EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The plan is to deliver this training through all the community learning centres in the communities, where the adult educator will be the contact person. These courses will be well advertised and open to the general public.
I should add that through Arctic College, this ASIST training is part of the curriculum of all the NTEP programs that we have ongoing now and it is also part of the nursing programs that we have in Arctic College.
Are there a targeted number of individuals to be trained this year?
Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College, minister Shewchuk.
There are no targets, but through Arctic College and the learning centers, we encourage all people who are interested in taking this training in a community to attend and take the training.
Question 771 – 3(3): Dental Services in the Kivalliq (Curley)
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Health.
I’ll try and be precise and to the point. Getting straight answers on the issue of dental services in the Kivalliq region is like pulling teeth, but I will try again, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, current dental services in the region are clearly inadequate. I am aware of at least one recent situation where residents had to pay for a trip to Iqaluit out of their own pocket to seek dental care.
Given the concerns that have been raised about the new dental contractor, why does the minister believe that it should be “business as usual” with respect to this critical contract?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, if we go to the dentist’s office and they’re pulling teeth, they do give you painkiller and if you don’t have enough, you might feel the pain when they’re pulling your teeth, as Mr. Curley is well aware.
Mr. Speaker, it is business as usual because this issue is before the courts and I have not heard any concerns about the particular contractor.
I appreciate the minister’s advice, but I do recall not long ago where an individual, because there were no painkillers, had to use his own knife to take one of the molar teeth out on his own, and that was my father.
When it comes to ensuring that contractors fulfill their obligations, I believe that it is important to be clearly aware of the difference between “interference” and “oversight.”
Can the minister explain to the House today how he is exercising appropriate oversight with respect to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the government’s current dental services contract in the Kivalliq region?
As Mr. Curley is a former Minister of Health, he must be well aware that the Department of Health has over 900 contracts with individuals, organizations, and companies providing services in Nunavut.
So it would be virtually impossible for the minister of this department to monitor the terms, clauses, and conditions of every contract.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Curley is well aware that in every contract, there are provisions and clauses that govern the delivery of contracted services, that we have people who monitor those clauses and provide the oversight that Mr. Curley is concerned about.
I appreciate the minister’s responses.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday or a couple of days ago at least, my colleague from Akulliq asked the minister to account for his department’s new Office of Patient Relations, which is intended to provide Nunavutmiut with a way of raising concerns.
Can the minister indicate whether Kivalliq residents will be able to use this office to raise concerns about dental services?
I believe that Mr. Curley’s constituents can. I’m just looking at the brochure and it says here on No. 3, what is the concern, if you raise a concern about having not received the service you wanted or needed and you were not listened to or not respected. I encourage your constituents and all Nunavummiut who have a concern with the Department of Health to contact and of course, we would like them to contact the frontline provider and then work from there, but ultimately if you don’t get your satisfaction, then you should contact the patient relations office.
Question 772 – 3(3): Status of Resolute Bay Utilidor Project (Elliott)
Last week, I had asked questions to the minister regarding the Resolute Bay utilidor system.
The minister indicated that there would be a phased-in approach to this project.
The first phase was the re-tendering of the project.
Can the minister update the House today on the status of the Resolute Bay utilidor project?
Minister for the Department of Community and Government Services, Minister Kusugak.
I thank the member for that question. (interpretation ends) There’s not much change to the events that happened since the last time we spoke about this, which was two weeks ago.
We’re still at the first phase, Mr. Speaker.
The community was told that in an effort to keep the project completion on track, the Department of Community and Government Services would be purchasing pipes for arrival on the 2013 sealift.
Mr. Speaker, the sealift for Resolute Bay has come and gone and there were no pipes delivered to the community.
Can the minister explain why not?
As the scope of the work in Resolute Bay has grown from the initial plans, the costs have pretty much doubled, if not more, since the original plans.
At this time, the work that the department was doing did not require the utilidor pipes to be in on the shipment, from my understanding, Mr. Speaker.
Since this is the final day of the Third Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, will the minister commit to having officials contact the Hamlet Council of Resolute Bay and explain what is happening with the utilidor project?
Our officials are responsible for a variety of projects in the communities. In fact, quite a number are in progress.
When our officials work with the hamlets, they pay attention to our proceedings.
