not take affect earlier than the day it is accepted by the Chief Electoral Officer, I wonder if you can explain this section.
If the Returning Officer resigns, then what happens or why it doesn’t take effect.
Mr. Orr: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
The idea here is that the Returning Officer has very serious duties under the Act.
If a Returning Officer wishes to no longer perform those duties and wants to resign, the Returning Officer has to inform the Chief Electoral Officer and make arrangements to have that resignation accepted, otherwise, if a Returning Officer does write a letter saying that I resign and they walk off the job and no, it has not been accepted and there’s been no arrangement for a successor, then there is a period of time when there is nobody available to do important functions.
It’s basically saying their still obliged to carry out their duties until the resignation is accepted.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Yes, I understand that, but what if the Returning Officer resigns without telling the Chief Electoral Officer, what happens then?
Mr. Orr: Technically, they would still be obliged to perform their duties.
If the resignation has not been accepted, then there is no valid resignation and they would still be obliged to perform.
And if they fail to do it, then they would be subject to some sanction.
Sometimes we get upset with something when we’re working.
Because of a person being very upset, they just walk out of the room.
What if it happens, what if the Returning Officer walks out because he/she is upset then, what happens in that case?
Ms. Kusugak: Well, if it’s between election periods then clearly, this notwithstanding, you would appoint somebody new.
If it’s during an election period, that’s why actually we have an Assistant Returning Officer, because there are a lot of unforeseen circumstances.
People might become ill or have some other circumstances that cause them not to be able to perform their job.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 200.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 201.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 202.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 203.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 204.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 205.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 206.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 207.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 208.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 209.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 210.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 211.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 212.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 213.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 214.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 215.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 216.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 217.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 218.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 219.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 220.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 221.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 222.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 223.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 224.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 225.
Clause 225 is very important.
We can get a report; somebody can make a complaint about us on a false basis.
So what if somebody makes a false complaint, what happens then?
Can somebody explain that to me?
Okay. First of all, the chief electoral officer looks into it to see if it is a frivolous complaint, if that complaint is made to me.
Otherwise the complaint might be made to the police who investigate and determine if there is a reason to go further.
That’s their job and I’ll guess we’ll leave the rest of it for there but I believe that’s the answer to the members’ question.
Yes thank you, for the response, but if somebody makes a frivolous complaint about me as a candidate, would I have to declare myself ineligible to be a candidate or what happens then.
I can just give an example that might help David see what happens when somebody does make a frivolous complaint in a case where the complaint was made by the, this is an actual situation, I don’t have to say who or where it was, but where a person made a complaint about a candidate.
And it was the sister of the other candidate and the complaint was found to be false and it was very malicious and when the police investigated they couldn’t get, they knew that the complaint was there and it was real, but they couldn’t get the witnesses to come up forward and say yes, I heard that person make those statements against that member or that candidate.
So without the witnesses, it couldn’t go through but we were told that if the complaint and the witnesses were verified and it was shown that it was, they would be charged and the person that made the complaint falsely would be charged, probably with mischief.
Just to remind the members. Our rules only allow us to have clear water.
Whoever has that Pepto Bismal, can you remove it from the House please?
You can only have clear water in the House chambers.
Clause 226. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 227. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 228. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 229. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 230. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 231. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 232. Agreed?
Just a minute, 232 or 231. 231.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): It states that if the Integrity Commissioner believes that on the grounds that somebody has committed, is about to commit, or is likely to commit an act or a mission that could constitute an offence under this Act. I am not sure, but it seems like the Integrity Commissioner should not be there as they are not an electoral officer.
Well, what’s he there for?
The Integrity Commissioner appointed by the Assembly to look after ethical affairs for the House.
It’s here under the capacity to try to sort out problems or alleged offences outside of the courts.
So the idea is, that the Integrity Commissioner can make an agreement with a person that is alleged to have committed an offence or someone who might be about to commit an offence to resolve the problem without someone having to go to court and there are a number of things that can be done including restitution, public apology or perhaps seeking advice from elders.
But the idea is to give an alternate means of dealing with problems outside of the court process.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Clause 232. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 233. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 234. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 235. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 236. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 237. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 238. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 239. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 240. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 241. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 242. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 243. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 244. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 245. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 246. Agreed?
On 246 (5) 246 (6a), you explain to me what the difference between those two, influence of the order of the meeting and the exception, they seem to be identical?
You are guilty of an offence in 246(5) but you are okay on 246(6)(a).
The general rule is, that you are not allowed to give money, things, food, to people to influence them.
However, it’s understood that you’ll have meetings of voters at which you’ll want to serve some refreshments.
That is the meaning of (a), that if you serve soft drinks, and snacks or light meals or something, that’s not considered to be influencing the voters.
If however, you take them out to a very expensive meal, that might be a different matter.
Mr. Arvaluk: Yes, that is what I wanted to understand, however, it says 246(5), meeting of voters assemble for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate is a guilty offence. 246(6) is provided that the meeting of voters is for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate.
Both are assemble for the purpose of promoting a candidate.
How do you enforce this in court?
I think the best way I could to explain the difference, I mean, not about the part that’s enforceable in court, would be if you have some people over, when you are providing sandwiches and stuff, that’s one thing and if you say, you can each take a box of steaks home when we’re finisher here tonight, well, that’s clearly another matter.
Obviously there are fine lines everywhere about what’s subjective.
I think this provides really, it’s meant to provide good guidelines for candidates to know what is acceptable kind of behaviour and what’s not, and I hope that does.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 247.
Mr. Mr. Iqaqrialu.
A person is guilty of an offence by intimidation.