EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The standing committee recommends that the department address the following areas:
The importance of ensuring that the department works to ensure that benefits under the FANS Program are provided to students in a timely manner.
While the standing committee recognizes that students have a responsibility to ensure that they submit their applications in accordance with established deadlines, members continue to hear concerns from students and other stakeholders with respect to late payments and problems with travel arrangements, especially for students attending post-secondary institutions outside of the territory.
The department should regularly survey its clients on their satisfaction with the program.
The importance of periodically reviewing the eligibility criteria for receiving FANS and the benefits provided under the program.
For example, it remains unclear whether students enrolling in the GN’s Cultural School will be eligible to receive FANS benefits.
The issue of benefits for students enrolled in Adult Basic Education programs also remains a concern, as is the issue of benefits for students enrolling in the GN’s Trades School.
The department must report the results of its review, including cost implications, to the Legislative Assembly in a clear and candid manner.
The importance of examining the feasibility of establishing separate funding programs for students enrolled in courses of study that grant professional accreditation in such areas as nursing, education, engineering and accountancy.
The importance of preparing and tabling an annual report in the Legislative Assembly on the administration of the FANS Program that includes meaningful performance measures of how well the program is achieving its objectives.
Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier, the standing committee held its hearings on the Auditor General’s Report in June of 2007.
The standing committee recommends that the minister table a comprehensive update on his department’s progress in implementing the recommendations in the Auditor General’s Report and the recommendations of the standing committee in this report during the 2008 spring sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule 91(5), the standing committee formally requests that the government present a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days.
With that, I move that the report of the standing committee be received by the House.
Do members agree that the report be received by the House?
Item 12. (interpretation ends) Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills. (interpretation) Member for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
Committee Report on Bills 005 – 2(4): Bill 18 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Related Statutes (Tootoo)
I wish to report that Bill 18, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Related Statutes, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability, and that the bill, as amended and reprinted, is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 18 moved into Committee of the Whole for today.
Do members unanimously agree to allow Bill 18 to proceed directly into Committee of the Whole?
Speaker: Thank you. (interpretation) Item 12. (interpretation ends) Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills.
Item 13. (interpretation ends) Tabling of Documents. (interpretation) Member for Hudson Bay, Mr. Kattuk.
Tabled Document 147 – 2(4): A Hudson Bay Summit: A Concept Paper (Kattuk)
I wish to table a copy of a concept paper titled “A Hudson Bay Summit”.
This paper was prepared by the Nunavut Hudson Bay Interagency Working Group.
The purpose of the summit is to bring people together to get a better understanding of the Hudson Bay marine ecosystem, the challenges facing it and the social and economic consequences of change.
I urge my fellow members to review this document and support the program it proposes.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Kattuk. (interpretation) Item 13.
Tabled Document 148 – 2(4): Nunavut Human Rights Tribunal Annual Report March 31, 2007 (Okalik)
Tabled Document 149 – 2(4): Ministerial Meeting Report – Western Premiers Conference, October 30, 2007 from the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs (Okalik)
Tabled Document 150 – 2(4): Ministerial Meeting Report – Council of Federation Annual Meeting, October 30, 2007 from the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs (Okalik)
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I wish to table the following documents: Nunavut Human Rights Tribunal Annual Report as of March 31, 2007; Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministerial Report on the Western Premiers Conference of July 4 to 6, 2007; Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers’ Report on the Council of Federation Annual Meeting, August 8 to August 10, 2007. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can we have those documents brought forward to the table please?
Tabled Document 151 – 2(4): Client Travel Policy and Client Travel Handbook (Health and Social Services) (Aglukkaq)
As per my Minister’s Statement, I am tabling the recently completed Client Travel Policy, along with the flyers by each region.
I also want to thank the Members of the House for their continued contribution to the development, as well as my colleagues and the hard work of staff, and consulted with many Nunavummiut in the development of this policy.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Item 13.
Tabled Document 152 – 2(4): Procurement Activity Report for Fiscal Year 2006/07 – Government of Nunavut (Brown)
Tabled Document 153 – 2(4): Contract Activity Report for Fiscal Year 2006-07 – Government of Nunavut (Brown)
Tabled Document 154 – 2(4): Lease Activity Report for Fiscal Year 2006-07 – Government of Nunavut (Brown)
I am pleased to table the following documents: CGS Procurement Activity Report; and the other one which I’m also proud of, Mr. Speaker, tabling, (interpretation ends) CGS Contract Activity Report for the Fiscal Year 2006-07.
And the last one, I’m pleased to table the following document: CG&S Lease Activity Report for the Fiscal Year 2006-07.
