EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Since the government is the contracting authority, they should not just look at the Inuit content when they are evaluating the bids and this ought to not satisfy this requirement, at least in my opinion. I believe that there can be better evaluations of the status in our government to also look at the shareholders agreement that exists as proof of its status.
If I was to have a partner, (interpretation ends) I would not just have a 51 percent credential. I would want a legal document that says we have a shareholders agreement that says if we made $1 million in building this project, Inuit would get 51 percent of the profit. Right now, that’s not happening.
The greedy partners, normally non-Inuit, are normally taking off with almost 100 percent of the profit and the only Inuit ownership, they get to be employed, and that’s not fair.
So the shareholders agreement may or may not be a way of helping the government to better manage procurement.
Would that be something that could be reviewed as well?
Let me begin by saying that this government has always been in support of private enterprise, private business, and encouraging Inuit and Nunavummiut, regardless of being in the private business, and being able to bid on any tender they feel, not the government feels, but that the businesspeople feel they can provide that service to Nunavummiut.
They should have the right to bid, whether they’re 51 percent Inuit or 20 percent Inuit owned. They should have the confidence to feel they can bid on that contract regardless and that the government is not here to say, “You only have 5 percent Inuit content. We’re not going to look at your bid.”
It is a fair, open, and honest procurement practice, regardless of what business they are and what percentage they have.
Having said that, I think NTI, again, is the people who decide how many percent of Inuit content it has to be in order to be seen as an Inuit owned company. That’s something that would be best answered by NTI.
All we do is take their recommendation and their Inuit list and work with that in our procurement.
We don’t decide that Inuk’s videoconferencing company has to be 51 percent Inuit and we need to see this or that. We don’t do that. We’re just doing procurement, Mr. Chairman, and we take and respect the recommendations and business list that is given to us by NTI.
I hope that answers his question. I thank him for those very good questions.
I agree. I think there is always a bit of a disagreement with conflict provisions.
I think, to be very clear, I should read the wording that I read where it says general provisions of the Inuit land claims agreement.
In Article 2, 2.12.2, Agreement to Prevail, “Where there is any inconsistency or conflict between any federal, territorial and local government laws, and the Agreement, the Agreement shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.” So the cabinet, in my view, has no powers to override provisions of NNI if it’s linked with Article 24. The question, to me, is always: is it linked to Article 24?
It may not be.
Having said that, I have another question.
There was always some misunderstanding or conflict, not with land claims agreements, with sole sourcing hamlets in Nunavut.
There have been millions of dollars sole sourced directly to hamlets rather than tendering them out.
Who makes those decisions and why was it practiced without regard to the provision requiring the Minister of CG&S to sign the document first giving approval, where it was indicated in a court case respecting a situation in Cape Dorset?
In terms of the Article 24 issue, there still is, at the end of the day, the procurement and contracting procedures/law. Those have to be adhered to all the time.
In terms of the municipalities doing some contract work, I understand there are some client departments that often have dealt directly with the municipalities on different projects. Short of not knowing exact details, I wouldn’t be able to go any further than that.
Municipal provisions where direct funding is to be provided to the municipality for a project, there is a provision in the Municipality Act that the minister first must sign and approve that provision.
There were some views of the private sector group that the only main reason that CG&S was bypassing public tender and giving the contract for the project directly to the hamlet was for this reason: so that they can circumvent provisions of Article 24 and NNI provisions.
Who made that decision to circumvent NNI provisions?
If I could have my deputy respond to that, maybe we can get some clarification.
Virtually all of the funding that goes to hamlets from CGS is through contribution agreements and it’s for all kinds of general applications to manage a hamlet. That is through the hamlet funding formula.
We certainly don’t provide to hamlets specific funds to do contracts. We do most of the contracts through CGS.
Those contracts are bound by the NNI Policy.
Hamlet contracts are not obligated to use the NNI Policy.
Hamlets contract and do business usually with their own forces or with private business within the hamlet, if it exists, but certainly, we don’t govern that.
Those are all hamlet decisions.
Before we proceed, let me remind the members and I have also been reminded to please ask questions on the appropriate page.
