EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In terms of the action plan released by the government last October, it commits the GN to deliver a number of commitments according to a very clearly stated timeline.
With what the minister has said, it sounds like the possibility of meeting some of those timelines is not appropriate.
I’m wondering: is it time to go back to the drawing board and come up with more adequate timelines so that they will be met?
I detect a little bit of concern in Mr. Elliott’s question.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy and action plan are very serious documents to us. We didn’t want a strategy that would sit on the shelf and gather dust.
That’s why there’s an action plan, that’s why there are four partners, and that’s why there’s an implementation committee with all the partners and many people who work within those partners.
Like I said, they’re working diligently to try and meet the timelines.
Some timelines are met and some are not, but it’s not to say that they’re not working hard towards trying to achieve the timelines.
Does the minister’s department have the needed resources and adequate staffing to meet the commitments made in the action plan?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank Mr. Elliott again for that question.
Mr. Speaker, my officials have not indicated to me that they require additional resources at this time.
Is the minister confident that his department’s Mental Health and Addictions Division has the capacity required to meet the department’s commitments in the action plan for the Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy?
As I indicated in an answer to another MLA earlier, we could always use more resources.
We’re living in very fiscally challenged times.
I require some more time to meet with my officials to talk about all the work that has to be done in the Department of Health and Social Services: many reviews of legislation, implementation of action plans, and development of other strategies.
So we have a lot of work to do and I’m going to need a bit more time to talk to my officials about exactly how much time we have to devote to everything and if we do require any additional financial or human resources to carry out all the important work and initiatives that we have to undertake in the coming fiscal year.
Question 323 – 3(3): GRA Phase 2 (Curley)
I want to direct another question to the Minister responsible for the Qulliq Energy Corporation because my previous questions were too short.
We’re anticipating price increases for oil over these two upcoming years and beyond.
Can the minister look into the past agreement and reverse the phase 2 QEC general rate application?
If he doesn’t want to do that reversal, can he explain why he doesn’t want to do so?
I don’t know for a fact whether or not the price of oil will increase in Nunavut over the next two years.
Although you maintain that it’s going to increase, I cannot forecast that.
What I do know is that since we were first elected into this House, the price of oil and fuel has been dropping and it has remained low.
The prices have been cut three times from the time we formed the government, despite increases in past governments.
However, I cannot forecast that the price of oil will skyrocket or that it would decrease.
I have no expertise in this area and I don’t wish to speculate on the future.
With respect to the URRC’s work and recommendations, we agree with them fully. Their review was quite large in scope. They relied on solid groundwork in their rate review.
That being the case, the government made the decision to postpone the utility rate increases to 2014.
In the meantime, we will continue to review their recommendations as to how to implement their decisions.
This also applies to the subsidies that the government provides to customers in the form of electrical and fuel subsidies.
We need to determine if we will revise them before 2014.
We will be including all of these issues and that is why we don’t want to completely deny these recommendations at this point, but we want to move forward to implement them.
I do understand the reasoning behind that.
However, the reason why I brought this up is that the government or we, members, don’t have any mandate to pass this on.
The decision to defer it to 2014 is not possible. That decision to defer is passing it on to the next government, which will not be empowered to act until after the next election.
It is quite obvious that in Rankin Inlet, the rates will definitely increase when they equalize the rates.
This increase will also occur in Iqaluit if the phase 2 rate increase is implemented on April 1, 2014.
Wouldn’t it be much better if you rescinded that recommendation for a rate review as it stands?
When candidates are running for office, they may use this as a platform, although other members may approve of that rate increase on April 1, 2014 and the government seems intent on making this happen.
I believe it would be much better if the phase 2 rate increase was scrapped and have it become an election issue. Perhaps you will be the only member voting for that rate increase at that time.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): The member is prone to baseless accusations.
I will not be the only member urging for a utility rate increase. You should know that.
I’m not recommending a rate increase.
Mr. Speaker, when a member has not said anything to that effect, it is really tiresome for Mr. Curley to be putting words into our mouths every time he sits down. This is getting tedious.
When he says that I would be the only member recommending a rate increase in the future, it is false.
I’m not even saying that.
We haven’t even come close to reaching that day and he is already insinuating that I would vote in that manner.
I don’t appreciate his speculative remarks in that regard, Mr. Speaker.
What I can state is this: the previous governments when Nunavut was first created … .
Mr. Curley wishes to raise a point of order.
