EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We went out for services, we stated what the services were that were required and we stated what the evaluation criteria would be. The evaluation criteria were, among other things, price was in there and so was service.
So we weighed all of the evaluation criteria and that’s how we came up with the end result.
So Calm Air bid as part of Canadian North.
I hope that clarifies the question, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, (interpretation ends) I understand that it’s not a condition.
You don’t have to have an airline in there; you could bid for medical travel contracts.
I could apply for a medical travel contract, I guess, in the Kivalliq, Inuit owned, I own it myself, but it would be very difficult, unless you have pre-arrangements with other airlines that could deliver a service for you.
But because it’s not a condition, it ended up with the discontinuing of airline service for other airlines that are already in existence in the Kivalliq. I think we all recognize that that affected everything else. I know the government’s big, but we, as residents and small businesses, are all interconnected.
If one airline does not get the fair deal, or rotten deal, whatever, or excluded for that matter, the whole service for passengers in the whole of Kivalliq is affected. So I think that will have to be recognized and taken with a point.
Mr. Chairman, section 2.5.2 of the GN’s RFP indicates that “The Contractor will make reasonable efforts” to provide languages like Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun, English, and French. How did the government evaluate the airlines’ proposals in this area and how is the government monitoring airlines’ compliance with this requirement?
Mr. McCullock will answer that question.
Mr. McCullock, go ahead.
We recognized that in Nunavut, languages are very important and that it was very important that people be able to be served in the language of their choice.
When we put out the Request for Proposal, language and those services being provided are evaluated under service. So it was under customer service, which is 30 percent, which was a significant portion of the evaluation criteria. It was part of customer service.
The proponents or the contractors sent back, as a response to the RFP, explanations and they explained to us what their language programs were going to be and the evaluation committee determined that they would if they were appropriate, and the monitoring, again, is part of the contract management.
So we evaluated, as part of the RFP, under the customer service area and we did recognize that it was very important. And the monitoring is part of contract management.
There’s also section 2.5.12 of the RFP that states that “The Contractor will transport a reasonable amount of country food, subject to space availability, from a point of origin on the Contractor’s route network to the Contractor’s cargo facilities located at Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Yellowknife.
The Contractor will not charge for this service.”
How did the government evaluate the airlines’ proposals for this RFP and how is the government monitoring airlines’ compliance with this requirement for the provision of country foods?
Mr. McCullock will respond to the question.
Mr. McCullock: Thank you very much for that question.
In the proponents’ meeting that we had with them, this exact topic came up at the meeting.
We were concerned that the airlines would be able to continue to offer that level of service for country food so that medical travellers could ensure they had country food at their destination in the south if that’s where they were travelling for medical appointments.
It was evaluated as part of customer service, it was very important.
We asked the airlines that were in the room, and it was all of them, how much and what has the volume been, what has been the history.
It was discussed and each airline, in their proposal, submitted suggesting that they would provide adequate space for country food.
And when we had asked them at the proponents’ meetings if they ever had to refuse, the airlines had told us that they had never refused country food being brought in reasonable quantities for somebody on medical travel.
I hope this is not going to be just a lip service, I hope good results will come out of that.
Also, section 2.7.2 of the GN’s RFP indicates that airlines were asked to account for fuel surcharges in their proposed pricing.
What has been the impact of the world price of oil on the costs of the GN’s medical travel contracts?
Mr. McCullock will respond to that question as well.
Fuel surcharges, we know, are part of life now and they’re very much a big part of transportation.
So the fuel surcharge that we have approved that they could charge us is going to be linked to published rack prices, so it is auditable so we know if there has been an increase in fuel over the months.
I think we have seen a couple of increases based on fuel increases and we know that the airlines are passing these along. The contracts that we had previously, of which there was only one, but that contract also included a fuel surcharge.
So the amount of any fuel surcharge would have been passed along under the previous contract and it is now also.
I have only two more questions and I can probably pose them together since they are related.
The first one is: section 2.9.1 of the GN’s RFP indicates that “Base Fares shall be adjusted by the Contractor on each anniversary date of this Contract.” Section 4 of Addendum 5 in the RFP indicates that the GN informed bidders that “Prices submitted under this RFP will not be made public.”
If the government is not willing to disclose the base fares negotiated with the airlines, can the minister indicate whether the new base fares are significantly higher or lower than those in the government’s previous contracts for medical travel?
I believe Mr. McCullock can respond to that question.
Mr. McCullock: Thank you very, Mr. Chairman.
