|
About
the Integrity Commissioner
About the Integrity Act
Integrity Act Info
Introduction of
Bill 7, Integrity Act
Reports and Reviews
Disclosure
Forms
|
About the Integrity Act
Introduction of Bill 7,
Integrity Act - Members'
Questions
Extracted from the official record of the
Members' questions upon the consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill 7,
Integrity Act, on May 24, 2001, in Cambridge Bay. Please refer to the
official Hansard for the authoritative version.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
just want to find out about the family members that are mentioned in the Act,
maybe if you could clarify this to me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Minister Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairman the main purpose for the reference for the members'
child or family or spouse or anybody dependant on that member that's living in
the same household as a result of those private interests are deemed basically
hoped to be the same as the members.
So, I think it's important that these private interests, I think well all felt
that it's important that these private interests be disclosed to the public on
the disclosure forms because of that relationship with the member and those in
his or her immediate household. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
the response and my other question relates to the family. Not all of household
members usually have jobs in Nunavut, there could also be a conflict within a
family in regards to them being in a wage economy.
Perhaps if you could explain to me what kind of conflict they would encounter as
a family.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Iqaqrialu. Minister Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask Mr. Stanbury to give some
examples for the member to speak on that particular issue. Thank you.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Stanbury go ahead.
Mr. Stanbury: Thank you for the question. It does go to the heart of the
question of including members of the family in the disclosure requirements in
this Act. I would be reluctant to give you examples because I don't want to try
to anticipate things on which I might have to rule.
But it is not only being recognized in this Bill in Nunavut that any dependant
members of the family might have interests which could be favoured by a
legislator but this is a growing recognition across Canada in similar
legislation.
You asked me in preparing proposed legislation of this kind to take into account
not only the conditions and environment of Nunavut but also the trends in this
kind of legislation across Canada.
And while you want to be very Nunavut specific and make sure that it's relevant
to the environment of Nunavut, I recognize that you also want it to be at the
leading edge of the developments of Conflict of Interest legislation in Canada.
And the definitions that we have put forward here are consistent with those of
the most recent legislation in provinces and territories. For instance it is
very similar to Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the Yukon. So
that there is a growing recognition that there is potential for favouring, a
potential for legislators being perceived to favour any dependant relative
living in their household.
Now, this proposed legislation would not prevent any of those people from for
instance contracting with government or being employed by government, that would
be impractical as some of you have pointed out, in this jurisdiction. But it
does oblige you, it would oblige you to be open about who those people are who
are dependant in your family so that the public can make a judgement of whether
or not they are being favoured.
One of the main principles of this proposed legislation is openness. So what is
being proposed is that the people who are related to legislators, who might be
perceived by the public to be potentially favoured by the legislators, are known
to the public. As a number of other provisions in this bill, the opportunities
are not restricted but the information available to the public is expanded, so
that the public can make a judgement, so that you can make a judgement yourself,
about whether or not the actions of a Member of the Legislative Assembly are
fair to the public as compared to his or her actions in relation to his or her
family.
The family, not just in Nunavut, but across Canada, is being perceived in a
larger context and I think the definitions in this bill take into account not
only the conditions in Nunavut in a practical way, but take into account the
trends across the country. I stress that it does not limit the opportunities of
members of the family, it just obliges the legislator to make clear in public
who those dependant members of his or her family are so that everyone can be
open and can make their own judgement about the fairness of legislators'
activities.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask another question. Being a Member of the Legislative Assembly,
when you live in your own community we want to treat all people the same. There
are usually grants of money that are given to the public when they request it
and they usually approach members to assist them.
It seems like there has been a problem for me when members of my family want to
be provided with assistance from the government for example, and I assist the
people that are not my family and it has been a problem whereby I am not able to
help my relations.
This probably has to be amended by this Act, or addressed in some manner.
Chairperson (interpretation): I didn't hear a question, but if there are any
comments from the witness table. Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Thank you. It should be clear that there is nothing in this bill
that would prevent the member from treating his family members in exactly the
same way as any other constituent.
