EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I’m very disappointed in this government. I don’t mind approving it. I said it’s great; if we need casual agency nurses, well, we have to pay them; we need them.
But show us what it is. Don’t try to get us to approve something that really isn’t what it is.
As far as I’m concerned, from what I’ve heard the minister say, is that all that money, $1,542,000 here, is going towards casual and agency nurses, and it’s misleading.
I would ask that that be fixed and show us exactly what it’s for and only for what it’s for, and then I’ll approve it, because right now that’s a lie.
And I won’t approve it.
Call it what it is, and I’ll approve it.
A Point of Order has been called.
It’s totally inappropriate for a member to accuse another member of lying. It’s against our Rules.
I didn’t lie. I tried to explain the recruitment effort of what we’re trying to do.
Hiring agency nurses and casuals is part of the recruitment effort.
I would like the member to withdraw his comments accusing me of lying to this House because it’s totally inappropriate.
I tried to answer the questions as best as I can, so I’d like the member to apologize and withdraw his comment.
I didn’t call the minister a liar.
I said the way that it’s written in here, it looks like a lie.
You can take it how you want, but the way it’s worded in here, it’s not correct, based on the information that the minister provided us.
That’s what I’m saying is not right.
So I will not withdraw my comments.
I’m saying the way it’s spelled out here in the document, it looks like a lie.
I’d like to get a clarification on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I heard the word lie but I didn’t hear Mr. Tootoo calling the minister a liar.
For that reason, I don’t see a Point of Order.
I’ll give the House Leader a privilege to make his statement.
I thank the chairman for recognizing me.
It’s very easy to apologize; I apologize to the members for sitting in the wrong chair.
Just following the debate, the member has no concern with the amount of money being brought forward.
I believe the member feels that we need the agency nurses, we need the nursing staff. There is no debate about that. However, the debate seems to be about the verbiage in describing the usage of the money.
And if that is the concern, then we apologize if that seems to be misleading to the member.
It isn’t appropriate to say that there is intent by the government, in this case when we refer to the government, we mean the minister representing the government on that line page, to be lying.
That was the comment that I heard the member saying, not referring to the minister directly but referring to the information that was on the page or the verbiage that was on the page.
So if it will help to expedite matters, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the government, I apologize for the misinterpretation or the misrepresentation of the verbiage in that point; the point being that we need that extra money so that we can staff nursing stations and health centres across Nunavut.
That would be the recommendation from the government side on that issue.
Again, to diffuse the issue, Mr. Chairman, this is not the forum for that type of an exchange.
Thank you, for your explanation.
I’ve already made my ruling that there is no Point of Order in this case.
I do disagree with the government’s response in this, and I would like ask if we can bring our Legal Counsel in here to get an opinion on exactly how that’s worded and what that implies.
We’ll take a ten-minute break.
Order. Order, please.
The assistance of Legal Counsel was requested, so I’ll turn the mic over to Ms. Cooper, our Legal Counsel.
I understand that one of the members wanted an opinion with respect to the line item related to the Nunavut Nursing Recruitment and Retention Strategy, and the interpretation to be given to that particular paragraph.
I’ll preface my comments by saying I’m not entirely sure that this is a legal opinion but I will give you my opinion with respect to how that clause might be interpreted.
I would interpret that in saying that there are two programs being funded: the Nunavut Nursing Recruitment and Retention Strategy, and in addition to that, casual and agency nurses to fill in, in the interim, while that strategy is being implemented.
As well, there may be a potential ambiguity with respect to the funding, I think that that could be interpreted as reading that there will be additional financial resources of $1,542,000 for the Recruitment and Retention Strategy, all that money going towards that strategy, and then additional funding as well for the casual and agency nurses, or it could be equally interpreted as the $1,542,000 as the total funding for the two programs.
I thank Ms. Cooper for that opinion, that’s what I thought it said.
Given that, I think it’s clear that the way it’s worded in here implies that there are two different programs that funding is for. It’s clear that the minister stated only for one.
Maybe Ms. Minister, if you have a way to correct that so it shows exactly what that funding is for, and not something that it isn’t for.
I thank Sue for that.
I’m not sure if it clarifies anything more, but from the government side, I will propose the following wording so that there’s no question where that money will go. I will suggest the following wording:
To provide additional financial resources of $1,542,000 for casuals and agency nurses.
I will propose that, and strike out any reference to any Nursing Recruitment and Retention Strategy in that line.
That’s exactly what it’s for.
It’s not for what was implied in the initial wording.
I’m glad that they’re willing to clarify that for the record.
