EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We noticed that costs have increased due to the fact that there has been a change in the last year and half whereby instead of two-year postings, there have been four-year postings. So officers are more likely to want to transfer to Nunavut because they will come here for a two-year posting, and then they could post elsewhere in Nunavut for two years.
When that occurs, there are costs associated with that.
The benefit of the program that the RCMP has introduced is you will have policing in the communities that the communities have asked for through the mayors at the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, for example. I was down there in Rankin Inlet last month.
They always ask for additional policing resources in their communities to provide for safety and protection of the communities.
Not much more of a question, but I wanted to also indicate that my colleagues are probably aware the Auditor General’s reports were formally released, and there was concern for proper and adequate service provisions for aboriginal people.
One area that was touched on as well was the policing aspect of it.
I’m sure the minister and his officials will be aware that the Acting Auditor General had made some interesting comments today during a press release.
I just wanted to advise that that was announced formally today. I just wanted to give my colleagues a heads-up on the matter.
I didn’t hear a question, but I’ll leave that to you, Mr. Peterson, if you would like to respond to that.
I thank Mr. Aupaluktuq for the comment.
I haven’t had a chance to review the comments, but I can tell the members that we have been in negotiations as the provinces and territories for the last two and half to three years with Ottawa on a new 20-year RCMP policing agreement.
We anticipate that there will be additional costs for Nunavut due to some changes.
So I have been in contact with our federal Member of Parliament as recently as today to talk to her about her help in Ottawa to assist us with additional policing costs.
We will go back to page 5.
Supplementary Appropriation. Not Previously Authorized.
Total Law Enforcement. $2,289,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Justice. $2,289,000.
For a brief moment, I thought a question was going to be raised. I apologize.
If you go to the next page, there is now someone with a question on the floor.
Education. (interpretation ends) Operations and Maintenance. Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1.
K-12. (interpretation) Education.
I didn’t want to interrupt as you look quite formidable as the Chairman, but I want to raise this question in any event.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, I have asked questions a number of times in this House with respect to accessing funding for a daycare facility in the community of Chesterfield Inlet.
The answer from the Minister of Education has always been the same, that the department does not provide funding for standalone daycare facilities and will only provide infrastructure funding for a daycare facility if it is included in the construction of a new school.
I have also written to our federal MP in support of the community of Chesterfield Inlet accessing infrastructure funding for a daycare.
Has the Department of Education reconsidered its position on providing funding for community daycare facilities?
The question is being posed to the Minister of Education, Minister Aariak.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the member for asking that question.
With respect to funding, while it is true that we don’t provide infrastructure funding for daycare construction and operational funding, the government implemented a policy just recently. When a new school is being constructed, they now include daycare facilities. In the future, all schools constructed will include a daycare facility.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister of Education.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) What specifically will the supplementary appropriation amount of $235,000 to fund a future daycare facility in Igloolik be spent on?
We’re dealing with K-12 first and then we will move on to your question.
We’re dealing with K-12 School Operations. $5 million. Hold on a minute.
The member is asking the Minister of Education about the $235,000.
Minister Aariak, Minister of Education.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) This $235,000 is very different from any other time. The department was approved for an increase of $235,000 to the 2011-12 budget to offer a one-time only capital child care spaces program to Igloolik.
Igloolik is the only community in Nunavut without a licensed daycare facility. There are other communities that do not have a licensed daycare facility currently operating, but they have had one operating in the past and do not have the physical space available to them if they wish to reopen.
Eligible non-profit organizations are able to apply for funding to help them in the construction or renovation of a building in Igloolik into a full-time daycare.
Of course, the non-profit organizations would be able to receive up to 75 percent of the total cost of their facility construction or renovation from the capital daycare spaces to a maximum of $235,000.
The non-profit organizations would be responsible for finding additional funds needed by various activities, such as fundraising, donations, other grants, loans, mortgages, and etcetera, for the completion of the daycare building or space.
Now I’m going back to how we are able to provide this. In 2007, the Nunavut government received $235,000 for the child care space initiatives from the federal government.
So the Hamlet of Igloolik and the Ajagutaq Daycare Society have worked together and submitted one proposal to show the Department of Education how they can plan to spend the money, such as a quote for renovations or construction, and how they plan to come up with their portion of the total cost.
This is a one-time only initiative for Igloolik’s daycare.
When you have questions to ask, please indicate that you do so when we get to the appropriate page.