If you have other questions or comments to make, you have that opportunity in the House.
We are now on page J-6.
I just wanted to remind you to stay on J-6. Are there any questions on page J-6?
Ms. Ell: Thank you, Itsivautaaq. (interpretation) I will try to keep my questions to page J-6. (interpretation ends) In June of last year, you tabled the Dry Cargo Resupply Program – Activity Summary Shipping Year 2010 in the Legislative Assembly and it indicated that a continuation of an RFP process gave the best combination of achieving price and service benefits for Nunavummiut while, at the same time, offering the opportunity for competitive tendering of service to each region.
It also indicated that an alternative dispute resolution approach to settling sealift claims by Nunavummiut against the carriers was implemented during the 2010 season.
The ADR will replace litigation for small claims.
Can you provide information on a number of claims that were under the alternative dispute resolution during the 2011 sealift season?
Thank you, Itsivautaaq.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question, Ms. Ell.
There were no claims on the time or issue she is asking to.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you,, Minister Kusugak.
Ms. Ell (interpretation): I don’t really have any further questions at this time. We’re now moving on to the time when we need to order sealift during the summer in 2012.
There were no dispute resolutions during 2011, which I am very pleased to hear. Sometimes the cargo is broken on its way up here. When they’re trying to offload the cargo, sometimes they are damaged.
I am very pleased to see that there were no claims.
Maybe there were more claims in 2010.
I was wondering why there were no claims last year.
Are there bigger claims that go through different procedures?
I was very happy to hear that there were no claims.
If there was no agreement, there would have been a mediation process between the person ordering and the carrier.
If the person who ordered had a concern once the shipment landed, they already had an agreement with the shipper and that’s why the claims didn’t go through.
Some of the cargo that they received was slightly damaged. There is an agreement between the shipper and the person ordering.
They resolve their issues on their own. That’s why there were no claims.
I was just going to reiterate some comments I had made in my opening comments as the Chair for the Committee of the Whole.
Whenever members are asking questions outside of the matter under discussion, we tend to be slowed down by questions and requests for clarification that can be resolved via other avenues. That really slows down our review.
I do not have a question per se, but I wanted to comment on this issue and let us continue with this review of our Committee of the Whole of the 2012-13 CGS main estimates.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan, for reminding us.
My question for J-6 in terms of government services, in the minister’s department’s business plan on page 169 at the top, it talks about Informatics Cooperative Training Program. There is $240,000 that is allocated “To train beneficiaries, through a two year co-op program, for informatics positions in efforts to improve Inuit representation in the GN informatics workforce.”
I’m just wondering if the minister could give us an update as of today, in terms of the two-year program, how many Inuit are being hired. Is this specifically in Iqaluit, where everything is sort of centralized, or is there training that goes on in the communities for individuals as well?
We are working with Nunavut Arctic College on a two-year program to be able to deliver that program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we already have hired staff to do that.
Also on page 169 of the department’s business plan, under Property Services, in terms of managing GN office space, it reads on further about “administers leases and is responsible for disposal of real property assets.”
Over the last couple of years, I know I have asked questions and some other members have raised a question about old abandoned GN buildings in our communities.
Representing three communities, I get all hamlet councils telling me that it’s an issue in their community.
I believe there was study that was being done at one point, in one of the answers I received from the minister, looking at all of the buildings and figuring out how much it would cost, and then disposing of the buildings properly.
I’m wondering if the minister could give us an update on that so that I could report back to the hamlet.
We are still working on the issue of surplus buildings.
As I had indicated earlier in previous sittings, there is a way that they are disposed of. They are given out for opportunity for other departments to access the buildings.
Once the buildings are investigated to see if they’re up to par, it goes to the municipalities, and so on and so forth.
We’re still working on finalizing the details of that.
With that, I mentioned during question period at one time about the RECAPP program.
Once all that stuff is entered and stuff, we will have a lot clearer understanding of surplus buildings and what the statuses are on them, including those of his constituents.
Again, that is an issue, I think. There are different stages of disrepair that buildings are in. I think one of the things we had mentioned and talked about in Arctic Bay was the idea of when the replacement health centre is built, using the old existing health centre for a community healing facility and whatnot.