Can we have those documents brought forth to the table, please?
Item 13. Tabling Documents. Minister Tapardjuk.
Tabled Document 155 – 2(4): Public Service Annual Report 2006-07 (Tapardjuk)
I would like to table the following document: the Public Service Annual Report for 2006-07.
Item 14. Notices of Motions. Member for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
Motion 021 – 2(4): Extended Adjournment – Notice (Tootoo)
I give notice that on Friday, November 9, 2007, I will move the following motion:  I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that notwithstanding Rule 4, that when the House concludes its present sitting in Iqaluit, it shall be adjourned until February 19, 2008.
Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I will seek unanimous consent to deal with my motion today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Item 16. Motions. Mr. Premier.
Are we on the First Reading of Bills?
Speaker (interpretation): My apologies. We’re on Item 16. Motions.
Mr. Premier, do you have a motion?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): My apologies.
I’ll wait until we go to First Reading of Bills.
As promised and this is the appropriate time, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to deal with my motion today.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. The member is seeking unanimous consent to deal with his motion today.
You can proceed, Mr. Tootoo.
Motion 021 – 2(4): Extended Adjournment (Tootoo)
I move, seconded by the very Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that notwithstanding Rule 4, that when the House concludes its present sitting in Iqaluit, it shall be adjourned until February 19, 2008.
Further, at any time prior to February 19, 2008, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and the Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
The motion is in order. (interpretation) Question has been called.
Item 17. First Reading of Bills. Mr. Premier.
Bill 22 – Engineers & Geoscientists Act – First Reading
My apologies for my earlier mistake.
(interpretation ends) I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 22, Engineers and Geoscientists Act, be read for the first time. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All those for the motion.
(interpretation) Item 17. (interpretation ends) First Reading of Bills. (interpretation) Item 18. (interpretation ends) Second Reading of Bills. (interpretation) Item 19.
Bills 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
Before we proceed to Committee of the Whole, we’ll have a 20-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:40 and Committee resumed at 16:16
I would like to call the committee meeting to order. In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 16, and continue with the review of the Capital Estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services, followed by the Bills 14, 15, 17, and Bill 19.
If time permits, we will do a clause-by-clause review of Bill 18.
Does the committee agree we first deal with Bill 16 with Health and Social Services?
Chairman’s Caution
Chairman: Before we proceed, I wish to remind all members of the Speaker’s correspondence to us of October 19, 2007, concerning the procedures for reviewing capital estimates in the Committee of the Whole.
I remind members that we are reviewing the Capital Estimates of the Department of Health and Social Services.
While the Chair will permit some reasonable latitude, members’ questions should focus on the proposed capital items that are before the House.  That’s just a reminder.
Does the committee agree to bring in the witnesses?  Some Members: Agreed.
Minister, please introduce your witnesses for the record.
To my left is Alex Campbell, the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, and to my right is Ms. Rosemary Brown, the Manager of Capital Projects for Health and Social Services.
Please turn to H-6 in your 2008-09 Capital Estimates.
H-6. Health and Social Services. Detail of Capital.
Directorate. Qikiqtaaluk Region.
I have Mr. Mapsalak on my list.
I notice Kivalliq is not there but I have a concern with Kivalliq.
In her opening remarks, the minister talked about the new hospitals in Nunavut and mentioned that she would just go with that.
For example, the Naujaat/Repulse Bay Health Centre, the plan for the health centre in Naujaat, Taloyoak, and Arctic Bay, she mentioned that they will go ahead with the plan or the design for Repulse Bay.
Is that design completed for Repulse Bay?
The design is not yet completed, but it’s in the works.
The minister stated that Repulse Bay and Taloyoak have been in the plan starting from 2002 for new health centres.
I have asked numerous questions since I became a member in 2004 and I keep asking questions about the proposed health centre in Repulse Bay every time we dealt with estimates.
Every year we saw that it was delayed every time it came up on the capital estimates.
It’s like that annually even up to now.
We were hopeful and we expect now that it will become a reality in Repulse Bay and the people are happy.  Before that year, it has been deferred up until 2011.
It’s doubtful if it will physically be erected.
Can the minister reassure me when the health centre will be built in Repulse Bay?
I share the member’s concerns in regard to the project that had been started back in 2003. Of the capital projects that I had listed from 2003-04 capital estimates, there are two that are not complete, Taloyoak and Repulse Bay. The rest in Pond Inlet, Igloolik, Pangnirtung, Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay were all done except for those two.
In my statement I had also mentioned that the pressures of the decision of the Full Caucus in Arviat to construct two continuing care facilities was the pressure that we were under to try and meet the 2003 commitments and the two facilities.