Mr. Curley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m called, in my language, a liar and telling false statements.
I made my statement on the basis of the fact that the recommendation does include that some communities will actually increase rates.
That is part of that. This is a fact. I’m not making up words.
To be called a liar is not acceptable and I ask the member to withdraw that remark.
To the point of order. Minister Kusugak.
Mr. Curley stood up and said that I will be the only person, when the government sits in 2014, approving the increase of rates.
He said that I will be the only one who will say that.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot predict 2014.
So that’s not true.
I may vote it down. I may vote against it.
We’re not at 2014 yet, Mr. Speaker, and he said that I will be the only one voting in favour of it.
That’s a lie.
Sorry for the delay. As members will note, a similar point of order was raised in the past over an exchange between members.
I think I had indicated at that time it was an interpretation or a matter of debate and so it would not be a point of order.
I ruled that there was no point of order there.
However, the minister, in his response to the point of order, indicated that that was a lie. That is unparliamentary language and I would ask that the minister withdraw those comments.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Speaker, thank you, but those allegations are not true.
They’re not real. If I have to withdraw the statement that it’s a lie, where do I have it on record that those allegations are not true?
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Kusugak. As I had indicated, saying that that is a lie or saying a member is lying is unparliamentary; it’s a wrong use of words.
I would ask that you withdraw your comments saying that that’s a lie. It’s just a wrong use of words.
Is that what you are indicating? Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Speaker, I want it very clear in the record that if Mr. Curley is going to make these allegations on me and they’re not true that that has to be in the record somewhere. If I have to remove the word “lie” and change it to meaning “not true,” then so be it, Mr. Speaker.
I need your direction on that.
Minister Kusugak, as I had indicated, I believe, in a previous ruling on a point of order, it was a matter of debate and the member felt that the comments made by the other member were incorrect and I did not agree with them.
That’s fine, but you cannot use the word “lie” in the House.
I believe if you have indicated that you would withdraw your comments referring to the word “lie.” Is that correct?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Yes, I withdraw them and, if I can, I would like to ensure that… .
Speaker: Thank you for clarifying that.
To my question, Mr. Speaker, I’m continuing with my question.
Speaker: Thank you. Members, sorry.
The matter is settled and we will move on to your second supplementary, Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show also that I wasn’t talking about a vote about he issue, I was talking about the support of the policy during the campaign, that it would be difficult to support a policy that says rate increases will be passed on to 2014, from this cabinet to 2014.
So that was very clear.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that it is really quite important that the rate adjustments for 2014 be the sole responsibility of the new Assembly.
Will the minister reconsider once again the decision and the vote he has actually taken to pass on the increases and delay them for 2014?
Why not reject them now?
This government has chosen to delay the rate increases until 2014.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we support the public and private homeowners and businesses in Nunavut.
By delaying the increase, we will be able to work out the different programs out there and it will have less impact on Nunavummiut who have power bills to pay.
They’ve already had a very big increase and this is to support the public sector out there.
Mr. Curley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister alluded to a number of program reviews that he indicated are taking place, of which I understand it to be that there will be incentives as well as conservation, I believe, for heating costs and everything else, as well as the electricity subsidies.
Who will actually be leading these reviews with respect to electricity subsidies?
Different departments of the government will be working with the Qulliq Energy Corporation, Mr. Speaker.
Members will note that the clock has indicated that the allotted time for question period has expired.
Return to Written Question 011 – 3(3): Government Expenditures on Overtime Pay for Indeterminate, Term and Casual Employees (Peterson)
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the response to Written Question 11 – 3(3) asked by Mr. Elliott on the subject of expenditures on overtime pay.
According to our Rules, the response shall be printed in the Hansard.
Item 13: Tabling of Documents  *See Appendix for full text of Return to Written Question 11 – 3(3) filed with the Clerk.
Tabled Document 169 – 3(3): Annual Report for the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy for the Period April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011 (Aariak)
Tabled Document 170 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut’s Response to the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (Aariak)
First, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report for the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy for the period of April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011.
The other one to table, I am pleased to table the Government of Nunavut’s Response to the 2010-11 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Tabled Document 171 – 3(3): Analysis of Suicide Deaths and Hospitalizations Due to Suicide Attempt for Residents of Niagara (Elliott)
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated in my Member’s Statement yesterday, I will be tabling a number of items this week concerning the kind of work that needs to be done to effectively implement our territory’s suicide prevention action plan.