I will speak with them again to ensure they fully update the hamlets that they work with on the status of the various projects that are undertaken by Community and Government Services, Mr. Speaker.
Question 773 – 3(3): $100 Million Geo-mapping Project (Elliott)
My questions are for the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation and it’s in regard to the $100 million geo-mapping project that I had asked questions to the Minister of Environment the other day.
As the minister has mentioned many times, we rely on the federal government to provide investments to allow economic development and growth within our territory. In regard to this project with the federal government providing $100 million for geo-mapping in the territory of Nunavut, can the minister explain what economic development opportunities will be coming to Nunavut companies?
He may not be getting the answer that he’s hoping for, but I’ll try to respond.
Mr. Speaker, there have been some discrepancies on the amount.
The $100 million is for the northern regions. 75 percent of the $100 million is for the three territories: Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut.
From that 75 percent, we’re hoping that 75 percent of the 75 percent would be directed towards Nunavut.
The member is well aware that Nunavut is the least mapped jurisdiction in all of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, through our geoscience office and the Geological Survey of Canada, which is an institution that’s older than Canada itself, they design programs to map Nunavut with our office here in what we call GEM to try and locate what we call potential for minerals, oil, and gas, and geological holdings.
Mr. Speaker, at times, it is scientific-based work. It’s mostly scientific-based work.
Once the permitting is acquired by the proponents, they do consult with the communities to try and see if there is any beneficial way to involve community members throughout their projects.
Does any of the geo-mapping require seismic testing?
I am not aware of any proposed seismic testing. Whether it’s offshore or on land, I’m not aware of that.
How will communities be consulted on this project to help constituents understand the scope of the work that will be done in and around their communities?
The member is well aware there was some geo-mapping activity in one of his constituencies two and a half years ago and that’s at Grise Fiord.
They did consult with the community to see how they can be involved in the scientific research.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the research and mapping, I guess you can call it one of these things where it has been said before that the Geological Survey of Canada, with our geoscience office here, in cooperation with our geosciences here in Nunavut, try and map the geology to attract investors, especially for minerals.
I guess it has been likened to what they do: find the haystack. We have heard that once before. They find the haystack and the companies come in to invest and try and find a needle in the haystack.
That’s one of the things that, in Nunavut, we desperately need more economic activity at this juncture and time.
Mining exploration and mining is one of the key ways of creating more economic activity for Nunavut.
Before we move on to Item 7, I would just like to take this opportunity, I believe, to welcome… . If everyone’s wondering why our Gallery is full this afternoon, my understanding is that they’re all federal civil servants, mostly from Ottawa.
I would also like to recognize two well-known and distinguished elders from here in Iqaluit, Simon and Annie Nattaq.
Written Question 029 – 3(3): Salary Disclosure for Deputy Ministers (Enook)
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I have a written question directed to the Premier and the title of it is “Salary Disclosure for Deputy Ministers.”
Mr. Speaker, for the record, I’m going to read my questions.
Listed by individual, what is the total annual remuneration paid to all current deputy ministers and heads of Crown agencies, including but not limited to salaries, Nunavut Northern Allowance, travel allowance, and entertainment allowance?
From November [15], 2008 to September 17, 2013, listed by individual, how much money has been paid to all current deputy ministers and heads of Crown agencies in bonus payments?
From November 15, 2008 to September 17, 2013, what were the contents of each annual letter of expectation provided by the Premier to deputy ministers and heads of Crown agencies?
What mechanisms and processes are in place to monitor deputy ministers’ and heads of Crown agencies’ compliance with conflict of interest guidelines in relation to their personal financial activities, business holdings, and interests in enterprises that conduct business in Nunavut?
Tabled Document 427 – 3(3): Department of Health Policy “Contacting Clients Through Local Radio” (Peterson)
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Department of Health’s Local Radio Policy. This is in response to the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts Report on the Review of the 2011-12 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Tabled Document 428 – 3(3): Factum of the Attorney General of Nunavut in the Supreme Court of Canada Concerning Reform of the Senate (Shewchuk)
I am pleased to table the Factum, Supreme Court of Canada reference amending the Constitution regarding the Senate.
Tabled Document 429 – 3(3): Public Health Investigation, Management and Reporting of Communicable Diseases and Outbreaks in Nunavut (Peterson)
Tabled Document 430 – 3(3): 2011-2012 Nunavut Liquor Commission Annual Report (Peterson)
I have two documents.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Protocol for Public Health Investigations.