In addition to that, as the member is in agreement with the way it was trying to be worded was any savings not used for casual and agency nurses would be used to implement the nursing strategy, I want that said for the record because the intent here was to continue using casual agencies in filling jobs while we implement the nursing strategy. Any savings would be put towards that.
But for the record, that was the intent of this line, that recruiting is multi-dimensional and that statement there was trying to capture that.
The way it’s worded now is very clear that it’s going towards casuals and agency nurses.
So for the record I wanted to explain myself further so people understand what the intent was of that line.
You’re adding that on there? You were just saying that the initial change is exactly what you said first, and not adding in what you said secondly? It sounds like you were saying two different things that you’re adding on there; I just want to make it clear exactly what that wording change will be.
I’ll get our Legal Counsel interpretation for that.
Ms. Cooper: I’m not sure if I...
Again, for clarification, the amended wording that we’re proposing from the government’s side is to say that ‘to provide additional financial resources of $1,542,000 for casuals and agency nurses.
And what I said for the record is and I want people to understand that the intent of this was that any savings that we don’t spend in casual hiring in agencies was going to be used for the recruitment strategy.
By removing that, we will only use the funding for casuals and agency nurses.
For the record, that’s what I wanted to explain further so people understood what the intent was of this strategy. The proposal, again, is to strike out the word “for” right down to the following sentence, and end at “agency nurses”.
I was giving Ms. Cooper a chance to…I’ll continue.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Normally, a change in the wording or any motion or anything that is official has to be tabled before we can consider it. My memory is not good, so I can’t remember what was being said.
What I want to say is, have the minister table the proposed change and have it translated please.
I would be pleased to provide that translation with that one sentence and translate it and table it for the House.
Before I do that, I’m assuming that we’re in general agreement to that type of line before I can proceed and then I can translate. Is that the…. well, debate it then.
It’s very important that we have that in writing so we could end that. And I’m not going to ask a question on that until I see the wording in writing before we approve. I know the minister would like me to disagree with what she says, but she’s not going to have that this evening.
That’s my assumption.
No interruptions for me please, Mr. Chairman. I need the wording, I told her my memory is not good and I need the wording in writing before I can vote on the item.
I’ll give the minister time to make her presentation for that. We’ll take a five-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 17:24 and resumed at 17:39
Chairman: I call the committee meeting back to order.
A new interpretation of this line item was requested, so it’s provided.
I will get the Minister of Health and Social Services to explain it.
I think you all have that line in the item or the translated item before you, in English and in Inuktitut as requested.
The new suggested wording is to provide additional financial resources of $1,542,000 for casual and agency nurses.
We are suggesting that the item on page 9 of the supplementary bill be changed to reflect that to accommodate the member’s concern.
Mr. Tootoo has the floor.
You have a couple more minutes left on that issue if you want the time, Mr. Tootoo.
I think this clarifies as to exactly what that money is going to be spent on, so I agree with that.
What I wanted to find out earlier on those 54 vacant positions are for this... are the financial resources for those 54 vacant positions be funded under this line item?
Within wording it that way, yes.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) When were those 54 vacant positions been vacant?
Is there anything being done by Human Resources to fill those 54 vacant positions?
The last two days I have been talking about our need to broaden our scope in how we recruit nurses, which is what was before you.
The Nursing Recruitment Strategy outlines a number of initiatives which I hope to finish off this summer, which will outline different ways we’re trying to hire long-term nurses, training, and so on.
The idea of this, as I stated earlier, was any money we save in not hiring casuals and agency nurses in filling a vacant job through indeterminates will be used as part of the recruitment strategy.
So the new wording is this money will go strictly towards casuals and agency nurses without the flexibility of using any savings for other nursing recruitment strategies that would come out as a result of that report we’re finalizing this summer.
I appreciate that we found that … earlier the minister said there are 54 vacancies that she alluded to earlier will use the resources of this particular amount. That is what I’m getting at.
I’m amazed that she has to wait until she gets this money because I believe the Department of Health has certain human resources personnel to recruit and so on. How urgent are these 54 positions?
Again, to further clarify what I was trying to say, there are always efforts to fill the 54 positions.
While we’re advertising as an example, there’s an advertisement of three weeks, screening, interview, offer, and relocation. That takes about a good two to three months to do.
During that process, we fill those jobs with agency nurses and/or casuals that we can find, and this would support that.
How urgent are they? The filling of nurses has been ongoing. They may be vacant with indeterminate but they’re filled with agency or casual nurses because essential services have to keep going and we have no other alternatives.
So this would support filling those vacancies while we look for indeterminate nurses.
Mr. Curley: So do I understand the minister that there are 54 vacancies that are currently in the Health Department that will now be provided with the financial resources?
