EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) No, there haven’t been any discussions as of yet at this time.
Mr. Hickes: Are you anticipating having discussions of that nature in the near future?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, we are anticipating discussions.
I would urge for those discussions to occur very soon to maximize the efficiency of this program while it’s in place.
Mr. Chairman, the minister kind of touched on how the priority infrastructure funding is going to be done, yet there is an approvals process at the federal level. How does the discussion go with the Building Canada Fund people, we will say the federal counterparts?
If they are looking at approving or denying projects, how is our priority infrastructure list established?
For further clarity, I’m going to ask Mr. Lam to respond to that.
The federal process for approval of projects is actually two-tier. The first tier is to screen against eligibility to ensure that the projects that are being brought forward by each province or territory meets the eligibility criteria of the program.
After that initial screening process, the second tier of the screening process requires a more in-depth look at the scope of the work to ensure that the estimates that are provided for that work make sense and are accurate for the type of work that’s going to be undertaken.
At that time, when there’s a level of comfort that’s achieved by Infrastructure Canada, they will ultimately grant the approval.
As was alluded to earlier, the process could take anywhere between 6 and 18 months. For the projects that are incredibly complex and where there’s less concrete information that’s available, those will take a little bit longer to screen.
For projects that come in and are more defined, those ones should be streamlined through the process.
I thank the witness for that response.
I’m just going to jump back a little bit to the Canada-Nunavut Gas Tax Fund with water, wastewater, and solid waste sites.
The minister had mentioned earlier that solid waste sites are considered a critical need in this territory. Is there any solid waste infrastructure going in, in this next upcoming fiscal year?
Chairman: Thank you. Hon. Minister Mr. Sammurtok.
We will be submitting a list of municipal solid waste projects for consideration in the New Building Canada Fund once the program has been agreed to by the GN and Canada.
I’m just wondering why the minister wouldn’t be putting those applications in under the Canada-Nunavut Gas Tax Fund, which is specific to water, wastewater, and solid waste infrastructure, and not utilizing up Building Canada funds in another funding model.
There’s insufficient funding under the gas tax program to meet all of the municipal solid waste requirements throughout Nunavut.
However, if I may, I’ll ask Mr. Lam to elaborate on that comment.
As the minister alluded to, the gas tax contribution annually is approximately $15 million a year.
With the current requirements of infrastructure on core municipal services, such as water, wastewater, and solid waste in our communities, the funding that we receive from gas tax isn’t sufficient to pace with upgrading those needs. As such, we have focused the Gas Tax Fund more on the water and wastewater infrastructure and, therefore, need to look at alternate funding sources to look after solid waste sites.
I won’t take up much more time, but I’m curious on this one with my Curious George syndrome kicking in.
If solid waste infrastructure is such a critical need and we’re anticipating putting some of that funding through the Building Canada Fund, what is the long-term plan for solid waste management across the territory?
If I understood correctly, I remember seeing some number a few years back that it’s over $200 million in need.
Where are we going to get that money from?
The draft Solid Waste Management Strategy has been completed.
The purpose of this strategy provides municipalities with guidelines to implement best practices for municipal solid waste programs to ensure that solid waste facilities are properly managed, including segregation of hazardous materials, bulky metals, and recycling.
The draft will be reviewed and discussed during the NAMA annual general meeting in Rankin Inlet during the week of November 3. We anticipate the completion by the end of the fiscal year 2014-15.
I look forward and hopefully the minister will table that report when it’s complete.
I just have one more question and actually, I had asked it in Oral Questions yesterday regarding the funding for the City of Iqaluit, the $3.4 million.
I’m actually getting into something that is in this year’s budget, Mr. Chairman.
They’re reporting on it.
From what the minister had mentioned yesterday, it was just the audited financial statements from the city, yet it piqued my interest because I recall asking that question some time back.
From what I understood from the previous answer in the spring, there were some reporting requirements from the City of Iqaluit on how those funds were spent by the City of Iqaluit.
Could I get maybe a clarification from yesterday’s response?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok: Qujannamiik, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask my deputy minister to elaborate on that.
For the capital contribution agreement that has been included in the five-year plan for the City of Iqaluit, we do have a contribution agreement signed with the City of Iqaluit that they must provide us with updates on the funding that has been approved for the intended purpose that it was used for.