This is in response to the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts Report on the Review of the 2011-12 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Nunavut Liquor Commission’s annual report for 2011-12.
Tabled Document 431 – 3(3): Director of Child and Family Services Annual Report 2011-2012 (Ell)
I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Director of Child and Family Services for 2011-12.
Tabled Document 432 – 3(3): 2013-2014 Letters of Expectation to Territorial Public Agencies and their Responses (Peterson)
Tabled Document 433 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut’s Progress Report on Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on the 2011 Report of the Auditor General of Canada on Children, Youth, and Family Programs and Services (Peterson)
Tabled Document 434 – 3(3): Statistics for “Towards a Representative Public Service” as of December 31, 2012 (Peterson)
I have three documents that I would like to table.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2013-14 letters of expectation to territorial public agencies and their responses.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Government of Nunavut’s progress report on recommendations of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on the Report of the Review of the 2011 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on Children, Youth, and Family Programs and Services.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the statistics for “Towards a Representative Public Service” as of December 31, 2012.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Bill 64 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
I would like to ask that prior to proceeding with Committee of the Whole, we will take a 10-minute break.
>>House recessed at 13:56 and Committee resumed at 14:13
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Good afternoon to my colleagues.
Good afternoon to Nunavummiut who are listening on radio and watching on television. Please be welcome to our Chambers.
I wish to start our proceedings as the Committee of the Whole.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following item to deal with: Bill 64.
We wish to proceed with Bill 64.
Do members agree that we deal with Bill 64?
Bill 64 – An Act to Amend the Liquor Act – Consideration in Committee
We will now start deliberations on Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, with Minister Peterson as the sponsoring minister.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Peterson’s witnesses in.
To my right is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance, and to my left is Andrea Witzaney-Chown, Director of Corporate Policy.
As we proceed, I would first like to ask you, Minister Peterson, if you have any opening comments, you may proceed.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with the committee to discuss Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, and to hear directly from members.
In 2010, we invited 10 members from across the territory to be members of the task force to review the Liquor Act, which included two of our colleagues. We committed to consulting with stakeholders and every community in Nunavut.
I’m still grateful that the task force was able to meet that goal and reach every single community despite challenges faced with scheduling and weather.
In the fall of 2012, we received the final report.
In the report, the task force recommended liberalizing access to alcohol, particularly beer and wine, in an effort to move away from current control systems to deter binge drinking and move towards a more responsible use of alcohol.
In its response to the task force, the government focused on the need to take a measured approach to changing the liquor control regime in our territory.
Bill 64, as introduced, reflects that intention.
Bill 64 aims to make the necessary legislative amendments to allow the Nunavut Liquor Commission to:
Change the way it sells liquor in Nunavut;
Increase social responsibility;
Increase bootlegging fines; and
Increase personal importation limits so that they are more in line with those in other Canadian jurisdictions.
One of the changes would allow an individual to carry their alcohol purchase out of a liquor store. This would allow us to move forward with a more traditional retail operation.
However, this change to the legislation does not require us to open a storefront operation.
Also, a retail outlet would not be opened in any community without further consultation and community support.
The community would be involved in key decisions around location, hours of operation, product availability, limits to quantities, and policies to reduce potential harm.
The government would maintain the necessary flexibility to facilitate a quick reaction to any situation that might arise, including the ability to close the store and end the pilot project.
Existing restrictions on purchases and possession that have been established by alcohol education committees would continue to stand.
This ability to change how we sell liquor in Nunavut will be the foundation for reducing harm and for removing the bootlegging market.
A measured approach means working with communities before opening a store.
A measured approach means working with the departments of Health, Justice, and Family Services to develop indicators to determine the impact of a retail store on any potential community.
A measured approach means adjusting our regulations to address any deficiencies with the model before rolling it out to other open communities.
At the same time, these amendments will allow us to use proceeds from the revolving fund to develop educational materials and campaigns to promote responsible use of alcohol.
Mr. Chairman, Bill 64 will increase the allowed volume of liquor that individuals can bring into the territory without a liquor import permit.
This will not change the requirement for individuals returning to restricted communities to seek the permission of the alcohol education committees to import liquor and it will not change the status of prohibited communities.
