EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
(interpretation ends) Can the Premier indicate what the federal response has been to Nunavut’s requests for additional housing funding from Ottawa?
Speaker: Thank you, Ms. Ugyuk. Minister responsible for Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Madam Premier.
Yes, I appreciate very much that we were able to get additional funds from the federal government.
As I indicated earlier, again, we need additional funds and housing. We, as a government, have to keep lobbying the federal government to make sure that we keep getting monies.
As I indicated earlier, we need approximately 3,500 new public housing units.
(interpretation ends) We need 3,500 homes and, actually, 90 units per year in order to close the gap for many years to come.
The enormity of the need of housing is very big.
This is something that we must keep working together with the federal government, Inuit organizations, and the private sector and come up with innovative ways that I am sure the Nunavut Housing Corporation is working on, on an ongoing basis.
I have to be realistic. If I ask for a total amount of money to cover off the 3,500 units, I don’t think the federal government is going to give us the money to build 3,500 units. We have to be realistic in terms of our dialogue on that topic.
Speaker: Thank you, Madam Premier. Your final supplementary, Ms. Ugyuk.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): I would like to thank the Premier for her response. (interpretation ends) Can the Premier indicate whether or not she is fully satisfied with the current level of federal commitment to addressing the housing crisis in Nunavut?
Hon. Eva Aariak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, our need is enormous.
In fact, our young territory’s needs in terms of infrastructure are enormous.
I am not fully satisfied with the level of assistance we are getting in terms of infrastructure, but again, we have to do our part and work together in trying to attain and get what Nunavummiut need.
Question 731 – 3(3): Dental Services and Contracts (Curley)
I have a follow-up to my questions earlier to the Minister of Health concerning dental services for the Kivalliq and Baffin regions.
The minister is well aware that the RFPs that were issued for both regions in 2012 had been awarded to a company based in British Columbia.
The Minister of Health clearly indicated to the House earlier that he will not be reissuing the RFP for dental service requirements despite the number of problems that have been indicated.
Now, my question is: now that the minister clearly is in favour of this contract, will the minister indicate to the House that if the current court appeal is successful for both contracts, will he continue to support Nunavut Innovation Services for dental services for both Baffin and Kivalliq?
Mr. Curley, you used the word “if.” You can’t do that. Would you like to rephrase your question?
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is the minister knows that the appeal has been put forward for both contracts. Now, while the contract is being appealed, the RFP, I will rephrase my question. Who is exactly doing the work at this moment?
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Minister of Health, Minister Peterson.
I thank Mr. Curley for expressing a great interest in this particular contract.
As I indicated earlier, ministers don’t get involved in the RFP process.
He was a minister in this government at one time.
We have committed to be open and fully transparent in this government.
There is a procurement process.
As Mr. Curley has indicated, this matter is before the courts. I really don’t want to get into any detail about the contracts until the matter is resolved. Until such time, it is business as usual.
The minister did get involved. He clearly indicated to the House and Nunavutmiut that he will not reissue the RFP. Can the minister explain why?
As Mr. Curley seems to be very well versed on this particular contract, he must be aware that at least two companies have submitted legal documents before the courts.
I respect the court system and until such time as a decision is made, as I said, it’s business as usual.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the minister is this: it is possible that the appeal may be successful.
Now, the dental requirements are critical in Nunavut.
If the appeal process is successful, when will the minister reissue the RFP?
Speaker: Can you guys hear me?
Thank you for your patience, members.
Again, Mr. Curley, you used the word “if.” That’s like asking a hypothetical question. You said that if the appeal is successful, would the minister reissue the RFP.
That is something that you can’t ask. Would you like to rephrase your question?
It is possible that the appeal process will evaluate pros and cons, including the cost difference between the two. It is important that Nunavutmiut are fully aware.
If the appeal is successful, will the minister, then, reissue the tender or will he be in favour of the current contractor?
Speaker: Mr. Curley, I would have to rule that question out of order.
You said “if” again.
You know that the rules prohibit hypothetical questions.
Question 732 – 3(3): NNI Policy and Procurement Practices Review Status (Elliott)
On March 1, 2012, the Premier announced that the government would be launching a comprehensive review of the NNI Policy in cooperation with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
Can the Premier update us today on the status of this review, and can she indicate if a revised NNI Policy will be tabled in the House prior to the dissolution of the Third Legislative Assembly?
The Premier’s announcement of last March also indicated that the government would be conducting a comprehensive internal review of its procurement practices.