We do look for updates with the City of Iqaluit annually in terms of project updates. Also, in their financial statements, they must disclose the status of the spending of money on those particular projects and, at the same time, it gives us an update on whether they’re meeting the terms and conditions of the agreement.
We also meet quarterly with the City of Iqaluit as well to discuss their infrastructure needs and also talk about the contribution agreements and work with them to make sure that they provide us with the necessary disclosures to ensure that the funds are spent for the intended purposes. If there are any issues, we usually discuss them as well during those meetings.
We’re on (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Branch Summary. Capital Planning. Total Capital Expenditures. $20,465,000.
Chairman (interpretation): We will go to page J-5. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Branch Summary. Petroleum Products Division. Total Capital Expenditures. $7,390,000.
Chairman: Back to page J-2. Department Summary.
Community and Government Services. Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $27,855,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Are you agreed that the Department of Community and Government Services is concluded?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister Mr. Sammurtok, closing comments.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
I am battling a losing battle here with a cold, so I don’t think I want to add any more comments at this point.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out.  (interpretation ends) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the officials out.
(interpretation) Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Minister Ell, if you can proceed to the witness table, please, to do your opening comments.
(interpretation) Minister Ell, please make your opening comments.
Bill 08 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2015-2016 – Health – Consideration in Committee
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take this opportunity today to present the 2015-16 Capital Estimates for the Department of Health.
I would like to introduce my officials from the department, Deputy Minister Colleen Stockley, Rosemary Keenainak, Assistant Deputy Minister, and Executive Director for Corporate Services Johan Glaudemans.
The department has a number of capital projects planned to replace and renovate our aging health facilities. Approximately 60 percent of the department’s health centres are 20 years of age or older.
For 2015-16, the department is requesting $17,150,000 for five capital projects. I will briefly provide details of each project.
In September 2013, the department began construction of the new community health centre in Taloyoak and it is expected to be completed by March 2015.
The department is requesting $50,000 in 2015-16 for the closeout phase of the project. The $50,000 we are requesting is not new money but funding that has already been identified in the previous year’s capital plan.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, the design of the new Arctic Bay Health Centre is currently ongoing and the construction tender package is scheduled to be issued in March 2015. The department is requesting $14 million in capital funding for the first phase of construction in 2015-16. In the coming fiscal years, the department will be requesting an additional $16,360,000 in 2016-17 for the second phase of construction and $50,000 in 2017-18 for the closeout phase of the project.
The total remaining cost estimated to complete the project is $30,410,000. The project is expected to be completed by March 2017.
A value management analysis of the health centre common design constructed in Repulse Bay and Taloyoak was undertaken by Health and CG&S to improve the design and find cost savings for future health centre replacements.
As a result of the analysis, some changes have been made in Arctic Bay’s new health centre that are expected to generate cost savings in the vicinity of $2 million. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, the department has been constructing new health centres that have been completed on time and within budget, and we are expecting this project to follow the same pattern.
The department is requesting $1.1 million to convert the children’s group home building in Rankin Inlet to a mental health transition house.
This facility will provide case management and northern-based support systems for clients returning from mental health treatment or addiction treatment programs in southern centres.
This one-year renovation project is scheduled to start and be completed in 2015-16.
(interpretation ends) In addition, the department is requesting a continuation of the annual funding amounts of $1 million for small capital and $1 million for minor capital projects.
In closing, the department’s proposed capital plan for 2015-16 is in line with the Sivumut Abluqta Mandate of this government. Specifically, the capital plan is focused on mental health and health care facilities, which are essential services to Nunavummiut.
Maintaining facilities that meet the needs of the communities and residents is the department’s priority.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I look forward to your support on these important projects and I welcome questions and comments from members.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Wellness as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the proposed 2015-16 Capital Estimates of the Department of Health.
The regular members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for 2015-16 is just over $17 million which includes funding for three infrastructure projects and two blocks of funding for minor capital and small capital projects.
Members recognize that the focus of the Department of Health’s capital planning for 2015-16 is on mental health and the completion of ongoing health centre infrastructure projects.
Standing committee members were disappointed not to receive any further information of the department’s future plans for projects as no future projects were identified in the department’s 2016-2020 five-year capital plan.
It is unclear how the department will prioritize which projects it intends to proceed with in coming years.
Mr. Chairman, while the standing committee recognizes that replacing and updating community health centres across all of Nunavut’s communities is a long-term goal, members encourage the minister to work with her ministerial counterparts to address issues of overcrowding and poorly designated clinical space and to identify alternative office space within communities for all staff.
