Roles

In the Legislative Assembly

Elsewhere

Historical Information James Arvaluk is no longer a member of the Legislative Assembly.

Last in the Legislative Assembly February 1995, as MLA for Aivilik

Won his last election, in 1991, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committee Motion 20-12(6): To Amend Clause 7, Carried October 13th, 1994

Just a comment to the motion, for clause 7. Just a scenario right now that the Nunavut Implementation Commission probably will now start disseminating information, especially information on the existing GNWT acts and regulations that are in force for the communities to review and prepare for 1999. They can do that right now and they cannot force the government to translate them. They can request information now, they can get these acts and regulations now, but with the 1999 enforcement of this act, they may want to...At least they will know that if that material is not available in Inuktitut, because they will know this act, they may want to have these things translated.

I am a little bit leery about what additional costs we'll have to claim from that because NIC probably will have the responsibility to inform the communities quite intensively as public education, here is what the government's existing laws are that you must abide by. These existing laws that are in force will be transferred or grandfathered when Nunavut comes about in 1999. These will become common law of Nunavut, unless repealed; but then again, that's very difficult.

I have no right not to support this clause, but I am nervous that this might be misused like other clauses might be misused as Mr. Patterson stated, because with this bill we're putting the government or the Legislative Assembly in the vulnerable position for abuse by those who want to, unless there is, as the deputy minister stated, another section protecting that. But it will be a questionable kind of protection that the government will have. Just a comment, Mr. Chairman.

Committee Motion 20-12(6): To Amend Clause 7, Carried October 13th, 1994

Then, there will be a requirement for the Commissioner to determine whether that is a valid denial to have it translated. What other avenue does the person requesting have to pursue? Would that have to come in the regulation that would be governed by the Commissioner?

Committee Motion 20-12(6): To Amend Clause 7, Carried October 13th, 1994

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand, then, that if the record is available in English, then it must be provided in Inuktitut or a Dene language, for example, no matter how lengthy it may be, whether it is 100 pages or 200 pages.

I guess what I'm asking is if one of the divisional boards requested a statute, like the Education Act, in their own language so that they could thoroughly study it -- like the cultural inclusion program provision, for example, and how it relates to other curriculum development, or the comparative powers between the regular curriculum provisions and the cultural inclusion part of it -- then you have to produce that, if it is available in English. That's my question, Mr. Chairman.

Committee Motion 20-12(6): To Amend Clause 7, Carried October 13th, 1994

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The way I read 7.2(b) is that if there is too much work for the government, if we are interfering with the government because of the volume of work that has to be produced from requests, then the government will decide whether they should make up a contract or tell the person who is requesting it that theirs is an unreasonable request.

Would this section consider the Minister's amended motion, or would this be exempt? Would the translation provisions of this clause be exempt for that?

Committee Motion 20-12(6): To Amend Clause 7, Carried October 13th, 1994

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the same section, section 7.2, duty to create documents, under (a) and (b), especially b), it reads, "creating a record would not necessarily unreasonably interfere with the operation of a public body." In your motion, it states that the applicant shall not be required to pay a fee for the translation of the record. If the material requested is 100 pages and it is available from the public body in one of the official languages, for example, English, and it is requested in Inuktitut -- as you are allowing it to be in clause 7 -- is clause 7.2(b) saying it is going to interfere with the public body's load of work? Would that be considered, or would a translation be exempt from 7.2(b)?

Committee Report 11-12(6): Report On The First Annual Report (1992-93) Of The Languages Commissioner Of The Nwt October 13th, 1994

The standing committee considered recommendations 18, 21, 25 and 28 in the Languages Commissioner's report, and agree with the Languages Commissioner that the government should act upon them.

The Languages Commissioner's recommendation 18 refers to positions in the government where the incumbents provide services to the public in official languages. The standing committee agrees that these positions should not be left vacant, and should be filled as quickly as possible.

Recommendation 21 would provide toll-free numbers for northerners to call when seeking government services in official languages. The standing committee agrees with the Languages Commissioner that the government should investigate this further, with the minor amendment that an individual line for each official language might not be necessary. The demand might not dictate having one toll-free line for each official language, but current technology would make it possible for a single line to handle a number of languages. The committee expects that the Languages Commissioner, the official languages unit, and the language bureau will be able to develop a quick and effective solution to this recommendation.

In recommendation 25, the Languages Commissioner addresses the issue of adult literacy and fluency training. The standing committee agrees that the government, presumably, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, should make an effort to collect available materials and make them available to interested parties.

Recommendation 28 addresses the issue of Dene syllabics. While current practice is to write Dene languages in new standardized Roman orthographies, many elders learned to read and write in syllabic alphabets designed for the Dene languages. The government should be able to address this need to meet the needs of these elders.

Full Simultaneous Translation In The Legislative Assembly

In recommendation 17, the Languages Commissioner asks that the Assembly, "consider whether or not it is necessary to provide full simultaneous interpretation in the Legislative Assembly at all times and in all official languages..." This recommendation, which the Languages Commissioner admitted to being a controversial one, was based on concerns that providing full interpretation was too much of a strain on existing resources when the Assembly was in session.