In the past, via their own initiatives, many daycare providers applied for funding from the federal government after first making requests to the Nunavut government. I’m not specifically referring to Igloolik’s request because many communities had to raise their own funds for daycares and we have looked at that.
I understand that this will be on a one-time basis. Perhaps the same will hold true for the Chesterfield Inlet residents.
That is just a comment, (interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) That’s all.
It’s obvious that these will be recorded in our minutes, so you will have more expectations.
If there are no more questions, we will go back to page 6. Education. (interpretation ends) Operations and Maintenance, No. 1. (interpretation) K-12 School Operations. $5,711,000. Not Previously Authorized.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Are there any questions?
The request of $235,000 for daycares. Not Previously Authorized.
Total Education. Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. $5,946,000.
Turn the page. Government of Nunavut 2011-12 Supplementary Appropriation, Operations and Maintenance. Environment.
Operations and Maintenance. Are there any questions before we approve the item?
Not Previously Authorized. $1,630,000.
Total Environment. Operations and Maintenance. $1,630,000.
Turn to page 8. 2011-12 Supplementary Appropriation. Community and Government Services.
Community Support. Are there any questions?
Community and Government Services. Not Previously Authorized. $1,285,000.
Just below that, Government Services. $2,570,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Community and Government Services. Total Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. $3,855,000.
Turn the page. Economic Development and Transportation. 2011-12 Supplementary Appropriation, Operations and Maintenance, No. 1. Economic Development.
Not Previously Authorized. $580,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Just below that, Transportation.
Not Previously Authorized. $276,000.
Total Operations and Maintenance. Economic Development. Not Previously Authorized. $856,000.
Nunavut Housing Corporation. Operations and Maintenance. Are there any questions?
On item 2 there, it says, “To provide funding of $850,000 to fund a projected increase in the provision of municipal water services to the Baker Lake Housing Association.”
My question is: is that the only community that had an increase in their water or are there other ones?
There may be others, but in Baker Lake, the increase in water was so dramatic that the Nunavut Housing Corporation required an extra appropriation to help cover the cost.
Mr. Schell: On item 5 there, it says, “To provide funding of $200,000 to fund projected additional Legal Fees for 2011-2012,” but it doesn’t specify what it is. Could he explain what these legal fees are for?
Historically all of the legal work was always received kindly from the Department of Justice.
Recently they passed on the responsibility for all of the legal work and legal advice from within our own resources.
As a result of that, we are incorporating a modest and we are hopeful it’s an amount that will help the corporation.
On item 6, it says, “To provide funding of $200,000 to fund the Board of Directors’ annual Honorariums and Meeting Costs.” Is there kind of a rough breakdown of how that is like for travel and the honorariums?
Hon. Tagak Curley: Mr. Chairman, I have to get my book on that one.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, did you want to respond to that as well?
Mr. Chairman, the Nunavut Housing Corporation is in the process of passing legislation to have the board of directors.
Once that process is complete, there will be a board of directors appointed at some point, and then the $200,000 will be funds that will be used to pay honoraria and travel for various meetings throughout the year.
What I’m trying to get at is: how did you come up with the figure of $200,000? Is that just an estimate?
The honoraria are pretty much guided by the policies of the GN. There is a standard provision, particularly for boards of directors, and ours would be a modest one. It’s not the cream of the pudding, unlike some of the more historically, more rooted in the Crown corporations or whatnot.
So ours will be a modest one.
I think the member would understand that the meeting costs and honoraria will be, in my opinion, quite modest.
I know it doesn’t answer you in detail because we really haven’t gone through even one year yet, but we’re three-quarters of the way right now.
It will likely be only six months before the next fiscal year ends, so it will likely be a good rate for the moment to remain in.
The Baker Lake Housing Committee and the Hamlet of Baker Lake would be grateful. For the record, on item 2 in the amount of $850,000, you briefly touched on it.
What is being administered and implemented in the water services for this amount?
My understating is that it’s just a price increase.
Nunavut Housing Corporation. Operations and Maintenance.
Not Previously Authorized. $3,817,000.
Total Nunavut Housing Corporation. 2011-12 Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. $3,817,000.
Go back to page 2. 2011-12 Operations and Maintenance.
Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2012. Schedule 1.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $19,570,000.
We can now go back to the bill (interpretation ends) in your white binder.