Mr. Chairman, two of the department’s projects planned for 2015-16 are ongoing from previous years: the project to replace the health centre in Arctic Bay and the completion of the replacement health centre in Taloyoak.
During the minister’s appearance before the committee to discuss her department’s draft capital estimates for 2015-16, the minister made a number of commitments to provide additional detail on a number of important issue areas, such as the planning, design specifications, and cost estimates for the “Common Design” used for the health centre projects in Taloyoak, Repulse Bay, and Arctic Bay.
Standing committee members look forward to reviewing this and other information at the earliest opportunity.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health’s 2015-16 capital plan includes a project to renovate what was formerly a children’s group home in Rankin Inlet into a mental health transition house.
Members have expressed some concern regarding the type and level of services to be delivered at the newly renovated facility and encourage the minister to provide further clarification on the anticipated client base, service delivery, and expected outcomes.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee is of the view that the department’s capital planning process should address upcoming needs in such areas as elder care. Members recognize that there is a wide variation of needs with respect to providing care to elders, ranging from home care to respite care for families to long-term and palliative care. Members encourage the minister in her efforts to assess these needs across Nunavut, especially in communities with a steadily growing population of elders.
Mr. Chairman, members look forward to supporting the minister in her work towards developing a long-term infrastructure plan for providing care for our elders within Nunavut and alongside programs such as home care and assisted living facilities.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health’s capital budget includes blocks of funding for small capital projects and for minor projects in its 2015-16 capital estimates.
Members appreciated receiving detailed information on proposed expenditures under these projects for the current 2014-15 fiscal year.
Members encourage the minister and her officials to consider additional initiatives to purchase specialized diagnostic equipment so that medical clients are not always required to travel far away from home to other jurisdictions in order to receive health services.
Mr. Chairman, it has been noted that small capital funding may include the purchase of vehicles for community health centres. While it is recognized that health centre vehicles are generally used for such activities as home care program delivery, mental health services, or the transportation of supplies, equipment, or lab samples, members continue to express concerns regarding the availability of local transportation available for certain individuals who receive health services.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2015-16 Capital Estimates of the Department of Health.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) What is the wish of the committee?
I will now rise to report progress. (interpretation) Thank you very much.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The motion is on the floor. Is there a seconder?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) In accordance with the authority provided to me by Motion 11 – 4(2), this House stands adjourned until Thursday, October 30, at 10:00 a.m.
>>House adjourned at 19:39  Appendix – October 29, 2014
2012-2013 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut
Second Session of the Fourth Legislative Assembly of Nunavut  October 2014
The Languages Commissioner’s duties and responsibilities are established by two pieces of Nunavut legislation: the Official Languages Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act.
Nunavut’s new Official Languages Act was passed by the 2nd Legislative Assembly in 2008 and, with the exception of subsection 12(7)(c), came into force on April 1, 2013.
The Inuit Language Protection Act was also passed during the 2nd Legislative Assembly in 2008, and has been coming into force in stages since that time.
Sections 3-5 and 9-10 of the Inuit Language Protection Act are not in force.
Ms. Sandra Inutiq is the current Languages Commissioner of Nunavut.
She assumed her duties as Languages Commissioner on January 14, 2013.
The Languages Commissioner’s 2012-2013 annual report was tabled in the House on May 22, 2014.
The Standing Committee recognizes that the Languages Commissioner assumed her duties after the 2012-2013 fiscal year had already begun, following a four month period during which the position was vacant.
The Standing Committee also recognizes that the Languages Commissioner has previously experienced challenges in staffing her office, which has caused delays in number of its activities.
The Standing Committee held its hearing on the Languages Commissioner’s 2012-2013 annual report on September 22, 2014.
The hearing was open to the public and news media to observe and was broadcast on local radio, cable and satellite television.
Transcripts from the hearing have been produced in all official languages and are available to the public through the Legislative Assembly’s website.
The Languages Commissioner has three main areas of responsibility: the investigation and resolution of concerns relating to language rights, providing guidance and support to various bodies and institutions, and the administration of her office.
As a part of its mandate, the Office of the Languages Commissioner monitors the performance of territorial institutions in providing services and information to the public in Nunavut’s official languages.
Consequently, the Standing Committee maintains the view that the Languages Commissioner must lead by example as she carries out her duties as ombudsman, advocate, monitor and advisor for language rights in Nunavut.