It is perfectly acceptable under the proposed statute to assist members of your
family in accessing the same kind of benefits as are available in the same way
to all your other constituents. So certainly there should be no misunderstanding
in the general public that a member cannot assist his own family or a member of
a legislators' family cannot be assisted in the same way as any other citizen of
Nunavut.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Stanbury. Mr. Alakannuark.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
noticing me right away and giving me the opportunity to ask questions. In
regards to the bill I wish to ask a question of the minister.
Of course this bill if it is passed will affect all of us as Members of the
Legislative Assembly and if the member or his child or one of his immediate
family members should have a conflict, is it only applied then. Is there a
punishment or sanction.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Alakannuark. Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that question. That's
important I think to understand that this proposed Act would not in any way
interfere with or duplicate the criminal law. What is does is to recognize that
you have accepted obligations that go beyond the criminal law.
This is a very special kind of law as has been pointed out because you are
usually, as people who have been elected to govern the territory and govern your
people, you are usually passing laws to govern others. This is a law in which
you have chosen to make rules to govern yourselves. It is a very fundamental law
for the Legislative Assembly as has been pointed out.
But it does not in any way venture into the area of criminal law or moral law,
except to the extent that it sets probably the highest standards of any such law
in Canada for the conduct of your public duties. This is a law which you are
passing to govern yourselves in the performance of your public duties. That is
the focus of this law.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Stanbury. We are under questions.
Mr. Irqittuq.
*Verify with re-translation
Mr. Irqittuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have
a question that I would like to pose about the opening comments. It is about
this comprehensive bill that incorporates four important elements including the
use of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as its foundation.
It considers the realities that we must deal with in Nunavut and in our
communities. It incorporates approaches being taken on these issues in other
jurisdictions within Canada and it says here that you are using Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit as the foundation. Could you elaborate further and tell me if
you worked with any elders in order to have this designed using Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit. Did you use elders to incorporate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and
who were they.
What Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit are we talking about when we say it is used as a
foundation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Irqittuq. Mr. Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if you go to the report
"For A Culture of Integrity", which was the review of the conflict of interest
legislation that the Speaker tabled earlier today. On page 8 there are documents
that were reviewed and there are significant references on Inuit traditional
knowledge.
There were a half a dozen reports that were reviewed in detail by the research
staff of the Conflict Commissioner in drafting some of the legislation that is
before us today. Also in discussions with members as you may recall, in various
caucus briefings and Management and Services Board briefings that the Conflict
of Interest Commissioner had with members. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Mr. Irqittuq.
*verify with re-translation
Mr. Irqittuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You probably didn't
understand my question. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, when we say that and we say
that it is incorporated, what did you use to incorporate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
into this bill.
I am asking this question, for myself I am not quite sure what Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit is. But I do agree with the contents of this bill, I am in
agreement with everything in this bill. But when we include Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit and the incorporation of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit I disagree at
that point. I believe in traditional knowledge.
If I go back forty years for example, and if you worked with elders between the
ages of 60 and 80 I would believe that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is being used as
the foundation and that is why I am asking this question. What Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit is incorporated into this bill. What is included. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Irqittuq. Mr. Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I don't profess to be an
expert on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and I know there are different interpretations
even amongst my Inuit colleagues in this House when we speak about what Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit is or what it means.
I can say, as I said earlier, that the staff that were supporting the Conflict
of Interest Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest Commissioner himself
reviewed the documents. There were extensive reports and I can read them out for
the member.
The report from the September Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit workshop in Nunavut
September 29 and 30, September 1999 that was held by Culture, Language, Elders &
Youth. There were interviews with Inuit elders volume 2, perspectives on Inuit
traditional law by Nunavut Arctic College in 1999. There was various internal
discussion documents and presentations prepared by individuals and departments
in the government on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, which included Human Resources and
Sustainable Development again in 1999.
There was the major justice retreat and conference that took place in Rankin
Inlet in 1998. The report from the Nunavut Social Development Council on that
retreat. The Inuit Way; A guide to Inuit Culture, 1989, by Pauktuutit Inuit
Women's Association and again another major elders' conference that was held
outside of Rankin Inlet from April 25 to 28 in 1983 by the Inuit Cultural
Institute.
Those are some of the main documents that were drawn upon to get a sense of
Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. Now at the same time Mr. Chairman, if the member is
referring to what specifically is in the legislation as far as trying to
recognize Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, there are provisions that the Integrity
Commissioner in this case, when the bill passes, will be able to draw upon
elders for consultation on specific cases.