As the Premier will recall, one of the recommendations that came forward from the Standing Committee on [Oversight of] Government Operations and Public Accounts following our review of the Auditor General’s report on procurement and contracting was that the government needs to develop a more clear appeals process for unsuccessful bidders.
Can the Premier update us today on the status of this review?
This question is more geared towards the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, but I’ll try my best to answer for him.
If the member is talking about the review of the NNI document, as I understand it, the review is being tabled.
As the Premier will also recall, another one of the recommendations that came forward from the Standing Committee on [Oversight of] Government Operations and Public Accounts following our review of the Auditor General’s report on procurement was that the government needs to clarify whether or not the NNI Policy applies to the procurement and contracting activities of the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
In its official response to the standing committee report, the government indicated that it would be reviewing this issue.
Can the Premier inform the House what decision the government has made on this issue?
The portfolio is under a different ministry than mine, so I cannot answer that at this point.
As a result, we will move on in our orders of the day.
Tabled Document 402 – 3(3): Nunavut Planning Commission Workshop in Cambridge Bay (Tapardjuk)
I wish to table today a copy of the information for the upcoming Nunavut Planning Commission workshop in Cambridge Bay from September 17 to 19, 2013.
The purpose of this workshop is to provide guidance regarding future submissions on the Draft Nunavut Land Use Plan.
The Nunavut Planning Commission has invited interested organizations, such as designated Inuit organizations, the federal and territorial government agencies and departments, and institutions of public government.
Tabled Document 403 – 3(3): Nunavut Film Development Corporation Annual Report 2009-2010 (Taptuna)
Tabled Document 404 – 3(3): Nunavut Film Development Corporation Annual Report 2010-2011 (Taptuna)
Tabled Document 405 – 3(3): Nunavut Film Development Corporation Annual Report 2011-2012 (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table following annual reports for the Nunavut Film Development Corporation for the years 2009-2010, 2010-11, and 2011-12.
Bills 32, 40, and 69 with Mr. Tapardjuk in the Chair.
Chairman (Mr. Tapardjuk) (interpretation): Thank you for coming back to the Committee of the Whole.
I would now like call the committee meeting to order. Thank you for being here.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: (interpretation ends) Bills 32, 40, and 69. (interpretation) What is the wish of the committee?
We wish to commence our review of Bills 69, 32, and 40.
We will deal with Bills 69, 40, and 32.
Bill 69 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2013-2014 – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): We will first deal with Bill 69.
Is the committee agreed that Minister Peterson and his officials go to the witness table?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Peterson and his witnesses in.
To my right is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of Finance, and to my left is Peter Tumilty, Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy and Planning.
Welcome, Deputy D’Arcy and Mr. Tumilty.
If you have any opening comments, I give you this opportunity to make your opening comments. Minister Peterson.
I am pleased to present Bill 69, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2013-2014.
Bill 69 is for operations and maintenance supplementary appropriations for 2013-14 totalling -$1,592,000.
It consists of the following five items:
A budget reallocation of -$1,900,000 from Vote 1 to Vote 2 for the Department of the Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for office renovations and the procurement of office equipment for the Aeroplex building;
A budget reallocation of -$184,000 from Vote 1 to Vote 2 for the Department of Finance for the renovations of the Helen Maksagak Building in Cambridge Bay;
An internal transfer of $69,000 and one PY from the Department of Health to the Department of Family Services for the coordination of the Ilagiitsiarniq Family Violence Prevention Framework;
$348,000 in additional funding to the Department of Justice for the additional leasing costs for office space in the Inuksugait Plaza phase 4 building from April to December of 2013; and
$144,000 for the Department of Community and Government Services for the additional lease costs to house the Department of the Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs staff in one location.
Are there general comments to the opening comments? I would like to hear general comments right now, but I have no one on my list.
We can proceed to Bill 69. Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) No. 2 2013-14.
If you can go to page 4.
Government of Nunavut. (interpretation ends) Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. (interpretation) Operations and Maintenance.
Directorate. Not Previously Authorized. -$728,000.
Go to the next item. (interpretation ends) Strategic Planning. (interpretation) Not Previously Authorized. -$138,000.
Nunavut Cabinet. Operations and Maintenance.
Not Previously Authorized. -$220,000.
Not Previously Authorized. -$714,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Intergovernmental Affairs.
Total (interpretation ends) Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. (interpretation) Operations and Maintenance. -$1,900,000.
Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation ends) Comptrollership. (interpretation) Not Previously Authorized. -$184,000.
Go to the bottom. Total Department. (interpretation ends) Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation) -$184,000.