Bill 8, (interpretation) Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2011-2012. (interpretation ends) Clause 1. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Supplementary Appropriation. (interpretation ends) Vote 1: Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation) Total Operations and Maintenance. $19,570,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Supplementary Appropriation for Bill 8. $19,570,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Do you agree to Bill 8 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), are we agreed that Bill 8 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister, if you have any closing remarks with respect to the funds that have been approved, the floor is open.
I would like to thank yourself and the committee for your excellent questions, not only in Committee of the Whole but also during standing committee last week. We were able to hopefully answer some of your questions.
I appreciate my colleagues from the cabinet being here today to also answer any detailed questions you had. We take your questions very seriously and we will be willing to share information.
I would like to also thank the officials who came today to support their ministers: Alain Barriault from the Nunavut Housing Corporation; Lori Kimball from the Nunavut Housing Corporation; Peter Ma from the Department of Health and Social Services; and Raj Downe from the Department of Health and Social Services.
I would also like to thank my two officials for being here today with me as well and all of the other finance and government officials who worked diligently over the last few months to prepare for this process today.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson, for being open and able to respond to questions.
We will not be dealing with Finance at this time.
Continuing on, Bill 9 is the next item for discussion.
Minister of Health and Social Services, if you have any opening remarks on Bill 9, the floor is yours.
Bill 09 – An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act – Consideration in Committee
I do, and I want to thank you and the committee members for considering Bill 9 at this time.
Mr. Chairman, the creation of Bill 9 is the government’s response to a decision passed last November by the Nunavut Court of Justice to ensure a prompt court hearing is undertaken after child protection workers apprehend a child. Some sections in Nunavut’s Child and Family Services Act have been challenged in court and determined to be in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Chairman, when it is determined that a child needs to be removed from a home for their own protection and well-being, a court hearing is subsequently held to review the validity of the apprehension.
All jurisdictions in Canada, with the exception of Nunavut, require the hearing to occur within 15 days of a child being apprehended.
Approval of proposed amendments in Bill 9 means the time between the apprehension of a child in Nunavut from his or her home and the required judicial review of that decision will be much shorter and in line with the court’s direction and other jurisdictions in Canada.
Bill 9 dovetails with Tamapta’s goals of helping those at risk in our communities and improving child and family services in Nunavut.
In addition to the presentation of Bill 9, the Department of Health and Social Services continues to lead a comprehensive review of the Child and Family Services Act.
The review involves the efforts and collaboration of government departments, non-government agencies, and community members.
The Auditor General of Canada also released a recent report about Nunavut’s child, youth, and family programs and services.
The government agrees with the report’s findings, and the Department of Health and Social Services is leading the development and implementation of an action plan to address concerns.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s responses to the court’s decision, the Auditor General’s report, and the current review of the Child and Family Services Act reflect our substantive efforts to provide adequate child protection that incorporates cultures, values, and governing legislation.
Mr. Chairman, community members, families, and governments must work together to support and protect vulnerable children and to provide them with a secure and safe home environment as required in a timely manner.
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Yes, I do.
Minister Curley, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is my Deputy Minister, Peter Ma, I’m sure everyone knows him, and to my left is Ann McIntosh, Legal Counsel for the Department of Justice.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you and welcome for appearing before the committee. I’m sure there will be questions and you will respond to them.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation have any opening comments? Mr. Ningeongan.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee first reviewed Bill 9 on June 2, 2011.
Bill 9 proposes amendments to the Child and Family Services Act in response to a recent judgment by the Nunavut Court of Justice requiring the Government of Nunavut to ensure timely and procedural fairness with respect to child protection cases.
Bill 9 proposes amendments to existing sections of the Act respecting hearings, orders, and apprehensions. It also proposes amendments to clarify terminology and to remove references to NWT-based aboriginal organizations, while clarifying the role of the Nunavut-based regional Inuit associations within the legislation.
The standing committee recognizes that a comprehensive review of the Child and Family Services Act, with a view to introducing new legislation, is a separate initiative.
The committee looks forward to that bill coming forward next year, as committed to in the 2011-14 Business Plan of the Department of Health and Social Services.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments. The standing committee is in support of Bill 9 and recommends its passage to all Members of this House.
I would also like to thank the Hon. Minister Curley.
As the chair of the standing committee just stated, this will continue to be our main priority. We were elected as Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut to ensure we protect all of the people of Nunavut, whether they are men, seniors, women, or children.