Even to go as far as, providing the member allows it, for a member who may be in
a position of being reviewed, allows that they can discuss the circumstances of
his or her situation with elders provided the confidential matters on the
specifics of what is being reviewed.
So that process has been laid out in this legislation. We are hoping, you know
there is nothing formally laid out in procedures on how to do that yet, but we
know in our current judicial system, there have been developments where elders
can participate in judicial proceedings. We are hoping and are confident that
the Integrity Commissioner once this bill becomes law will be able to work with
members and with others that will involve elders in the proceedings of the work
that the Integrity Commissioner has to carry out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Irqittuq.
Mr. Irqittuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, you can't
respond to my question. It is quite hard when you ask questions about Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit, because of coursenone of us know fully about Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit. You said that there were a few meetings here and there to
discuss Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
You mentioned Pauktuutit Women's Association and other organizations that had
various meetings and so on but there is nobody who knows all of Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit. I am not saying that I am opposed to this bill. But what I
don't like is payin lip service to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. A lot of people say
that they are going to put it together basing it on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and
to myself it is just paying lip service, without really meaning anything.
It is like a declaration, it is usually just there without really meaning
anything. I would like to emphasize that I am not opposed to this bill, but what
is in there that is Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit. If somebody out there hears Inuit
Qaujimajatuqangit, of course, they are going to be pleased but the problem is we
just pay lip service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. I didn't hear a question. It was more
of a comment. Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am really glad to hear
some of the comments and answers that I have heard so far especially on the idea
that this legislation is at the leading edge of this type of legislation in
Canada.
I think that can remind us all of the opportunities that we have to be able to
pick things from other jurisdictions and integrate them into our legislation. I
am really pleased to hear that and it is something that we have an opportunity
to do with the creation of Nunavut and integrating those types of processes into
the development of our legislation.
Dealing with this specific legislation I know that there has been a change and
it is now called the Integrity Act and the main thing that it was before was a
conflict of interest. I am just wondering if the definition of conflict of
interest itself has changed within this new legislation or has it remained the
same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Mr. Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, obviously if there is
deemed to be a personal benefit to a member it is a conflict of interest, but in
fact from that perspective it hasn't changed. In fact with our legislation, the
Integrity Act, we feel that it has actually been broadened from the perspective
that right now, as long as a member knows or reasonably should know that there
is an opportunity to improperly further his or her own private interests, if
that situation were to happen, that he or she should reasonably know that
language.
It is not good enough to say that he or she didn't know, if something were to
happen and that individual were found to be in a conflict of interest situation.
So from that perspective it has been broadened from the current conflict of
interest legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe, Mr. Chairman, if I
may, Mr. Stanbury would like to add to that as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the minister has said the conflict of
interest definition has been broadened in this bill. The words, "knows or
reasonably should know", are an important addition to the definition in section
8, as the minister has pointed out.
That was recommended by the NWT Review Panel, which is analyzed in my report
entitled, "For a Culture of Integrity". But this bill goes one step further and
it draws as the honourable member has pointed out, it draws from other advanced
legislation in the country to add the words, "or improperly to further another
person's private interest".
In other words, it recognizes that there can be a conflict of interest not only
if a member were to unfairly favour a member of his or her own family, but if
the legislator were to favour anyone's interest improperly.
So this is the strongest definition of conflict of interest in any legislation
in Canada. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Stanbury. Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased to
hear that and I think that will go a long way in the public perception that we
now no longer have a Conflict of Interest Act, they may have had some concern as
to whether it was still an Integrity Act, not just another Conflict of Interest
Act. I believe that it does, with that.
Another thing that I would like to ask Mr. Chairman, is in the minister's
opening comments, he talked about including a wider range of sanctions that
could be imposed by the Commissioner if an MLA is in violation of the Act. I am
just wondering if he could give some examples of some of the types of sanctions
that have been added. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Either one of you can
respond. Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One example which responds to the
member's interest in the potential use of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and
traditional knowledge, drawing on the principles of Inuit values that are
traditional, is that the member might be required to publicly acknowledge his or
her conduct.
There is, I think even found on the wall of this room, as an example of Inuit
values, the willingness to apologize and to recognize and take responsibility. I
think other members have mentioned that here tonight. So that is one possible
sanction which is unique to Nunavut in laws of this kind in Canada.