Operations and Maintenance. Children and Family Services.
Not Previously Authorized. $69,000.
Go to the bottom. Total Department. Children and Family Services.
Operations and Maintenance. $69,000.
Turn to page 7.
Not Previously Authorized. $348,000.
I just want to get more information on this item.
The amount, $348,000, it says that it’s from April 2013 to December 2013.
Is this a new lease? What is going to happen beyond December 2013?
Are they going to move to another location or is there going to be an agreement for leasing?
Mr. Chairman, for the first three months of this fiscal year, the Department of CGS covered the lease cost, and then there’s a shortfall from April 2013 to December 2013. That’s what this $348,000 will cover.
Beyond that, in future years, I think there’s a lease being negotiated or in place to cover lease costs.
Directorate. $348,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to the bottom of page 7.
Total Department. $348,000.
Turn to page 8.
Health. (interpretation ends) Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation) Not Previously Authorized. -$69,000.
Go to the bottom of page 8. Total Department. -$69,000.
Community and Government Services. Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. $144,000.
Just for some more information in regard to the $144,000, I’m just wondering what it means to have it in one location.
Mr. Chairman, the EIA staff are currently located in Iqaluit in four locations. With the renovations, the staff from EIA would be housed in one location and that would be in the Aeroplex building.
If I could ask for more information, what is this $144,000 going to be used for within the office? Is it for renovations? What is it going to be used for?
Is it so that the staff could be in one location?
Mr. Chairman, those will be the incremental lease costs to consolidate the EIA staff in one location.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services. Operations and Maintenance. $144,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to the bottom. Total Department. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Operations and Maintenance. $144,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Go back to page 2. (interpretation ends) Summary of Appropriation.
Schedule 1. Operations and Maintenance Appropriation. -$1,592,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to Bill 69 (interpretation ends) in your binder. (interpretation) Thank you. I believe you now have the legislative binder containing the bill. Please refer to Bill 69. (interpretation ends) Clause 1. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 4. (interpretation ends) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Go to the Schedule on page 3.
Page 3. (interpretation ends) Schedule. Vote 1: Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation) Total. -$1,592,000.
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriation. -$1,592,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go back to page 1. (interpretation ends) Clause 5. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Do we agree to Bill 69 as a whole?
Do we agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 69 can immediately be placed on orders of the day for third reading?
We were under the Schedule and Family Services is listed there. I thought it was -$69,000.
Under Family Services, $69,000, it was not negative, which is what you approved.
Is it clear, Mr. Ningark?
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Yes, I understand it now. Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Do we agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 69 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister, I thank you and your officials. If you want to make some closing comments, I give you this opportunity.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and your committee for the scrutiny and oversight of Bills 68 and 69 the last couple of days.
I would like to thank our legislative drafters who worked on a very short notice to put all of this together.
I would like to send out a special thanks to our expenditure management team in the Department of Finance who put these supp bills together over the years and also the capital and main estimates since 2008.
I believe this will be my last appearance before the committee talking about supp bills or main estimates or capital estimates.
The hard work that our staff do is greatly appreciated to make things work out for our benefit.
I would also like to thank my officials who were with me today to assist me with my appearance.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. I thank your officials, (interpretation ends) Deputy D’Arcy and Mr. Tumilty. (interpretation) Thank you.
Thank you. The next item on the list is (interpretation ends) Bill 32. (interpretation) Are we agreed that Minister Shewchuk and his officials go to the witness table?
Bill 32 – An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act – Consideration in Committee
I would like to introduce to my right the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Norman Tarnow.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Welcome, (interpretation ends) Deputy Tarnow. (interpretation) If you have any opening comments, I give you the opportunity at this time. Minister Shewchuk.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to appear before the committee today for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act.
The bill adds a provision protecting lawyers employed by the Legal Services Board from breach of professional conduct for conflict of interest.
Currently, LSB (Legal Services Board) lawyers have no protection against potential civil or law society penalty for acting in a perceived conflict of interest on a file.
The reality in Nunavut is that the LSB does the vast majority of legal work and has to represent opposing parties.
With fewer than 25 lawyers dealing with thousands of cases on an annual basis in criminal, family, and civil law matters, it is impossible for staff lawyers to avoid potential conflicts of interest from arising.
Both Manitoba and Newfoundland have a similar provision in their legal aid legislation. Extending this protection to Nunavut Legal Services Board lawyers will ensure they can continue to provide legal services to Nunavutmiut without fear of unwarranted professional sanction.
Mr. Ningeongan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Can I proceed?