I would want to be a taxpayer now, I feel very good about this.
However, as a taxpayer, I would love to know, on an annual basis, how much of that money has been coming out of my pocket.
The government tables annual reports in the Legislative Assembly on its contracting and procurement activities.
Will the government commit to ensuring that future reports to the Legislative Assembly indicate the total amount that the GN spends each year on scheduled medical travel for each airline with which it has contracts?
The interest is very simple.
The taxpayers have right to know how much this government is spending for everything because we have significant information in other monies that are spent, except for the contracts.
With respect to the question that the member posed, we will be able to provide that information annually from now on so that annual reports can be presented.
(interpretation ends) I will allow you, Mr. Curley.
We’re getting near the conclusion on this thing.
I think it’s very important that we set the record straight as well because there are a lot of passionate concerns, as well as important concerns, as well as financial concerns of individuals, not only by the government.
It’s easy to save money in this government - by eliminating some programs and doing something, but cutting essential service to standards that are lower than one of the best services is really not one option in Nunavut.
It could have been managed a little better. But I was surprised, Mr. Chairman, last Friday, that the Deputy Minister of Health, through the ministry, indicated that, in responding to my question, suspension of the jet service by First Air to and from Winnipeg was not related to the medical travel contract.
If I understood the statement correctly, even though the official First Air statement stated that it was suspending the service due to the fact that they are not part of the medical service contract for GN, are the minister and her officials saying to this committee that First Air is misleading the public by saying that the medical service travel contract is responsible for passenger service as of September 14, 2008?
We have no quorum, so I will have to ring the bell.
Yes, this has to be clarified and I can sympathize with that. I also agree with my colleague’s assessment that we have to have clear and concise information in order to proceed in a transparent manner.
I will have Mr. Campbell respond to that question as well.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I guess the point I was trying to make on Friday was that the decision that was made by the airline was a business decision on their part.
I just wanted to re-emphasize that the instructions from my department was for us to try and reduce some of our costs in delivering our health care services in Nunavut. The best way of doing that is to go through a public Request for Proposals call and see what’s out there. The government doesn’t have control of whom and how the proponents put in their bids on certain legs of this public service that they provide.
All I can say is that, and I can say it again, there was no scheduled medical contract in the Kivalliq to begin with and I can say that it’s not the lack of a scheduled medical contract that hopefully wasn’t a deciding factor for the airline to stop travelling there, it was a business case.
The proponents that put in proposals for that portion of the schedule were evaluated.
I can’t say anything more than that, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the member being in a difficult situation, or at least the deputy minister.
But on any given major contract issued by the government to the public, in my knowledge, I have worked with a number of contractors as a minister, evaluating contracts also always includes economic impacts of potential other competition.
For years, it was very difficult for Inuit owned companies to compete or try and establish a new business to try and compete with the old boys’ club during the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
So therefore, the NNI Policy, Article 24, came into reality. I pushed for that through the negotiations.
Why then does the GN, particularly the Departments of Health and Community and Government Services, exclude economic impacts of service when major contracts are issued, such as medical travel contracts?
Mr. Campbell will respond to that question.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As a department administering, I do try to take the economic climate and the service into consideration on some of the contracts that we do have under our department for administration. From an administrative point of view and from a person that has worked in Nunavut, I do take these into consideration. At the end of the day, the department was instructed to try and manage medical travel expenses as part of the overall expenditure management exercise.
At the same time, I wanted to make sure there’s some benefit to Nunavummiut on the contracts that are being awarded. Our best estimate right now is that, as I said earlier, we’re projecting to save $3 million to $4 million per year under this contract if everything goes according to how things should go.
The average ticket prices have increased by 12 to 16 percent.
There has been an increase in service in the Baffin region.
So from that context, I think overall, there is a benefit to Nunavummiut in awarding some of these contracts.
My department is not ultimately responsible for economic development, that’s another department responsible for facilitating and being involved in that, but I will try my best in assessing these proposals to make sure that we have heard the members, that we will take these into consideration.
Again, at one point, we’re trying to manage the expenditure of this government, my department, and then, at the same time, we’re trying to encourage, by the member’s suggestion, that we should also look at the economic impact. So it’s a difficult situation to be in.
At the end of the day, as I said on Friday and as I said earlier, we’re not going to sacrifice the health and wellbeing of Nunavummiut. We will make sure that Nunavummiut are attending their medical appointments wherever that may be.
