EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
For example, NTI, have they been approached to partner for our future in Nunavut so that NTI can begin to assist in the housing need so that the housing problem is rectified in Nunavut.
The Inuit leaders have also voiced their concerns about the lack of housing for the past two years now.
Organizations such as the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada also had a meeting about the lack of housing in Nunavut.
All those organizations know about the lack of housing.
The President of NTI, Paul Quassa, is also very concerned and very responsive to the housing needs of Nunavummiut.
I will be going with him to Ottawa this fall when I meet with the Ministers of Housing.
All the provincial ministers will also be involved in London, Ontario on a housing meeting.
As well all the organizations in the Nunavut area have had concerns about the lack of housing.
Question 270 – 1(5): No Smoking Day
He mentioned a while ago about a smoking cessation day on May 31, which is in two days.
I just wanted more information about his statement.
If it starts on May 31 how long does it last.
Mr. Speaker, World No Tobacco Day, no smoking day is officially recognized around the world and it is for one day.
But Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that if we have learned anything in this last year here in this House, is that we need to be able to bring this message forward every day on no smoking.
The actual event is for one day Mr. Speaker, but the message will continue Mr. Speaker, every day.
Mr. Speaker, in parts of his minister's statement he said that he would like to get some assistance from the Members of the Legislative Assembly when we get back home.
I will be going home after May 31 and I don't think I will be able to relay that message to my constituents right away.
Perhaps if he could extend the dates to about a week.
I just wondered if the minister is going to be bringing a date or a week for no smoking advertising in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, I think the member has made an excellent suggestion, that instead of recognizing one day as Weedless Wednesday, or World No Smoking Day, I believe a week would be quite suitable for Nunavut.
That is something that I would be willing to look at Mr. Speaker, and hopefully bring into play in the next session.
I want to add Mr. Speaker, that in my minister's statement I talked about the opportunity for each of the members here as elected leaders here in Nunavut, to bring forward this anti-smoking message, especially to our young people.
About the perils of smoking and the effects of second hand smoke.
That's what I wanted the members to do.
I believe last month Mr. Speaker, we provided every member with a package of non-smoking materials, including posters and so on, and the members will note that beginning this past week we have seen a new commercial on the air starring the well known director of Atanarjuat, Zacharias Kunuk, who is starring in a non-smoking video with a very attractive little girl about 10 years old, who seems to be my daughter.
I know that commercial has been airing now over the past week.
So in conjunction with no smoking day, No Tobacco Day on May 31 Mr. Speaker, we would like to see this message continue every day.
The Minister of Health and Social Services said that this is an international event on May 31.
As people of Nunavut is it not possible to set aside three days for the World No Tobacco Day, which is May 31, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, municipalities and Hamlets are free to enact a continuance of May 31st to June 1, June 2 or any other set of dates, at the community level.
We’re recognizing as a government we’re on World No Tobacco Day on May 31st like other jurisdiction across this country.
What I can say to the member, I think having his suggestion of having a week in Nunavut of non smoking and looking at some of the legislation that is in place right now Mr. Speaker, at our community level, where we can make more places non smoking, I think that’s some of the things that we want to bring forward and that we’re looking at Mr. Speaker in the fall session.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker for giving me an opportunity to ask one further question.
Have you set aside this World No Tobacco day for one day only, just to be in sync with the rest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, there are several days set aside by government for different things, National Immunization Week, Nursing Appreciation Week, No Tobacco Day, Weedless Wednesday, this is one of these days where we can bring awareness to different areas, different issues.
That’s why Mr. Speaker, the Government of Nunavut adopted and agreed to and are following other jurisdictions in this country and celebrating May 31st as no tobacco day and focusing on second hand smoke.
Mr. Speaker, I think the member has brought up an excellent idea of our government actually extending that ourselves and trying to incorporate maybe 3,4,5 days of non smoking week in Nunavut, and Mr. Speaker that’s something I would be very interested in trying to bring forward this fall.
Report 009 – 1(5): Report of the Joint Standing Committees on the 2001-2002 Budget & Departmental Business Plans
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my fellow Standing Committee Chairs, Mr. Iqaqrialu, Mr. Nutarak and Mr. Tootoo, I am pleased to present today the Joint Report of the Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly on the 2001-2002 Budget and Departmental Business Plans of the Government of Nunavut.
I would like to make some remarks at this point.
This is the second year in which the Standing Committees have presented a joint report of this nature.
Members were pleased to note that many of the recommendations contained in last year's joint report were acted on by the Government.