The minister mentioned that compensation or costs could be ordered to be paid by
a member or to a member. The Act would also provide that if a member became
liable by order of the legislature for one of these financial sanctions, the
funds could be deducted from the member's pay. Or the financial sanctions could
be recovered in a court of law.
So these are strong additional sanctions. There is also a provision for the
Integrity Commissioner to consider and recommend any other sanction which may be
appropriate. So this allows a great flexibility to examine the nature of the
activity that has been found to be in contravention of the act, and to assess
the seriousness of that activity, to assess the appropriateness of a remedy
without restriction to a hard and fast list.
It would give the Commissioner the flexibility to be creative, if you like, in
recommending a sanction and it would give the Legislative Assembly, because the
Legislative Assembly makes the ultimate decision, that flexibility in making
sure that, if you like, the sanction fits the contravention. Getting away from
the terminology of the penalty fitting the crime. Because as you have pointed
out, as the honourable member has pointed out, there is a whole new spirit in
this Act.
The whole spirit of this Act is that an assumption that all Members of this
Legislative Assembly regard politics as a noble profession. That they know the
public expects the best of them, the highest standards of them and that they
expect the highest standards of themselves.
So while the standards set out in this Act are probably the strictest of any
legislation in Canada, or perhaps the world, because as far as I have examined
legislation, I believe with the statement or purpose, the statement of
principles, the statement of commitment and the accountability that is built
into this Act, I think you have the strongest commitment to high principles and
high standards of any legislation that I know of.
The purpose of having flexibility in the sanctions is to make sure that the
sanctions are refined to acknowledge that there may be a wide range of
seriousness of contraventions and I don't think anyone wants a member of this
legislature to be sanctioned in any way unfairly. On the other hand you want to
have the flexibility to make the sanction fit the contravention and if it is a
serious contravention, it might be, as the minister has said, serious enough to
warrant that the member's seat be declared vacant.
It might be serious enough that the member be required to pay compensation,
either to the government for a loss of the government, or to some member of the
public for loss as a result of his or her actions. There is a flexibility that
may allow the legislature to require any financial sanction to be deducted from
a pay or to be recovered in court.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Stanbury. Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think that we can all
agree that this is a very thorough and extensive list of options that are
available and I for one feel that having heard the answers that I have heard
feel confident and comfortable with this legislation.
One of the other questions that I would like to ask Mr. Chairman, is any
legislation or any rules that you have that govern yourself are only as good as
the ability that one has that is appointed to be the referee, or in this case
the Integrity Commissioner, the power that the Commissioner has to look into and
investigate and conduct a review thoroughly and have the ability to access the
materials that he or she may need to access in order to come to a proper report
and findings in a potential complaint.
I am just wondering Mr. Chairman, if the minister or the Commissioner, could
explain a little bit about the powers that the Integrity Commissioner will have
and the authority that they will have to be able to conduct these reviews. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: That's me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. That is I, I should say. I'm
satisfied Mr. Chairman, that the commissioner whoever it might be, today or in
the future, has all the powers necessary to subpoena either people or documents
if necessary in an investigation or review and including if necessary the powers
of a commission under the Inquiries Act.
I think the member raises a question which touches on the independence of the
commissioner as well and I think it's important to recall that unlike in at
least one other jurisdiction which is in the news these days, the commissioner
under the Nunavut legislation is an officer of the Legislative Assembly.
Is chosen by the Members of the Legislative Assembly. Is accountable to the
Members of the Legislative Assembly. Can only be removed by Members of the
Legislative Assembly and incidentally in this Act could not be suspended or
emasculated in his powers by the Legislative Assembly, if the Legislative
Assembly were to lose confidence in it's Integrity Commissioner which we all
hope that would never happen.
But if that should ever happen the Legislative Assembly as a body, are the only
people who could remove the Integrity Commissioner, not the Premier, no one else
but the Legislative Assembly.
So, I hope that is reassuring to the honourable member. You have put a lot of
trust in your Integrity Commissioner, but the Integrity Commissioner has all the
powers and the independence that I think you want an Integrity Commissioner to
have so that he or she could carry out the functions that you are giving him or
her in this legislation.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Stanbury. I will be saying your
name properly from now on. Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question, in the
speaking notes on page 8 it states, (interpretation ends) I would like to ask a
question, could you explain how the new system will be different from Cabinet
Ministers and regular Members of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, I assure you I would have much more difficulty with
your name than you would have with mine.