When you calculate that, you’re now going to be spending $28,000 plus per vacant position.
Does it cost that much to recruit these 54 nurses when you put in that amount?
Why does it cost $28,000 to recruit one personnel?
The 54 positions I made reference to is our current snapshot of where our figures are right now for vacant nurses. Right now we have to try and fill them through the indeterminate process, recruitment advertising, interviews, and so on. In the case where we can’t, we will have to use this funding identified to fill them.
You are, again, comparing apples and oranges here in that you’re using the 54 vacant positions against this. It could be broader than that. The 54 vacant positions, some of them could be filled through indeterminate compensation and salary, and so on.
You’re asking how much on average it costs this government to recruit one PY in Nunavut. That’s something the Minister of Human Resources can respond to.
It’s not cheap to relocate a family from Ottawa to Pond Inlet with 15,000 pounds, salary, advertising and so on. It’s expensive.
It cost me to use my airline ticket to go to Gjoa Haven and back here, $5,000 every time I go home with two suitcases and getting charged excess baggage to top it off.
So it is expensive. It adds up quickly to $28,000. I think that’s fairly close, if not higher.
Total Healthy Children, Families and Communities.
Chairman: Thank you. Treatment Programs. Not previously authorized. $11,816,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Total Treatment Programs.
Not previously authorized. $11,816,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Total Department. $13,295,000.
Chairman: I’ll ask the committee to go back to page 2 of Bill 11. Page 2.
Schedule 1. Operations and Maintenance. $45,382,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Please go to Bill 11.
This bill is in your white binders.
Hearing the comment from the minister; if we don’t use this money for agency nurses and casuals, we’ll use it for retention and casual positions.
This is in your comments. I just hope that clause 1 is used in that application; the Financial Administration Act is applied properly.
That’s what the bill states.
The bill will be followed and that’s in the bill.
Chairman: Go to the Schedule on page 3 of the bill.
Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2008. Vote 1.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $45,382,000.
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriations. $45,382,000.
Chairman: Go back to page 1 of the bill.
Chairman: Thank you. Do members agree to Bill 11 as a whole?
Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 11 can immediately be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
That’s it for Bill 11.
Thank you, Minister Simailak, Mr. Green, and Mr. Ma.
(interpretation) If you have any closing remarks, Minister Simailak.
I would now like to ask the Minister responsible for Energy to make his opening remarks on Tabled Document 49 – 2(4).
Tabled Document 049 – 2(4): Discussion Paper for Ikummatiit – An Energy Strategy for Nunavut March 2007 – Consideration in Committee
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the committee for having the opportunity to appear before the committee today.
We have set aside this time to discuss an issue that consumes 20 percent of our government’s budget. I am talking about energy or, more accurately, our use of energy, Mr. Chairman.
As members know our energy system is wholly dependent on fossil fuels.
Being dependent on one source of energy holds us hostage to volatile oil market.
Last year’s spike in world prices had a direct impact on us – today we are all paying more for our energy.
We can’t isolate ourselves completely from volatile and high world oil prices, but we can reduce the impact by using other energy sources, by using our energy more prudently and by streamlining and strengthening the management of our system.
The need for change was also underlined by the recent United Nations reports on climate change.
Our addiction to fossil fuels comes with a financial cost that is unacceptable and with too high a cost to our environment.
Nunavut needs to wean itself off oil – and we are taking steps to achieve that goal.
It is part of our culture in Nuanvut to adapt and thrive in challenging conditions.
We will deal with our energy challenges. We are already doing so, but more will and needs to be done, and more will be done. That is why we need an Energy Strategy.
Last March I tabled A Discussion Paper for Ikummatiit in the Legislature, which is intended to lead us towards an energy strategy.
I am pleased that we will be able to spend some time going through this discussion paper today. We will need your ideas and input on how best to proceed with an energy strategy and what should be in that strategy.
Since tabling the discussion paper, it has been on the government’s website and we have talked to several stakeholders, including the business and tourism sectors, hunters and trappers associations, Inuit organizations, the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, as well as the Nunavut Economic Forum.
We’re confident that this discussion paper will guide us to a comprehensive Energy Strategy for the Government of Nunavut.
With the advice from Inuit elders and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit coordinators in the GN, the name that was put forth for an energy strategy is Ikummatiit.
I believe this is an appropriate name, considering what needs to be done to lessen our dependency on fossil fuels.
The other components of an energy strategy would include public education and an outreach to encourage a mind set change when it comes to energy conservation.
We also need to restructure the system for greater efficiency. One of the results will be an establishment of an affordable energy fund.
With many subsidies in place and limited tracking mechanisms, it can be difficult to predict and control energy costs and to identify savings.