The Standing Committee was therefore disappointed that the Languages Commissioner failed to produce an Inuit language translation of her opening comments during its recent hearing.
The Standing Committee maintains the view that in order for the Languages Commissioner to successfully fulfill her mandate as ombudsman, monitor and advisor on language rights issues, she must ensure that her office provides the highest quality of services that it expects of all other territorial organizations.
During the Standing Committee’s recent hearing, the Languages Commissioner raised concerns in relation to the government’s current hiring processes, including the extent to which language proficiency is recognized in its Priority Hiring Policy.
The Standing Committee acknowledges the value of official languages proficiency and notes that this issue merits ongoing attention.
During its recent hearing, the Standing Committee raised concerns regarding the Languages Commissioner’s own hiring practices.
For example, the Languages Commissioner recently hired an employee for her office by way of direct appointment.
The Standing Committee maintains the view that the Languages Commissioner must lead by example in practicing fair and transparent hiring, and strongly encourages the Languages Commissioner to fill vacant positions in her office through competitive hiring processes to the greatest practical extent.
The Standing Committee notes that the Languages Commissioner recently signed an open letter to the Premier of Nunavut in which she raised concerns regarding the government's initiatives to increase Inuit employment in the public sector.
The Standing Committee recognizes and respects the independent role of the Languages Commissioner in monitoring issues related to language services in the territory and raising concerns as necessary.
However, the Standing Committee also notes that the Languages Commissioner’s primary mechanism for raising concerns and making recommendations is through her formal reports to the Legislative Assembly.
The Standing Committee strongly encourages the Languages Commissioner to use the appropriate instruments available to her office in order to effectively address issues related to language rights and services in Nunavut.
The Standing Committee of the previous Legislative Assembly recommended that the Languages Commissioner provide greater detail on her office’s initiatives and benchmarks by which her office could measure its success.
The Standing Committee recognizes the Languages Commissioner’s efforts to provide more detail on her office’s initiatives in its 2012-2013 annual report.
However, the Standing Committee is of the view that the Languages Commissioner should provide more detail on her office’s expenditures. For example, although the Languages Commissioner indicated that her office incurred significant expenditures on travel and contract services during the 2012-2013 fiscal year, her annual report did not clearly describe the nature or results of these expenditures.
The Standing Committee of the previous Legislative Assembly also recommended that the Languages Commissioner meet with language stakeholders to address issues related to statutory obligations under the territory’s official languages legislation.
The Standing Committee notes that the Languages Commissioner’s 2012-2013 annual report listed meetings and conferences that her office had attended, including meetings with stakeholders such as the Inuit Language Authority, the Minister of Languages and officials from the Department of Education.
The Standing Committee is of the view that more information on the substance and outcomes of such meetings will provide more transparency on the Office of the Languages Commissioner’s initiatives.
The Standing Committee encourages the Languages Commissioner to ensure that her office leads by example as it works to meet statutory language obligations, exercise fair hiring processes, utilize appropriate mechanisms to fulfill its mandate and provide transparency through detailed and comprehensive reporting.
Section 12 of the Inuit Language Protection Act came into force on September 19, 2011.
This section provides that public sector employers shall accommodate individuals who prefer to speak the Inuit language during recruitment or in the workplace.
During the Standing Committee’s recent hearing, the Languages Commissioner raised concerns that individuals are unaware of their right to submit applications in the Inuit language for positions in the public service.
The Languages Commissioner also indicated that her office has observed that a number of employees in the public service are not aware of their right to work in the Inuit language.
The Standing Committee firmly supports the protection and promotion of the Inuit language and the expansion of its use in the government.
During the Standing Committee’s recent hearing, Members expressed concerns regarding the state of the government’s hiring practices and its apparent lack of compliance with section 12 of the Inuit Language Protection Act.
During the Standing Committee’s recent hearing, the Languages Commissioner indicated that her office may undertake a systemic investigation on the Government of Nunavut’s human resources practices.
The Standing Committee encourages the Languages Commissioner to focus on the government’s statutory obligations under the Inuit Language Protection Act as her office progresses with its work in this area.
Section 6 of the Inuit Language Protection Act came into force on September 9, 2012, and requires all municipalities to provide services in the Inuit Language.
Subsection 12(8) of the Official Languages Act came into force on April 1, 2013, and requires municipalities to provide communications and services to the public in an official language where there is a significant demand for that official language.