We have been elected to protect our public and that’s the foremost priority no matter where you live, whether in a larger centre or a smaller community.
I want to include this additional comment which will not be a long comment, but it speaks to Inuit societal values and its meaning.
Many of us have heard, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that you have also run across this statement that most of our elders, whether they are female or male, continually state that their grandmother or grandfather raised them, even with a biological mother and father. During our nomadic days when Inuit depended on subsistence hunting, since our grandparents loved their grandchildren, they helped to rear many Inuit.
I believe that many people here were raised by their grandparents, even though their parents were living.
In this current age, children are being apprehended, but I want to speak about the process.
When children are going to be apprehended and taken from their parents, which we now see happening in our communities, I want to ensure that if the circumstances are not too serious or if the child is not at risk, then they should call the grandparents.
Where the situation is not too serious, the grandparents should be notified and this should happen at all times.
The grandparents have a vested interest since they rear their grandchildren based on love and compassion, and they are not paid for this. That is how they raise their children.
I wonder what is the real purpose or meaning of Bill 9.
As we debate the details of the legislation, including amending and improving the Child Family Services Act, we have to ensure that we continue to incorporate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
All parents and grandparents should be contacted to hear their views on this matter, including all Inuit women’s associations.
I didn’t want to speak too long to this issue, but I am in support of this bill.
Nonetheless, where cases are not serious or urgent, I ask the department to agree where apprehensions take place in the communities that you please include the grandparents in the communities.
I would like to thank my colleague, Hon. Ningark, for such an eloquent view on things.
As he was speaking, it just came to mind as well and no doubt, I don’t want to reiterate what he says, but it has to be enforced in a sense that foster parents, custom adoption families, social workers, and all of Nunavummiut who have genuine compassion will be very accepting of this amendment.
On behalf of our communities and colleagues here in the House, I wish to express respect and support for the amendment and thank the hon. minister and his Department of Health and Social Services for acknowledging this necessary amendment.
We will start with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 9. (interpretation ends) Page 1.
Bill 9, (interpretation) An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act. (interpretation ends) Clause 1. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Go to (interpretation ends) page 7.
Schedule A. (interpretation) Information. (interpretation ends) Schedule A. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Clause 17. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Do my committee colleagues agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 9 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Curley, I would like to thank you.
The comments made were all relevant and understandable. It’s obvious that this will improve the bill. I want members to know that we are now following that.
The process to deal with the apprehended children took a long time to be properly adapted. As Mr. John Ningark and Moses Aupaluktuq so eloquently voiced in their concerns, we remain sensitive to these comments to ensure that we respect the grandparents and we will pass this amendment. I thank you all for your support.
I thank my deputy minister and especially our legal counsel, who worked hard on this bill for quite some time. I thank the members for passing this bill.
I’m sure people are going to benefit.
We will commence our review of Bill 10. Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Minister Curley, if you have any opening comments before we start dealing with the bill, the floor is yours.
Bill 10 – An Act to Amend the Nunavut Housing Corporation Act – Consideration in Committee
I have my opening comments and they’re available in French, English, and Inuinnaqtun.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to be here today to present and to share and discuss An Act to Amend the Nunavut Housing Corporation Act.
The provisions of Bill 10 represent an acknowledgement that the Nunavut Housing Corporation has reached a significant milestone in its evolution.
This is a historic step as the provisions in Bill 10 address matters far beyond the appropriateness or suitability of a mechanism of governance for the corporation.
These provisions reflect the fact that the demands on the Nunavut Housing Corporation have reached a new level of complexity which requires a new level of capacity.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation inherited its current governance structure from the NWT.
This structure included the Corporate Executive Committee, which replaced a conventional board of directors.
It was deemed appropriate for the Nunavut Housing Corporation at the time of its creation because it provided a focus on operational concerns, the nuts and bolts of getting housing done in Nunavut.
However, Mr. Chairman, as demonstrated by the Auditor General in her 2008 report on the performance audit of the Nunavut Housing Corporation, this structure does have its limits.
The Auditor General found that the CEC, in 2008, was mainly preoccupied with operational issues and little evidence existed to show that it had discussed, planned, or dealt with the following:
Setting long-term goals and establishing strategic priorities;
Planning and managing human resources for the corporation;
Approving the annual corporate plan, including budgets and any necessary adjustments; and
Evaluating the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of the corporation’s activities.