Right now, Repulse Bay is on a design stage. The contract has been awarded to the architect and the architect is in the works in designing that and we’re hoping to use the same model for the other facilities as well.
If you look to the back of the capital estimates for 2008-09, there’s budget allocated for Repulse Bay in that. Hopefully, by 2008-09, the design will be done and that we will be able to go forward allocating funding for the capital project.
I’ll just use this as an example for Repulse Bay, the community itself hasn’t had anything new since 1999.
There was a replacement because of the fire. I know this doesn’t have anything to do with Health and Social Services but I’m just using it as an example, we haven’t seen any new infrastructure other than housing.
Can the minister explain to me why we still haven’t seen any funding this year even though we were promised that it was a high priority?
Repulse Bay has been without additional funding of any kind since the Northwest Territories days.
I wonder if the minister would be able to find some money this year so that they can go ahead with the health centre in Repulse Bay.
Again, I share the member’s concern in regard to those projects.
It’s been a long time and I share the same concerns for the projects in Taloyoak and Arctic Bay.  So if there is an opportunity to examine, or if there is an opportunity to advance through funding in the New Year, I would certainly try to commit to trying to advance those, and I have instructed my staff to make those three communities a priority.
The pressures that we’re under are the two continuing care facilities and some of the unplanned incidences that have cost us more pressure within the department with the capital projects that we have, such as the Sanikiluaq Health Centre situation.
So if there is an opportunity in the New Year, I would certainly commit to putting those forward as a priority.
Can the minister tell the members how old those facilities are? She mentioned the ones in Taloyoak, Repulse Bay, and Arctic Bay.
Does the minister know how old those facilities are?
The facilities are 23, 22, and 21 in terms of years that they’ve been in existence.
Of those, she mentioned the age of the facilities. Can she tell me which communities or which health centres correspond with the numbers she just mentioned?
Arctic Bay is 23, Repulse Bay is 22, and Taloyoak is 20.
Chairman: Thank you.  Chairman (Mr. Evyagotailak): Mr. Mapsalak.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for the information she gave me.
I can’t understand that because when the facilities get so old, it seems like the older facilities should be replaced first.
That was just a comment so I’ll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I believe the member had made just a comment, but again, there is a technical assessment done for each facility before they go forward for any capital projects.
I’ll use another example. The facility in Cape Dorset is 26 years old and there are other examples of older facilities out there within the Department of Health.
I know back in 2005-06, in the capital plan, there was $15,000 previously authorized for the Arctic Bay Health Centre.
I’m just wondering if the minister can indicate if that money has been spent to date.
The funding for Arctic Bay for $15,000 was for the Functional Program. That money has not been spent because we’re not done the Functional Program for Arctic Bay.
Can the minister indicate when that Functional Program or whatever review was started and when they expect to have it completed?
We hope to have the Functional Program review completed, hopefully, at the end of this fiscal year.
It’s been delayed. We just did not have the capacity internally to do all of the projects in light of the other capital projects within the Department of Health.
Again, according to the substantiation sheet for the Taloyoak Health Centre Replacement Project this year, it indicates that there has been $835,000 previously authorized in prior years.
Can the minister indicate if that money has been spent yet?
I’m going to have Ms. Brown walk through that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
Go ahead, Ms. Brown.
Most of the money for the planning and design of the Taloyoak Health Centre has been carried forward to 2007-08. There’s $820,000 currently in the 2007-08 budget for the Taloyoak Health Centre.
So it shows in prior years but it has been carried forward to continue the work.
I’m just wondering, if there’s already $820,000 sitting there, why do they need another $200,000?
We expected to have the design finished last fiscal year until we ran into problems with cost by doing the renovation and addition.
Had we finished the design last year, this $200,000 was for the architect to do the code review to make sure the existing design complied with current building codes and also that the products that had been selected, like flooring, or different colours or whatever, were still available for the manufacturer.
Part of that $200,000 would also cover the cost of printing the tender specifications and it would also go towards the tender in the newspaper and various places.
I believe Ms. Brown’s mic was off but I think her last words were, “... it’s a contingency.” I’m just wondering if she can confirm that.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Ms. Brown.
Yes, what I meant is contingency. If there had been some work that had to be re-done, in terms of building code or selection of products, that work would be done by the architect, but the costs are also to cover the production of the tender documentation and the advertising.
I’m just wondering, Ms. Brown indicated for the code requirements, would that be for the new facility or the existing facility?
It would be to look at the existing design, whether it had been a renovation/addition or a new facility.
Building codes change every five years at different cycles and we wanted to make sure that the proposed building met all of the up-to-date requirements for buildings.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Ms. Brown for that clarification.