We will make sure that people that require medevacs are medevaced to where they’re medevaced to. So that’s our mandate.
I appreciate that. I fully understand where you are, Mr. Campbell and your department. At the same time, it may be too little, too late, in my view, to try and see whether or not Nunavummiut are benefiting from all this in view of the fact that I did passionately indicate that there will be a negative impact if regional airlines are restructured because I told you so.
I said this: the economic development department does not have a transportation policy that actually works.
It’s just, in my view, a paper statement.
It doesn’t have a financial ability to steer regional airlines into services because the market is so small. The biggest market for air travel is medical travel. That’s the biggest economic impact for the region.
Prior to April 1, all three airlines were participating in the medical travel service. Therefore, they were able to keep afloat with the services and there were no complaints, really, from the public.
The patients were able to fly directly, without interruptions, from very sick people to elderly people, from point A to Winnipeg and back again.
Right now, the very ill people who are ready to go home cannot fly directly, unless there is a medevac arriving in Winnipeg. Very ill people have to be flown.
If there is a medevac coming in from Rankin Inlet or so, then they’re flown back there.
At one point, one community was very concerned and I can say to you that individuals were willing to charter a plane back from Winnipeg to bring their elderly back home because the government was not willing to pay for that service.
So they said, “Okay, just make the plane available. We will pay for it ourselves.”
That’s what’s happening and that’s what you’re doing.
Not only should you be concerned with how well you are managing your finances, there are no travel options right now for Kivalliq people and yet, the one airline is really benefiting as a monopoly in the region.
The other partner is a very small player, but not strong enough to ensure that all of the communities are seeing a decrease in airfares.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the minister and her officials will continue to provide evaluations. At one point, whoever sits in the next Assembly will no doubt want to see the progress and the reports from the department.
Would the minister commit, at least, that she will continue to provide reports to the Assembly, whoever may be in the next Assembly?
The evaluation will be ongoing now on an annual basis, I have commitments from both DMs.
Although I won’t be in the new government, these guys will be and I believe that will happen, and I trust in the government officials that these comments and these concerns were taken seriously.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Brown. (interpretation) Is that it?
Sorry I had to be out of the House for a while to pick up somebody at the airport. Two very quick points, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
On section 2.4 of the Request for Proposals, I know the minister asked us last week to provide page numbers, but there are no page numbers in the document. So if the cover page is page 1, it would be on page 9 for the benefit of the minister. The section is regarding the Requirements of Scheduled Turbo-Prop Service and 2.4.2 says, “The successful Proponent(s) will provide the most efficient delivery of GN clients to and from destination.
Efficiency is defined by:
The timely AND most direct delivery of the passenger(s).
The comfortable delivery of the passenger(s).”  Those are two of a number of requirements.
Just to get it on the record, Mr. Chairman, because I’m sure the government will not change the contents of this contract just because of what’s going on here, but when it comes to medical travel or any travel out of Baker Lake, what we have now is not timely, is not the most direct route, and is not comfortable.
As I mentioned last week, it’s taken us up to six hours just to get to Winnipeg from Baker Lake with a whole bunch of stops, and the same coming home, travelling six and sometimes more hours trying to get back home from Winnipeg with multiple stops and again, with no hot meals either way.
Depending on what flight you take, sometimes it means waiting a number of hours at the terminal in Rankin Inlet, again, not comfortable at all for patients.
So I don’t see how you were able to skip over that when you awarded the contract to the successful proponent.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, just on the side, it might be very interesting, for the Minister of Human Resources, just to get an idea of how much it’s costing the government now because with a very early departure from Baker Lake and a very late arrival, any government employee from Baker Lake travelling on those routes are charging up to five and six hours of overtime every day they travel.
So it would be very interesting just to find out how much we’re paying there.
So just the point that I wanted to make again is that six hours is a long time for medical patients, whether they’re trying to get to Winnipeg or trying to get home, and again, depending on which day you’re travelling and which flight you’re travelling on, it means up to three different aircraft just to get to Baker Lake from Winnipeg.
The only other point I wanted to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, if I may, is the commitment made by the previous Minister of Health and Social Services that under this contract with two airlines providing medical travel now, that patients do, in fact, have a choice of airlines.
Even with the percentages that you have awarded to the two airlines, the commitment was made by the previous minister in that the department would inform the health centre in Baker Lake of the fact that patients have a choice of airlines.
Those are the only two points I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.
There’s no need for an answer, I just wanted to get those on the record.