The fund would permit and require departments and agencies with significant energy components to work together to advance conservation and management goals.
The government has protected Nunavummiut by subsidizing energy costs and we will continue to do so.
However, we can do a better job by putting in place a system that is more accountable, transparent and easier to manage.
That is what an affordable energy fund would do.
An affordable energy fund would make subsidies more visible and put the management of subsidies under one roof.
The fund would be an energy-subsidy specific account in the books of the GN and all monies voted by the Assembly to support energy consumption, as well as indirect subsidies, would be allocated to the Affordable Energy Fund, in a word, would become transparent.
The Legislation for the Affordable Energy Fund already exists but has not been proclaimed. Developing and monitoring this fund will require significant interdepartmental cooperation and the structuring of budgets.
Departments and agencies have begun working on the necessary procedures and mechanisms that will be needed so that the AEF could become operational in November of 2007.
There is an urgent need, Mr. Chairman, for action to reduce our addiction to oil and our system is already undergoing significant improvements.
Working on an energy strategy is occurring in tandem with the work that’s under way in our energy system.
The Qulliq Energy Corporation is producing operating profits, thanks to the work that has been done to put the corporation’s finances on a solid footing and we look forward to receiving the first dividend payment from QEC.
Operating costs at QEC have decreased. Administration costs are down and the efficiency of the generators have also increased, resulting in significant savings.
QEC has also completed district heating systems in Rankin and in Iqaluit. Recycling heat from the exhaust of diesel generators in three of these communities will result in annual savings of 2.3 million litres of heating fuel and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost 6,000 tonnes.
The Nunavut Energy Centre is well on the way towards establishing itself as the go to place if you’re looking for information or assistance on energy conservation and energy efficiency.
The Nunavut Energy Management Program, which is for the time being used in Iqaluit to retrofit government buildings to make them more energy efficient, is also now well established.
Much work is being done and much work needs to be done. To succeed, an energy strategy and implementation plan for that strategy is important, Mr. Chairman.
At the end of the day, we will need more than a strategy. We will also need all the assistance we can get from our federal partners.
It was this kind of assistance that was instrumental for the development of hydro electricity in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. Now, it’s Nunavut’s’ turn.
We are ready to work in partnership with our federal government, just as we’re ready to work and join other Canadians who are challenging the idea that energy is plentiful and can be used without regard to our environment.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the committee over the next several days as we look forward to dealing with the energy challenges that we face.
I was going to ask the memberwho moved this item to Committee of the Whole.
I’ll now ask the minister if he has any witnesses he would like to bring to the table. Minister Picco.
Does the committee agree that the minister brings witnesses to the table?
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses to the witness table.
Thank you, Sergeant-at-Arms. (interpretation ends) For the record, minister, please introduce your officials.
With me today, on my immediate left is Mr. David Omilgoitok, from the Energy Secretariat, and Intergovernmental Affairs, IGA. He is key on working forward on this expedient process under the Energy Secretariat. On my immediate right is Nino Wischnewski.
Nino is a Director of the Energy Secretariat. Nino has changed.
Mr. Chairman, next to me is not Nino Wischnewski. It is, of course, Ms. Anne Crawford, President and CEO of the Power Corporation and its associated subsidiaries.
Welcome, Ms. Crawford and Mr. Omilgoitok.
Before we proceed I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1) you have ten minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
Are there general comments from the members?
There being no general comments, are there any questions?
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the minister and his officials to the witness table.
Mr. Chairman, I found this document very informative.
It summarizes in a very concise way the convoluted system that we have in place in Nunavut. I appreciate the minister for putting that out there. I recommend all Nunavummiut to grab a copy and sift through it.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, for many years the Hamlet of Cambridge Bay has been on the forefront of energy conservation; we’ve had wind turbine farms on at least two occasions.
Both times, for various reasons, the wind farms have ceased to operate.
I visited a community in Alaska in August of 2002, Kotzebue, Alaska, where was a very nice wind farm up there; 14 wind turbines. I asked them about their technology and they received it from Canada.
They said that the wind turbine farm was providing significant benefit to their community. I asked them where they were getting the funding and they said that they were getting a lot of support from the State of Alaska.
My question for the minister; in light of what he stated today in his opening comments: is he committing that he will actively work with communities to find resources and support them in their initiatives, wherever and however he can, to develop energy efficient forms of power?
I thank the member for his comment. The member is correct.
Right now in Nunavut, the area around electrical generation and energy, in particular, is kind of convoluted.
At last count, we had eight different government departments or agencies that are involved in energy related areas.
Specifically to the issue in Alaska, again, sometimes we see something happening in one part of the country or the world in this case and try to bring that back home.