We look forward to the Government's response to our 2001-2002 report, which Committees have requested pursuant to Rule 91(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committees have presented over 45 recommendations for the Government's consideration.
These recommendations flow from Members' review of the budget and business plans during Committee and during the budget session.
We hope that  the Government will respond to these recommendations with the same constructive and positive spirit in which they were made.
Mr. Speaker, we are now in our third fiscal year as a new territory and a new government.
At this stage, a number of trends have become clear.
This year's budget makes a strong, strategic investment in education.
Members support this commitment to the future of our youth.
Housing remains in crisis.
Although Members recognize that a long-term solution to the housing crisis depends on a genuine commitment on the part of our federal partners, Members continue to emphasize the need for our Government to make resources available in this area where possible.
Members have noted that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, which is chaired by the MP for Nunavut, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, is presently undertaking a study on the crisis in aboriginal housing.
We would urge our Government to use such vehicles as an opportunity to present our case.
Expenditures on health remain essentially unchanged from when the government was formed.
The cost of providing services to our communities in the country's harshest geography remains high.
The challenges in the area of infrastructure means that our government often has less to work with in other areas, such as health.
Members stand behind the Government in its call for federal investment in northern infrastructure.
During the budget session, the Government announced that it will be undertaking a major program review exercise this year.
Members support the basic concept of program review.
Our report raises a number of specific observations, issues and concerns that we hope will be of use to the Government as this review unfolds.
The importance of the program review exercise is considerable, and Members look forward to being involved with it over the coming year.
Mr. Speaker, that concludes my remarks on the Joint Report of the Standing Committees.
I would like to move, seconded by the Member for Iqaluit Centre, that the Report be received and adopted by the House, and entered into the record as read.
Do members agree that the report be adopted and read into the record.
This is the second year in which the Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly have presented a joint report on the Government of Nunavut's annual budget and departmental business plans.
In Nunavut's non-partisan, consensus system of government, the Legislative Assembly's Standing Committees provide a mechanism for Regular MLAs to scrutinize in detail the spending, policies and programs of the Government.
This report serves to articulate a number of concerns and issues raised by Members in Committee and in the House.
During the course of the annual budget cycle, Committees review, at an early stage, preliminary business plans and budget allocations with the responsible Minister of each department.
In a number of cases, recommendations and comments made internally by Committees are reflected in the final budget package, which is made public through tabling in the Legislative Assembly after the delivery of the Budget Address.
Reports such as this provide direction to the Government for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Further improvements continue to be made in the budget and business planning cycle.
This year witnessed the presentation of the main estimates at the standard object level of detail.
This provides a clearer picture to the Legislative Assembly and the public as to where public dollars will be spent.
The upcoming tabling of the first set of Nunavut's public accounts and the Report of the Auditor General to the Legislative Assembly will allow for detailed, public, "down to the penny" scrutiny of the Government's fiscal management in its first year of operation.
This process will be in itself extremely valuable, as detailed scrutiny of past spending patterns provide lessons for future budget management and priority-setting.
As the Legislative Assembly is charged with reviewing the public accounts, Members will make an important contribution to the identification of where savings can be realized and funds re-allocated.
The Government's 2001-2002 estimates and business plans were made available on the Internet for the first time this year, enabling the public to read them from any community with Internet access.
Acting on a recommendation made by the Standing Committees in their May 2000 report on the 2000-2001 budget, the Government plans to introduce the 2002-2003 capital estimates in the fall of this year.
This has the promise of avoiding some of the past problems associated with considering capital estimates too close to sealift deadlines.
The introduction of the first Five-Year Capital Plan for the GN was welcomed by Members.
However, concerns continue to be expressed at the community level regarding the adequacy of the consultation process undertaken by the Government.
Members noted, for example, that formal consultation letters to Mayors were sent out only a few weeks before the introduction of the budget.
Members look forward to continued progress in such areas of capital planning as the completion of a 20-year needs assessment and new GN-wide standards and criteria.
The 2001-2002 Budget and Program Review
The most significant announcement made by the Government in both the Commissioner's Opening Address and the Budget Address was that the GN will be undertaking a major program and expenditure review exercise during the coming year.
This announcement came in the wake of two important developments: the forecasting of an $11.9 million accumulated deficit at the end of 2001-2002, and the renewal of the Formula Financing Agreement for a three-year term, coupled with a commitment that the federal and territorial governments will undertake a joint review of Nunavut's "fiscal capacity and needs."
In December 2000, provincial and territorial Ministers of Finance publicly called on the federal government to restore the 5% cut made in 1996-97 to the expenditure base in the Territorial Formula Financing Program.