The item that I am tabling today is a publication from the Niagara District Health Council.
It provides an analysis of suicide deaths and hospitalizations due to suicide attempts.
Before we proceed to the Committee of the Whole, I believe we have an invitation from the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation to participate in the foyer for the unveiling of the licence plate. We shall do that.
>>House recessed at 15:18 and Committee resumed at 15:52
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Good afternoon, my colleagues.
Before we proceed with the Committee of the Whole, I would like to thank Minister Taptuna for presenting us with the new Nunavut licence plate.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with today: Bills 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 34.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 24 and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation and, if time permits, the Nunavut Housing Corporation, the Department of Justice, and Nunavut Arctic College.
At this time, are we in agreement that we continue with yesterday’s review of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Yesterday, Minister Taptuna made his opening comments and the chair of the standing committee, Mr. Rumbolt, also made his opening comments.
Minister Taptuna, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Minister Taptuna, for the record, could you please introduce your witnesses.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my right is Tanya Winmill, Director of Finance and Administration. On my left is Deputy Minister Bob Long.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. Welcome.
Are there any general comments to the minister’s opening comments of yesterday?
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) This is going to be a general comment. I believe I have 10 minutes for general comments.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Curley, that’s correct.
If you would like to proceed, Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): We’re usually told how long we have to speak and my comments will be general in nature.
I thank the minister for taking the time to attend, along with his officials. I’m aware that this department is quite important to residents and to communities throughout Nunavut that work on economic development initiatives, business support, and businesses respect the Department of ED&T.
I also urge the minister to continue. During your tenure as the minister of this portfolio, the department has made quite a bit of progress and improvements are continuing.
I want to state that your department is an important one for many communities and many programs, particularly your poverty reduction and food security programs that you often talk about.
Many Nunavutmiut look forward to them and I want the minister to understand that I am in full support of these initiatives.
I would now like to touch on air transportation, an issue that is mentioned in your opening comments.
Air transportation is our primary mode of transportation and is responsible for a lot of attention because of its high cost, which continues to increase. Our fellow Nunavutmiut deserve our sympathy in their struggle to pay for air travel.
Sometimes it is the only way to transport emergencies.
I am very grateful to the organizations that provide assistance in those cases, not just the Department of ED&T. Sometimes bereavement travel can be paid for by the RIAs, while other communities fundraise to try and pay for emergency travel for relatives.
Although Nunavut doesn’t have a large population, we tirelessly endeavour to meet these needs.
With respect to the minister’s opening comments where I said your department is fundamentally important to Nunavutmiut, I want you to maintain that, especially as it applies to our business community and economic development.
Some people in Nunavut continually ask who within government they can turn to for discussing these issues.
That’s why I’m commenting on this matter.
You sometimes deal with the requirements under Article 24, specifically the NNI Policy.
You stated that this policy will be reviewed and I will be one of those who have expectations about the business community being consulted during this review.
It would be ideal not to have to wait because it has been many years since the creation of Nunavut, 12 years, actually going on 13 years since 1999.
We also have to abide by the contracting requirements of the NNI Policy.
Compliance has to improve and it is well known that it is quite generous, as bonuses can go up to 21 percent. (interpretation ends) So in my view, (interpretation) this is partly why your department is critical, as per my earlier comments during question period.
In some ways, the Nunavut government is being branded as taking a socialist approach.
This means that you have to decide as to whom you are providing more support. (interpretation ends) Socialist control?
(interpretation) Should the hamlets be taking on more contracts for their local projects?
Alternatively, should we be tendering these projects to be less costly and more efficient or should we just leave it the way it is?
Should we be looking at more sole source contracts for organizations, such as co-operatives?
I believe that the minister has to be very careful when considering this matter.
In my opinion, I believe that it should be a balanced mix and not just be one thing, such as if we were to target certain sectors. We should award the best bids and that is my choice, but we have to remember that if we’re only going to one side, then it would upset many Nunavutmiut.
That is why I’m making these comments to this point.
However, we will want to hear about the air transportation issues, especially here in Nunavut, where we have few choices. So we need to look at alternatives down the road.
I want to know if we can have expectations of change from the minister.
I will conclude with that in my general comments, Mr. Chairman.
Are there any general comments to Minister Taptuna’s opening comments?
I also welcome the minister and his officials.
It is clear that the Department of Economic Development and Transportation has made some progress in development.
Many of us as members, however, in representing our constituents, continue to have major concerns about docks.