The proposed amendments to the Nunavut Liquor Act are an important first step toward meaningful changes to the current liquor regulatory regime and responsible use of alcohol in Nunavut.
I will now ask the standing committee chairman to make his comments.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I wish to provide opening comments on behalf of my colleagues as we begin consideration of Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act.
Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, Bill 64 received second reading on May 16, 2013 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 64.
Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, a number of members raised concerns about Bill 64 on the occasion of the Legislative Assembly’s consideration of the motion for second reading of the bill.
These concerns were reiterated during the standing committee’s consideration of the bill.
As members will recall, the final report and recommendations of the Minister’s Task Force to Review the Nunavut Liquor Act were tabled in the Legislative Assembly on November 2, 2012.
The government’s formal response to the final report and recommendations of the task force was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on March 19, 2013.
The first recommendation of the task force was that the government should repeal the current Liquor Act and introduce a new statute.
In its final report, the task force stated that, and I quote, “…the simplest way to redress the problems with the current Act and to develop clear and coherent legislation is to draft new legislation, not to make a series of further amendments.
The Task Force was cautioned that making amendments on amendments would only exacerbate the current problems, making the Act more obscure than before by potentially increasing the number of inconsistencies and contradictions.”
A number of members were disappointed that the government has not acted on the task force’s recommendation by introducing a new Liquor Act, choosing instead to introduce a series of piecemeal amendments to the existing statute.
A number of members expressed concern regarding the government’s plans to “initiate a beer and wine store pilot project.”
Members expressed concern regarding the lack of detail concerning the process by which the government will identify the subject community and obtain public consent for the project.
A number of members also expressed concern regarding the lack of clarity regarding such issues as the extent to which neighbouring communities would be impacted by the opening of a retail operation.
These concerns were well-articulated in the written submission concerning Bill 64 that the standing committee received from the Mayor of Hall Beach.
The standing committee took careful note of the recommendations of the task force concerning enforcement of the Liquor Act.
In its final report, the task force stated that the government should, and I quote, “Strengthen search and seizure provisions under the Act and introduce strong civil forfeiture legislation to deter illegal sales of alcohol…[the government should] significantly increase fines and penalties for bootlegging and redirect revenues to harm reduction programs.”
The standing committee was pleased to note that Bill 64, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, contains provisions to increase fines for violations of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the idea of introducing civil forfeiture legislation has been raised in the House by a number of members on a number of occasions in recent years.
A number of members expressed disappointment at the lack of progress on this issue.
This lack of progress is illustrated by the government’s formal response to the task force’s recommendation, which simply indicates that the government will, and I quote, “continue exploring the possibility of introducing civil forfeiture legislation that will further deter bootleggers.”
A number of members were also disappointed to note that the proposed provisions in Bill 64 concerning the allocation of revenues for social responsibility campaigns are not mandatory in nature.
A number of members expressed concerns regarding the provisions in Bill 64 to increase the amount of liquor that a person may personally import into Nunavut without a permit.
Although members recognize that other jurisdictions may have higher importation limits, this does not in and of itself justify an increase for our territory.
A number of members viewed this provision as simply facilitating the purchase and consumption of higher volumes of alcohol from retail outlets located outside of the territory.
A related issue that arose during the standing committee’s deliberations on Bill 64 concerned the operations of alcohol education committees.
As members will recall, the task force recommended that, and I quote, “Alcohol Education Committees be given adequate resources and support through a secretariat.”
Earlier this year, news reports indicated that the Department of Finance had formally directed all alcohol education committees operating in restricted communities to discontinue the practice of charging fees for liquor orders.
The standing committee has requested that it be provided with a copy of any formal directives and/or communications that have been provided to alcohol education committees regarding this matter. I would also encourage the minister to table these items in the House for the benefit of all members.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 64, a total of five motions were moved by members of the standing committee to delete clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
A majority of committee members present at the meeting voted in favour of the motions.
Rule 68(3) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly provides that all amendments proposed at the standing committee stage of the legislative process require the concurrence of the sponsor of the bill under consideration.
As the minister did not concur with the proposed amendments, I anticipate that some members may wish to propose the same motions during the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole.
As all members are aware, votes on proposed motions to amend bills during the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole are decided on the basis of a majority of members voting.