>>Laughter
But I'm trying to learn and with your help I will. Thank you. I would draw to
the honourable member’s attention that there is a, that this Integrity Act is
divided to make it a little bit more digestible than the previous law that
you've had to contend with, so that there's a clear delineated group of sections
that apply to all Members of the Legislature and followed by a group of sections
that apply to ministers alone.
I might just say in passing, you will note that in this statute the Speaker is
not treated as a minister but as a regular member, because in most jurisdictions
it is recognized that the Speaker does not have the same circumstances applying
to his or her activities as a minister.
But the sections that I would refer you to are sections 16 to 20 in the bill in
the proposed Integrity Act. Ministers are not permitted to engage in certain
outside activities without either their interests being placed in a blind trust,
or receiving the explicit authorization from the Integrity Commissioner for the
carrying out of those activities.
Some of those activities are, not engaging in employment or the practice of a
profession. They are expected to be devoting most if not all of their activity
to the job of being a minister. They cannot engage in the management of a
business carried on by a corporation. They cannot carry on business through a
partnership or a sole proprietorship or hold an office or a directorship unless
holding the office or directorship is one of the minister's duties as a minister
or the office or directorship is in a social club, religious organization or
political party.
A minister is not permitted to hold or trade in securities or commodities. But
as I mentioned, one of the features of this legislation is flexibility to take
into account as far as possible the unique characteristics of our environment
and the variety of situations that might arise. So that for the first time,
legislation in Nunavut would provide explicitly for a blind trust which would
have to be approved by the Integrity Commissioner, or in the alternative, and I
think it might be more commonly used, an explicit application to the Integrity
Commissioner for the authority to do a particular thing which otherwise would
not be permitted.
That would only be authorized if the Integrity Commissioner were to feel that it
would not interfere with the proper performance of a minister's duty.
Chairperson (interpretation): Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is that it said in the
speaking notes that the current system is very lengthy and expensive. How is it
going to be different.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to refer you, I will try to
keep this shorter than some of my answers and not refer at length to the report,
"For a Culture of Integrity". But I would like to refer you to the analysis of
the existing law which was done by the NWT Review Panel.
They put the emphasis on the desire to have a less expensive and timelier
alternative to a full public inquiry. Unfortunately, without commenting on the
procedure in another jurisdiction, I don't think that particular objective was
fully achieved in the NWT. What we have done here, and you can see the rationale
in my report, what we have done here as the minister has said, is to provide
that the whole process provided for in this statute, is to be carried out by the
Integrity Commissioner.
Now, there is no division between the authority of the Integrity Commissioner to
advise and to come to recommendations and authority given to an outside
arbitrator for instance, who would have to in effect, start over again with an
inquiry.
The process here is designed to resolve issues as quickly as possible, restore
harmony with the Integrity Commissioner having responsibility for the whole
process, from advising members to dealing with giving members written opinions
if requested, to responding to requests for review, formerly known as
complaints. Requests for review either from other members or from members of the
general public, coming to recommendations, making recommendations to the House.
Even the House is required by this legislation to promptly decide on whether or
not it wishes to accept the recommendations of the Integrity Commissioner and
what disposition it would make of a review.
Ms. Williams: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm not done asking questions yet. You
have to pay attention now. This question could be answered yes or no. So, will
this Act apply to senior members of the public service, such as Deputy Ministers
in the government.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: No, it doesn't Mr. Chair. But there are other provisions and
policies and guidelines in respect to government employees and it is, the
government is looking at trying to revamp some of those policies and procedures
and look at how we can try to improve them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Mr. McLean.
Mr. McLean: Koana Itsivautaq. I will try not to keep you up much later here
tonight cousin. But there are just a few questions that I would like to ask.
Just a last comment on that and I don't want to sound like I am picking on the
senior civil servants or the bureaucracy, but in all cases, in most cases if not
all of them, they have more inside information on the government than MLAs and
maybe even cabinet ministers. But that's just a comment.