Committee Members feel very strongly that full simultaneous interpretation is a fundamental part of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. It is required by the Official Languages Act -- sections 9 and 10(3) effectively require full simultaneous interpretation -- and was the subject of a point of order raised in the House on October 26, 1989 when simultaneous translation in Dogrib was not available.

Full simultaneous translation also allows Members to serve as linguistic role models for their constituents. This is especially true since House proceedings started to be broadcast on the TVNC network. Committee Members noted that constituents are listening when their representatives speak in aboriginal languages. When constituents see and hear their elected representatives speaking in their own language in the House, their pride in their language is bound to increase. Providing Members the opportunity to do so by providing full simultaneous interpretation can only strengthen aboriginal languages in the Northwest Territories.

Madam Speaker, that concludes my portion of our presentation. With your permission, I would like to ask Mr. Patterson to continue the presentation of the report. Qujannamiik.

Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters October 12th, 1994

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The dialogue between Mr. Allooloo and Mr. Kakfwi and Ms. MacPherson's explanation will definitely put zero unemployment to the lawyers of the NWT. That's just a comment, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be very good. We have to put down unemployment and I think we're hitting the wrong people.

Mr. Chairman, like Mr. Allooloo, I find it very difficult as some of these acts are old and have been amended, changed and made more suitable to people of the Northwest Territories. According to Ms. MacPherson, because this is an old typical information act clause, section 4(2)...I don't know...I guess I respect my elders a little bit more than the younger people in terms of experience, accuracy and wisdom, that the older acts sometimes are not perfect at first, but they're amended and changed until it is more acceptable to the majority of the population. At least they'd be a little bit more consistent. This particular section is very new and it's already overriding or prevailing over other acts that are old.

Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. I'm a little leery about the Child Welfare Act, adoption, social assistance, health care that there are exceptions here that some personal stuff will not be released to the public or to the proponent for the information. However, who is going to decide, ultimately maybe the courts, which has more weight -- this new information act overriding the other acts or the other access right protected or other disclosure prohibitions under another act. It confuses me more than a little.

I think, what we'll have to do in this case...I would like to ask the Minister, even if this act overrides or prevails over other acts, is there a plan already by the department to study this further so that grandfathered or older acts are not downplayed by this particular clause?

Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters October 12th, 1994

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the answer. That clarifies it for me. But how many laws in this country or any other country have been easily repealed or changed after they've been implemented for some time? Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. It's so difficult, it's impractical. Thank you.

Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters October 12th, 1994

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then, do I understand that the Minister is stating that this will be inherited by the Nunavut government in 1999?

Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters October 12th, 1994

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From Aivilik, for the record.

---Laughter

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not convinced about the effectiveness of or low potential costs of this bill, as we have discussed this over the past couple of days. Even now, the Minister is saying there may be a proposition to amend the bill which would allow for translation. How many other hidden costs will there be? Translation is very important and other O and M needs will probably be very important, too, but they are still costs in implementing this bill.

In my approximately, 25 years with the public service, I have had experience with land claims and cultural preservation programs. I have seen the evolution of my people from outpost camps to modern communities, with their aspirations to govern their own lands with laws initiated by them. That is their desire. Most of us remember this from the early 1970s. This is 1994.

It has been almost 25 years that we have been active in promoting self-government for Nunavut. Before that, there were complaints about the laws made for them. There were big differences between the laws, the constitution, regulations and government orders -- or directives, they call them -- from the Minister of Indian Affairs. You could transport northern Quebec people to Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. There was

the building of low-rental, prefabricated houses, or matchboxes, for people, however the government saw fit.

The Inuit, especially, have witnessed many laws. They didn't understand them and didn't find them relevant. Because of that, the Inuit worked very hard to achieve land claim agreements and the Nunavut Act with Bill C-28. By 1999, the Nunavut Act will finally allow Nunavut residents to initiate laws that pertain to them and that are important to them.

This Legislative Assembly, I feel, has a responsibility to respect the spirit of the Nunavut Act by introducing bills that are of urgent necessity, not of popular political view. They should be practical, financially-responsible bills, such as Bill 1, Bill 7, Bill 8, Bill 4, Bill 9, Bill 11, and Bill 12. These are important today. We all support them. These are money bills, most of them, that we must introduce and pass. If we don't, we are not looking after the people we represent.

But, this Bill 6, if it is passed, is putting down what is in the Nunavut Act. I am part of that race and they are not very aggressive when it comes to finding out the nitty grittys of how the government operates, the nitty gritty files that the government may have. What they want to have is a more holistic approach. They want to have a better lifestyle, with better education, social programs and economic development.

I don't feel very comfortable in pretending to represent the people of Nunavut by allowing this bill to proceed the way it is. Mr. Chairman, with that comment, I would like to ask a question of the Minister. I'm not trying to get into a specific clause here, and if it is too specific, I can wait. Because I'm not sure, I think I will ask. My question is, is it the intent that this bill will become part of the laws of Nunavut if it is passed by the Legislative Assembly?