I’m just a little confused. She indicated for the existing design for the renovation or the addition but this project here is for a completely new building, so maybe if I could just get some clarification there.
Is it the code requirements for the existing building with an addition, or is it co-compliance for this new building that hasn’t been designed yet?
Pass to Ms. Brown, please.
With all of the review that we have done in terms of working with the architect and the design, CGS and ourselves have spent a lot of time on looking at this project.
It’s the recommendation of CGS that there be a standalone new building due to the cost implications becoming close to a new standalone facility, plus also it will void any disruption of the delivery of the Health and Social Services to the community of Taloyoak.
I’m still not sure if it’s for the existing facility with addition, or is it for the new facility that she talked about, those code requirements.
Ms. Brown: What the substantiation sheet that the department has put forward is for a new facility based on the reviews we’ve done with the architect and on the recommendation for CGS.
So this is for the new building.
I note and I’ll go through it. Since 2001-02 and prior to that, there was $50,000 approved towards this project. But since then, not including this year’s capital, we’ve approved $1,772,000 for this project.
Again, it just shows $835,000 here and Ms. Brown indicated that there was $820,000 in carryovers for that project.
So there is some money missing.
The numbers just don’t add up because that would indicate that we spent $952,000, and the total on that, there’s about $117,000 that’s not accounted for the carryover, and between the carryover and what’s been approved.
So I’m just wondering if I can get an explanation on what that money was spent on.
I will ask Ms. Brown to walk through what transpired there since 2003 with these projects.
Ms. Brown, go ahead.
Over the years other projects required some funds, the Igloolik Health Centre being one, and most recently, the emergency repairs to the Sanikiluaq Health Centre via FMB submission funds were taken from this project and a new current project for Sanikiluaq was created.
I noted in the minister’s opening comments she indicated that the replacement of the Arctic Bay Health Centre was in the department’s past five-year capital plan but has been deferred to future years at the direction of the Financial Management Board.
I’m just wondering if I could ask the minister to clarify that comment, explaining why the Financial Management Board gave her direction to defer that project.
Basically, the underlying reason would be limited funds to move forward on that, as well as the Functional Program had not yet been completed for the Arctic Bay facility.
Having said that, the Functional Program would form the basis of the architectural design and Ms. Brown is working with the architects to use the same model for Repulse Bay and Taloyoak as a model to be used and modified for Arctic Bay.
Would it be correct in saying that the FMB gave direction to defer that project because no money had been spent on that particular project to date and that it would be treated as a new project?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I’ll ask Ms. Brown to respond to that.
Due to the cost escalations over the past few years in existing projects, the government has had to either defer projects or find funds through FMB approval to fund what we already have on the books.
The Department of Finance is concerned that, perhaps, we will not be able to pay for what the government has already committed to as priorities.
Because Arctic Bay did not have funds spent against it, yes, was one of the reasons that it was deferred, as I understand it, by the FMB.
This is not unique to the Department of Health. Other departments had been deferred. It is up to the Department of Health, in its next capital plan, to work on getting that project back in the capital plan.
By approaching the design of new health centres by repeat design, we can actually, when we are working on the design for the new Repulse Bay Health Centre and the new Taloyoak Health Centre, be able to use that design for the similar size community of Arctic Bay.
So actually, we will be getting ahead of ourselves. The money the department would then require in the capital plan to modify the design for Arctic Bay would be money to look at the site that is chosen by the hamlet and the lands people, and make sure that the foundation for that building is appropriate for Arctic Bay.
So because it is not on the books, it does not mean our department has forgotten it.
But yes to answer Mr. Tootoo’s question, one of the reasons was because it has not had any money spent in the last capital plan.
Another thing I want to point out is that earlier the minister indicated that Repulse Bay was 23 years old, the Arctic Bay was 23 years old, and the Taloyoak Health Centre was 20 years old.
According to the substantiation sheets that the department provided, Repulse Bay is actually 26 years old, Arctic Bay is actually 24 years old, and the minister was correct in the fact that the Taloyoak Health Centre is 20 years old.
Based on this information and the fact that the minister indicated in her opening comments, the age and condition of buildings determine the priority to be given for its upgrading and/or replacement, I would like to just ask the minister how they prioritize those projects if, in fact, those other facilities are four and six years older than the one that’s moving ahead this year.
From my listing, I have Arctic Bay as 23 and Repulse Bay is 23, Cape Dorset is 26 years old.
It’s just in terms of the age of the facilities. With that, I will have Rosemary respond to the steps involved in… unless you want to.
I will get Mr. Campbell to respond to that.