Does the committee agree that we have concluded debate on Tabled Document 216 – 2(4)?
We wanted to deal with Bill 7 and some other small item, 43 I think, but look at the time. When we sit down again and open everything up, it will be six o’clock.
So I would like to move that we report progress.
Chairman: There is a motion on the floor to report progress and the motion is not debatable.
All those in favour of the motion. Opposed.
I want to thank the minister and her staff.
We’re on Bill 42.
Bill 42 – Miscellaneous Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to appear today to present these proposed amendments.
Miscellaneous bills such as this one are commonly used in other jurisdictions in Canada to correct mistakes in Acts and to make other non-controversial changes.
The bill amends the Judicature Act to correct a provision that refers to Chief Justice rather than to senior judge.
The bill also amends the Jury Act to make reference to Nunavut and corrects errors in seven Acts for which Justice is responsible.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Okalik. (interpretation ends) Do you have witness that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): I will be available to answer any questions and they are available as well.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): On my right is my Deputy Minister, Markus Weber.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to the matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
Go to Bill 42 in your legislation binder.
Bill 42, Miscellaneous Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.
I think clause 1 here says that it deals with the Exemptions Act as amended.
I’m just wondering if we can get a clarification on what exactly is being amended there other than what’s in those columns of Schedule A that’s being amended in (2).
I know our Exemptions Act allowed for regulations of things to come in.
I’m just wondering if that’s exactly what those changes are going to be.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) It’s on Schedule A, Column 1 comas and punctuation errors.
That’s it. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know when there were some changes made to our Exemptions Act before and there were going to be some things brought in by regulation as far as what’s considered exempt and what isn’t, so if that’s not what this is, has that been done and if not, when will it be done?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) From what I understand, that’s still under review, but we’re just dealing with touching up legislation, not just the Exemptions Act but all the other Acts that are stated here. We’re trying to correct some little errors here and there through this exercise.
So that exercise is separate from this legislative exercise. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the minister for clarifying that, but can he give an indication as to when? The other part of my question was when they anticipate bringing those other changes forward.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) There is some work that needs to be done yet. I’m hopeful that I will be back and report progress in the next term of government. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Has anything happened since then? Has anything been done?
Hon. Paul Okalik: Yes, from what I understand, there is work ongoing, so that work is not done.
So, of course, there is ongoing work on this matter.
I’m trying to deal with grammatical issues right now and I don’t have all that information with me.
I was set here to try and talk about these other pieces of legislation, so I’m sorry I don’t have a right response on that issue. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We will go to Schedule A on page 4.
Chairman: Go to Schedule B on page 4.
Chairman: Go to Schedule C on page 5.
Chairman: Go to Schedule D on page 5.
Chairman: Go to Schedule E on page 5.
Chairman: Go to Schedule F on page 6.
Chairman: Is the committee agreed to Bill 42 as a whole?
Do the members agree that pursuant Rule 62(2) that Bill 42 can immediately be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
I would like to recognize the clock, it is six o’clock, and report progress.
Chairman: The clock is six o’clock.
Your committee has been considering Tabled Document 216 – 2(4) and Bill 42, and would like to report that Tabled Document 216 – 2(4) is concluded and Bill 42 is ready for third reading. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be agreed to.
The only bills I have, I have to pay. We’re on Third Reading of Bills.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to go back quickly to Item 5.
Speaker (interpretation): I had already presented the rules in regard to the time and how to properly proceed within those rules. But at this time, a member would like to revert back to Item 5, Recognition of Visitors to the Gallery.
You may proceed with your recognition, Mr. Tootoo.
I thought of recognizing this individual in Committee of the Whole when he informed me that today was his 64th birthday, but I thought, considering he is our Sergeant-at-Arms, Simanek Kilabuk, I figured it would be more appropriate to do it with you in the chair and have it formally recorded in the House.
I ask all members to join me in wishing Simanek a happy 64th birthday.
Speaker: Happy birthday, Mr. Simanek. Item 5. (interpretation) Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
Since there are no more, (interpretation ends) Item 21.
Third Reading of Bills. (interpretation) Since there are none, (interpretation ends) Item 22.
Just a reminder for tomorrow, a meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability at nine o’clock in the morning in the Tuktu Boardroom.
Orders of the Day for September 16:
This House stands adjourned until Tuesday, September 16, at 1:30 p.m.
Minister of Environment; Minster of Health and Social Services
DAY 74
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Pages 4909 – 4980
Opening Prayer 4909