While Members are disappointed that this was not acted on by the federal government, the willingness of Ottawa to recognize that Nunavut has legitimate concerns regarding the adequacy of funding arrangements is encouraging.
It is important to recognize that the 2001-2002 budget makes a clear and substantial investment in education.
Not only does the Department of Education receive the largest amount of O&M funding of any department, almost 40 cents out of every capital dollar spent in the coming year will go to education facilities.
Members are pleased with this demonstrated commitment to the long-term success of our youth.
Housing, the second core priority of the Bathurst Mandate, did not fare as well.
Although the NHC received $14 million in capital funding from the GN, this is still more than a 25% cut from the $19 million received in 2000-2001.
As the Government acknowledges, the ongoing housing crisis in Nunavut cannot be solved without a substantial commitment from our federal partners.
Health spending remains almost static from last year, and Members question whether the base funding for the Department of Health and Social Services is adequate to meet the needs of Nunavummiut.
Members would note that in 1999-2000, Health and Social Service's share of total expenditures was just over 20%.
In 2001-2002, it has fallen to 18%.
In their Report on the 2000-2001 Budget, Committees noted that, "without full staff and all programs in place, it is difficult to adequately assess how delivering programs in Nunavut may require adjustments in the budget.
Members expect that this information will be more forthcoming ... and that we may see fuller discussions about relative priorities."
During the course of deliberations in the House on the 2001-2002 budget, little detail was forthcoming on the precise mandate, scope and timelines for the GN's program review.
However, the experiences of other jurisdictions are worth noting as the GN begins its own process of program review.
In his final report to Parliament, the Auditor General of Canada made the following observations with respect to the major federal program review exercise of the mid-1990s:
"As we all know, the government has made substantial gains in its ability to live within its means and is now achieving surpluses...Nevertheless, a lot more needs to be done to ensure that we do not put ourselves back in the same position.
The government made its cuts through a one-time process it called Program Review.
This process forced the politicians to choose the services they really wanted and could afford, and forced the public servants to find more efficient ways to do the job.
The cuts were made, but poorer service often resulted."
The Public Policy Forum has commented that:
"...public managers relied too heavily on two techniques to achieve their targets - techniques that are not actually cost reduction activities.
The first technique was program downloading which, in essence, allowed the federal government to pass on the responsibilities and costs of public programs and services to lower levels of government without compensation.
The second was the introduction of user fees which require citizens to pay for services that were once seen as entitlements.
Both these measures were relatively easy ways of avoiding a critical examination of the need and relevance of federal programs.
Consequently, the two measures became popular ways for individual departments to meet their fiscal targets.
More importantly, in the rush to meet the financial targets, more than 45,000 employees lost their jobs."
These observations should not be interpreted as an argument against a major government-wide program review.
Rather, they reinforce the need for such exercises to be well-defined, well-planned, and conducted in a manner that does not solve problems in one area by creating them in others.
Since the creation of Nunavut, many departments have commenced or planned to undertake a number of specific reviews which have clear budgetary implications.
School Formula Funding Review (Education)
Municipal Finance Review (CGT)
Review of Funding Formula for Student Financial Assistance (Education)
Public Housing Rent Scale Review (NHC)
Income Support Review (Education)
Review of utility-rated subsidy programs (F&A)
Review of Petroleum Products Division operations (PWS)
Review of Harvester Support Programs (DSD)
Review of Grants and Contributions (DSD)
Staff Housing review (PWS)
To date, it is unclear what impact these reviews will have on departmental budgets and the Government's overall fiscal position.
It is also unclear how or even whether the announced government-wide program review exercise will integrate the findings and recommendations of these initiatives into an overall process.
Committees would suggest, however, that given the cost of these reviews ($150,000 was set aside in CGT's 2000-2001 budget for the Municipal Financing Review alone), it would be undesirable to simply scrap work already accomplished.
Committees recognize that the capacity of the GN to increase its own-source revenues is severely and inherently constrained.
Committees agree that all Nunavummiut already bear a substantial tax burden.
However, it is important to take note of a number of sobering facts on the revenue side of the Government's fiscal equation:
The 2001-2002 budget reflects a 4.9% increase in total revenues.
However, spending is projected to increase by 6.3%.
The long-term sustainability of this trend is dubious;
Total own-source revenues have actually decreased from 2000-2001;
The GN collects more net revenues from the Liquor Commission than it does from corporate income tax; and
As progress is made in reducing the consumption of tobacco in Nunavut, revenues from tobacco sales will fall.
It is difficult to quantify the concomitant cost savings in the area of health expenditures.