My next question is, in regards to section 36, "Any person, including a member
who believes on reasonable grounds that a member has contravened this Act, may
request the Integrity Commissioner to review the facts and give a written report
on the matter".
Is this new to what it used to be, and why. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. McLean. Minister Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, no it is not new, because
as members may recall, it was probably more politics involved in the past than
conflict complaints by members filing against members in the NWT legislature. We
are fortunate that we haven't had a situation like that yet in Nunavut and
hopefully with the passage of this bill, the possibilities are minimized if
members follow the advice and regularly confer with the Integrity Commissioner
to ensure that they are not put into a situation where they could possibly be in
a conflict of interest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Mr. McLean.
Mr. McLean: Koana, Itsivautaq. It says, the part that I actually noticed,
does that mean any citizen of Nunavut can come in and file a conflict of
interest allegation against an MLA. Was it always like that. So that was always
the case, because like I say I am new to this Legislative Assembly and I am
still a bit of a rookie.
So that was the same as it used to be in the existing legislation and it hasn't
changed. Thank you.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. McLean. Minister Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes that's the case. It hasn't changed
from that respect from the existing Conflict of Interest Act. Sorry, the
existing Legislative Assembly and Executive Council provisions and the new
Integrity Act provisions.
Any individual if they feel that there is a potential for a conflict of interest
may lay a complaint or ask that the Integrity Commissioner investigate in any
circumstances in relation to the member's activities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. McLean.
Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be my final question and it is
almost frivolous. If somebody in a community wanted to file a conflict of
interest allegation against an MLA, the person certainly wouldn't go in and ask
the MLA where the office is.
How is the general public going to be involved in knowing that this Integrity
Act is going to be out there for the people to protect them from potential
corruption or whatever conflicts or integrity in the government. So if a person,
a citizen of Nunavut wanted to file a conflict of interest complaint against an
MLA, what is the procedure out there for just a simple person out there on the
street to do.
How are they going to know about it and who do they contact. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. McLean. Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the honourable member looks further
into section 36 he'll note that whether it be a Member of the Legislative
Assembly or anyone else this is not something that people are invited to do
lightly. It's a, they have to approach it responsibly and therefore there is a
procedure to follow.
But this, I think this Act will be already be on the website of the Legislative
Assembly, as soon as it's passed. Perhaps it's on as a bill now.
But the public has immediate access to all the provisions of this Act on the
Legislative Assembly website and it is my plan to have a website for the Office
of the Integrity Commissioner, which will perhaps explain in briefer terms for
public consumption and for that matter for the ease of the members how to go
about accessing this statute, the procedures of this statute.
There will probably have to be as well, a brochure so that people who don't have
access to the electronic means of information will also be able to get that
information readily. And if members have any other suggestions, I think members
themselves of course, recognize a responsibility and an opportunity to educate
and inform their own constituents about all matters involving the territorial
government.
And I think members will probably use this statute as an educational tool, one
member already tonight has mentioned the importance of youth in the community, I
hope this statute can be used not only to inform the community but, not only to
inform the Members of the Legislature and inform youth but to inspire all those
people.
To realize that the standards and the principles of the Members of the
Legislative Assembly are very high and they are willing to be held to those
standards.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This paragraph seems to indicate that
the minister can continue to carry on his private business. What I am reading
from the statute or the bill is that you can carry on your business if you had a
business before you were elected or became a minister, but if you get elected
again and become a minister again, you cannot be continue, you cannot be renewed
on the government contracts or things like that unless you are authorized by the
Integrity Commissioner. Qujannamiik.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Mr. Ng. Sorry. Mr.
Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The honourable member is correct that, if
he is referring to a government contract, a member who has a government
contract, or has a company with a government contract, would not be able to
renew that government contract after his election without either the business
being put into a blind trust before that should happen, or it should be
authorized explicitly by the Integrity Commissioner.
Insofar as carrying on business generally is concerned that applies only to
ministers and ministers as I mentioned in a response to another member are more
restricted in carrying on any kind of outside activity without the authority of
the Integrity Commissioner in any particular case or having had a blind trust
approved by the Integrity Commissioner. So, I hope that response to the
honourable members question if not I'd be glad to supplement my answer.
Some Members: Agreed.
Chairperson (interpretation): We are under Bill 7-Integrity Act. Mr.