(interpretation ends) As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of my colleagues as we begin consideration of Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act.
Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, Bill 32 received second reading on March 1, 2012 and was subsequently referred to the standing committee for consideration.
For the benefit of the permanent public record and Nunavummiut who are following our proceedings today, I wish to take this opportunity to provide an overview of the standing committee’s deliberations concerning Bill 32.
Mr. Chairman, the amended and reprinted version of Bill 32 that is before the Committee of the Whole today adds a new provision to the Legal Services Act concerning conflicts of interest in relation to the conduct of a lawyer who is employed by the Legal Services Board or a regional legal services committee.
The standing committee has no objections to the proposed new provision.
Mr. Chairman, as you will also recall, the introduction version of Bill 32 that was initially referred to the standing committee contained provisions to repeal sections 40 and 41 from the Legal Services Act.
These provisions of the Legal Services Act provide for a choice of legal counsel for accused persons who have been charged with an offence for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
Mr. Chairman, as you will appreciate, the standing committee gave careful consideration to the proposal to remove these provisions from the legislation.
Over the past year, the committee undertook an extensive dialogue with the sponsoring minister concerning the rationale for this proposal.
Mr. Chairman, the initial justification that was provided for removing the choice of counsel provisions from the Legal Services Act concerned the purported cost of providing legal counsel in section 40 matters.
Upon detailed scrutiny, however, this argument could not be adequately substantiated.
Another proposed justification for removing the choice of counsel provisions from the Legal Services Act concerned differing interpretations of Madam Justice Browne’s judgment in relation to the Bishop case.
Although it has been suggested that section 40 of the Legal Services Act provides an accused person with an “unrestrained choice of counsel from anywhere in the country,” Justice Browne actually ruled that the Legal Services Board simply has an obligation to provide an accused person with a “solid list containing alternatives and a reasonable number or variety of lawyers who are qualified and prepared to act as senior counsel on murder cases or other cases of a similarly serious nature.”
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to note that the standing committee, in the course of its deliberations on Bill 32, expressed disappointment at the lack of progress made by the Legal Services Board to act on the need to strengthen the private bar in Nunavut, thereby supporting its ability to meet its obligations under the Legal Services Act and the Bishop decision.
The standing committee would also emphasize that Justice Browne’s judgment took formal judicial notice of the shortage of legal professionals in Nunavut.
For example, the standing committee notes that the rate paid to resident lawyers under the Legal Services Regulations has not increased since July 1, 2000.
This inaction does not contribute to the goal of expanding a private bar presence in the territory.
Indeed, it creates disincentives for legal professionals to establish private practices in the territory.
By contrast, the government has recognized that its compensation framework for such professions as teachers, nurses, and physicians cannot remain static for over a decade.
Although the standing committee recognizes that the Legal Services Board enjoys an appropriate degree of operational autonomy, it would support strong action on the part of the minister responsible for the board with respect to ensuring that a lack of budgetary resources cannot be used as a justification for not meeting statutory obligations.
Mr. Chairman, another proposed justification for removing the choice of counsel provisions from the Legal Services Act concerned the question of whether or not an accused person is capable of making a reasonable decision in such matters.
The standing committee considered, but ultimately rejected, the contention that accused persons are inherently incapable of making reasonable decisions and that these decisions should be made for them by officials.
The standing committee also expressed its support for the position that an accused person who faces a potential life sentence should have a high degree of trust and confidence in his or her legal counsel.
To a significant extent, this trust and confidence depends on the accused person having a meaningful say in the decision as to who will represent them.
Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the Legal Services Act was inherited by Nunavut from the Northwest Territories upon division.
It is noteworthy that the territory’s recently passed new Legal Aid Act maintains an important element of choice of counsel for accused persons facing potential life sentences while providing for measures to ensure that such counsel is fully able to act in such matters.
Mr. Chairman, during the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 32, two motions were moved, considered, and adopted.
These motions amended Bill 32 by deleting the clauses that provided for the repeal of sections 40 and 41 from the Legal Services Act.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments. The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 32, as amended and reprinted, to all members.
I will now open the floor for general comments from the members.
There being none. Please go to Bill 32 in your white legislation binder.
I think you all have it now. Bill 32, reprint, (interpretation ends) Legal Services Act.
Chairman (interpretation): Do we agree to Bill 32 as a whole?
Do we agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 32 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, my colleagues. (interpretation ends) Bill 32 (interpretation) will be placed on the orders of the day for third reading.
Minister Shewchuk, if you have any closing remarks, you have the floor. Minister Shewchuk.