Members stand solidly behind the Premier and Minister of Finance as efforts are made to negotiate a devolution agreement with the federal government and a fairer share for Nunavut of income from the natural resources sector.
As ever-increasing numbers of our population find stable and rewarding employment, create businesses and generate growth, dependency on federal transfers can be reduced as the Government collects more of its total revenues from personal and corporate income taxes.
At the front-end, our commitment to address education works towards this goal.
However, the GN must work at the intergovernmental level to ensure that Nunavut is not penalized through the Formula Financing Agreement by having federal transfers cut dollar for dollar.
It is also important that start-up assistance to Nunavut's growing entrepreneurial sector continues, and that the needs of smaller and non-decentralized communities are recognized and respected.
Although entities like the Nunavut Development Corporation can do a better job in evaluating their actual job creation (as was observed by the Auditor General's office in respect to the Development Corporation's first annual report) results, it is important that the GN remain committed to fostering economic success throughout our communities.
Critical questions that the Government must ask itself as it embarks on a comprehensive program review include:
The extent to which ongoing reviews of specific programs and services will be integrated into the process;
The extent to which the announced Canada-Nunavut joint fiscal review will impact on the process;
The extent to which municipal governments will be consulted and involved as the process unfolds;
The extent to which the experience, knowledge and suggestions of front-line staff in the regions and communities will be drawn upon, as opposed to being solely a Headquarters-focused process;
The limited capacity of most Nunavummiut to pay for further increases in costs and user fees for public services;
The issue of whether an already-stretched public service will face job losses or eliminations of the 500+ currently unfilled positions; and
The role that non-governmental players in the business and volunteer sectors can play in providing advice to the Government.
Clearly, the Government envisions this process to be far-reaching and comprehensive.
It is important that it clearly define at the outset what is and is not "on the table" for review, whether the issue is the structure of government or options for alternative service delivery mechanisms.
As the program review process unfolds, Committees expect to be consulted and updated on an ongoing basis as findings are made and options developed.
The accompanying table and chart at the end of this report illustrates the tough constraints under which the Government operates.
In 2001-2002, capital expenditures account for 10.5% of total GN spending.
In order to increase capital's share of total spending by just a single percentage point, $6,794,430 would have to be cut from other areas.
In 1997-98, capital's share of total GNWT spending was approximately 13%.
In order to bring GN capital spending up to this level, a total of over $17,000,000 would have to be cut from other areas.
This reinforces the need for the GN to aggressively push for federal infrastructure investment that genuinely takes into account the cost of providing services to Canadian citizens in the most challenging geography to be found in the country.
As with governments in every other Canadian jurisdiction, education, health and social services spending accounts for the largest component of total government spending, with the exception of debt service costs.
Nunavut remains in the fortunate position of not yet having debt service costs.
In the coming fiscal year, 43% of all GN spending will be in the areas of education, health and social services.
Compared to many other Canadian jurisdictions, Nunavut demonstrates leadership in its commitment to education funding.
It is striking to note that health and social services' share of total government spending in the three northern jurisdictions is comparatively less than in southern provinces.
The GN's program review must look closely at the area of health and social services spending and consider the extent to which such national initiatives as the Romanow Commission can be used as a vehicle to articulate the challenges facing health care delivery in the North.
Replacing Nunavut's decaying health infrastructure is a priority -- the actual dollar costs to the Government for the three regional health facilities must be determined.
Almost 30% of total GN spending goes to compensation and benefits.
Although this is substantial, the GN continues to face pressure in recruiting skilled and dedicated staff.
Program review must ask whether the price of dealing with high staff turnover, such as removal costs and overtime, is affordable, as compared to providing compensation, benefits and professional development opportunities that build a stable, long-term workforce.
For every dollar spent by the GN, almost 20 cents goes to grants and contributions.
Much of this spending is subject to forced growth, especially in the areas of municipal and school funding.
The results and outcomes of grants and contributions spending must be evaluated.
Out of every dollar spent by the GN, over 20 cents is in the area of contract services.
While such major contracts as the $13 million for RCMP services are relatively inflexible, program review must look at this area closely.
Over the past two years, the GN has managed to realize one-time savings that result from unfilled positions.
Given that it is not likely that the GN will fill over 500 currently unfilled positions in 2001-2002, and assuming that no existing staff leave during the period, it may be tempting to conclude that unfilled positions are, by definition, unnecessary ones.
Program review must look at the structure of departments, but do so in a manner that draws on the experience and suggestions of front-line staff, and not simply be an exercise in the manipulation of organization charts.
In addition, the challenges facing departments in the area of staff housing must be addressed.