Alakannuark.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a short
question, I would like to welcome the people at the witness table and I believe
that this Act is very good for the members and the ministers.
I have nothing against the Act but I have a question being an elder and being an
Inuk. My question is the Integrity Commissioner says that if a person breaks the
law, if the member breaks the law they have to pay either a fine or they have to
go to court but following Inuit traditional knowledge in that part of the
punishment and the paying restitution where does the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
come in, in that part or in that section of the Act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, certainly the intention of the Act is that this
would be a particularly important stage of any consideration of an activity by a
member a particularly important stage for calling on the wisdom of elders, not
only in terms of the assessment of the seriousness of the contravention but in
terms of appropriateness of the suggested sanction.
Certainly, a fine is one of the alternative sanctions as it is in the present
law and the provision for recovering of any financial sanction in court is
partly to recognize some people against whom costs might be ordered would not be
Members of the Legislature.
Conceivably a person outside of the discipline of the Legislature might be found
to be responsible for some of the costs of a review and it would be particularly
important in that case to have access to the courts to enforce payment of an
order of the Legislative Assembly.
But if the member’s question or concern is would traditional knowledge and Inuit
values be brought to bear on the consideration of sanctions, certainly that is
the intention and the Integrity Commissioner, I would anticipate would want to
get the assistance/wisdom of elders at this stage of the process.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On clause 6, I would
like further clarification. Within thirty days after a change or event that
occurs after the filing of public disclosure statement. Could you clarify that
point or the whole clause. Thank you.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Iqaqrialu. Minister Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is for after the
filing of the annual disclosure statement. If there were a substantive change
between that and the next anniversary, in other words if you filed a statement
today and two months from now there was a significant change in your financial
situation then you would be required as a member to within 30 days after that
change to provide a supplementary disclosure form to notify the Integrity
Commissioner of that change and the public. Or a family member, anybody that is
included as part of this Act, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clause 26, for if any
reason if the Integrity Commissioner determines that he or she should not in
respect to any particular matter under this act, the Commissioner on the
recommendation of the MSB may appoint a special Integrity Commissioner to act in
the place of the Integrity Commissioner in respect to the matter. Further
clarification please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this means that as
indicated here, if there is any reason that the Integrity Commissioner feels
that he can't carry out or review a certain matter, for whatever reasons, it
could be a conflict, it could be personal circumstances, he may be ill, a family
member, whatever the case may be. It allows for the appointment of a special
Integrity Commissioner to deal with that issue until it is concluded. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question here is another,
it says here that the report requested by the Premier is given only to the
Premier, I just want to get a clarification as to why that clause is in there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Minister Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To answer this question you have to
refer to clause 38, which in that it says that the Premier may in writing
request that the Integrity Commissioner review the facts and give a written
report as to whether a minister has contravened any, and this is the key here,
additional written requirements established by the Premier for ministers.
So in this circumstance, over and above the Integrity Act that we have here, the
Premier can ask his or her ministers for additional requirements. So if he or
she feels that those additional requirements may be contravened, then he or she
can go to the Integrity Commissioner and ask for his or her opinion on that
specific matter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Irqittuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we contravene
any statute we are then charged and have to go to court. If I was charged and if
I did not go through the courts for a long time and if I publicly acknowledge my
misconduct would I then be forgiven. Thank you.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Irqittuq. Mr. Stanbury.
Mr. Stanbury: I guess it would be Mr. Chairman, it would be dangerous for me to
anticipate what an Integrity Commissioner might recommend in any particular
circumstance. But the effort here is to introduce the concept of public
acknowledgement and apology which I understand as an amateur in the field,
understand to be part of the Inuit tradition.
I don't think anyone could guarantee that simple public acknowledgement and
apology would be the only sanction imposed. It would depend on all the
circumstances.
But of course this is not a court procedure, this is not a breach of a statute
in the sense of a court imposing some sanction, this is a process in which the
Integrity Commissioner would make recommendation to the Legislative Assembly and
the Legislative Assembly would decide whether or not the recommended sanction or
sanctions would be suitable in the particular case.
The Integrity Commissioner might recommend one or more of the range of sanctions
in any particular case depending on the circumstances. But the ultimate decision
would be that of the Legislative Assembly.
>>Applause
|