The other community that I represent, Hall Beach, has absolutely no protection for boats that are along the shoreline.
I’m aware that ED&T is entirely dependent on the federal government to fund these infrastructure projects and this seems to be our only option.
I know that there have been hydrographical studies in some communities that the minister mentioned as having been approved by the federal government program for small craft harbours.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the whole issue has to be revisited since the current criteria limit these federally funded projects to communities that can show commercial potential, such as the Iqaluit port, and those identified in the Small Craft Harbours program.
Particularly on the issue of poverty reduction, hunters’ expensive equipment have to be looked after properly, especially boats, and they need a safe place.
They’re vulnerable to destruction from the high winds and some are lost due the lack of protection.
Mr. Chairman, this is what I wanted to speak to in my general comments. I want to be one of the members expecting the department to focus more on smaller communities’ breakwaters or safe harbours, particularly during the summer.
Winter freeze-up is happening later and I believe the department needs to consider and focus more on this issue.
(interpretation ends) Minister Taptuna, did you want to make a comment?
Yes, when it comes to small docks, marine infrastructure in Nunavut is very difficult.
We do have to work with the Government of Canada, the DFO department. We continually try to find alternative ways to try and provide some of this infrastructure that is critical for Nunavummiut. We do understand that as a department.
We’re not only talking with the folks down in Ottawa, we’re also talking with the mining companies and exploration companies to try and partner in any kind of possible way to benefit these communities.
Going back to your opening comments on page 3 on poverty reduction, I would like clarification on what poverty really means. I think a little over a year will have been spent working on it.
Can you elaborate further on exactly what Makimaniq means under poverty reduction?
The Makimaniq Plan is a guide for the government and our partners. Of course, our partners are the businesses that are out there, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and the regional Inuit associations.
It’s a guide; it’s a step to get to the action items where we plan to do these action items in cooperation with all the communities in partnership.
We believe that if everybody is involved, we will get a better beneficial result than just the government trying to do some of these things.
In the plan, there are statements in there to actually come up with an Act, a Poverty Reduction Act for the government, which, in other words, establish the government to continue on trying to find ways and having a budget line item for that specific purpose.
I think there’s going to be a lot of issues covered.
Have you completed your consultations with the communities? I’ll start off with that.
In our Tamapta Action Plan or Tamapta document, we intend to tackle; we made our statement with the intention of tackling poverty within our territory.
And yes, we want the communities to be a participant, a full partner and participant in helping everybody deal with the poverty we have in Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, everybody knows that poverty is over 60 percent in Nunavut. There are a lot of young children who go to school without eating.
With the partnerships we would form with communities, businesspeople, including people who have been advising us who are in poverty, we have involved everybody and of course, our major partners.
There are mining companies and exploration companies that are hoping and looking for ways to contribute to this poverty reduction plan that we’re trying to implement. So yes, we’re trying to involve everybody. Again, in some certain situations, it’s going to be difficult, but we intend to carry through.
As you move towards the implementation of the work you are doing to reduce poverty, first of all, minister, I would like to ask if your department has come up with a definition of poverty as you are moving forward to… .
The issue of poverty can be very broad.
I’m sure your department has looked into the meaning of poverty and as you’re moving forward, you would know the different varieties that poverty can do for Nunavummiut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The definition for poverty is very broad and it’s very difficult to pin down. It could mean a whole bunch of other things, but for the most part, the definition we’re trying to use is coming from consultations with our communities.
Some of these things are just a matter of using common sense.
For the most part, Mr. Chairman, when a person or a family can’t decide on their future, on where their next meal is coming from, they’re in poverty. We know that.
If a person can’t contribute or is uncertain of their future, for their own future and their family’s future, usually they are in poverty.
Without trying to get down to the finer details of the definition, which could mean a whole lot of things, it could be a lack of spiritual willingness and this and that.
It’s a whole number of things.
I believe that there is a word in The Makimaniq Plan that we’re trying to use.
I just can’t recall off the top of my head what that word is. For the most part, usually it’s a group, an individual, a family, a group of people who cannot make their future. If they can’t decide on their future or can’t make their own future, it’s usually a family in poverty.
I would like to remind you that we’re on general comments at this time.
You will have an opportunity to ask detailed questions when we get to the appropriate pages.
I’m on the opening comments of the minister on The Makimaniq Plan. There is reference to the construction of various housing to make them affordable because it will help improve our lives.
I’ll speak in English.