That was one issue and thank you for answering that.
I think specifically, though, for buildings that are abandoned… .
I think I was at one hamlet council meeting where one of the hamlet councillors was concerned because windows were broken on an old GN building, young children were playing inside, and they were afraid of someone being hurt and whatnot.
Maybe the minister could give us an update as to when decisions will be made on those buildings being torn down. Is there a procedure where the hamlet talks to someone within the community to get them boarded up again?
Very good question, Mr. Elliott. I know this a question and issue of concern in many municipalities. I know, when I was the mayor in Rankin Inlet, we tore down a few buildings that were causing the same thing, that there were too many kids playing in them and sometimes adults.
So that is a very serious issue.
It takes a bit longer sometimes to deal with it because we need to find out whose building and who’s responsible for the building.
There not always this government’s infrastructure; sometimes they’re the federal government’s or private, and sometimes nobody knows who they belong to. We have to be careful in terms of determining whose building it is. If it is ours and we know that windows are being broken, then as soon as we find out, we will try to put up boards and what have you so that they don’t cause a hazard to the community.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak. Mr. Elliott.
My next question is around property services and is based around the administration of the leases, specifically on the GN facilities that are leased to another company. I think a large number of them happen in 2017 or 2018. Will CGS be involved with the Assembly building when we approach the expiry date of this lease?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be, in some form or another, but we will not be the sole people responsible. I believe there would be Finance and probably the Legislative Assembly itself, CGS, and maybe others, but we would not be the only proponent in it.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you,, Minister Kusugak. Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the information system and the backbone, I think, the WAN-MAN-LAN that’s being going on for a long while, I have been asking the Minister of Health specifically around electronic health records.
With the report as chairperson of the committee on oversight of government operations and public accounts, I am quite concerned about privacy based around our electronic health records.
In the questions I asked the Minister of Health, I believe he said that it’s actually CGS that handles the servers for our electronic health records. There are two servers here in Iqaluit and one in Ottawa. Specifically what I was wondering is: are GN employees maintaining and handling those servers or are they contracted out to a different company to provide that service for us?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: He is correct, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question. There are two servers here and they are maintained by our staff.
They’re not contracted out, from what I understand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the actual ownership of the servers and whatnot, those are owned by the GN as well and not owned by a different agency or company. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He’s correct. They are owned by the government.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Kusugak. Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, while we have you here, I was wondering if the minister could possibly expand on what type of protocols they have in place for privacy and, I think, just a bit of an explanation of how, possibly, he’s working with Health and Social Services in developing the handling of the information.
I think we have come a long way from the day, I think it was a year or two ago, where we read either in the newspaper or heard on CBC about health records being faxed to the wrong office and things like that. It’s a lot easier nowadays to pass information back and forth. When you’re pressing a button to someone, you know whether it goes to the wrong person or is emailed to the wrong person.
Again, even within his own department, this was tabled in the Legislative Assembly the other day by Mr. Curley and it actually says “Highly confidential” on it. In terms of handling records and handling of documents, we’re talking about people’s personal health information and I want assurances to make sure that it is being protected. So maybe if the minister could explain what his department does in terms of the whole network of working together with Health and Social Services.
There is very limited access in terms of being able to access any of that information.
There are very tight protocols. The department is working with Health and Social Services and others to make sure that the policies are in place and secure. There are secured staff, secured personnel, and we are constantly working with Health and Social Services to keep all the records confidential.
In terms of the issue of using his example of a tabled document, Mr. Chairman, I cannot get into that.
I believe in confidentiality and if a previous minister or ministers take documents such as that and make it a public document, it is out of my hands, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: The point of privilege is that any document that I tabled as a member can be accessed through the Access to Information Act. It’s not a cabinet document. I never had it in my possession as minister.
It was delivered to me in a brown envelope at home, not even in my office.
If the members want to debate that, I’m welcome to debate it. The members could put it into Committee of the Whole and I’ll be glad to respond to it. I’m entitled to respond to it if they alluded to me or impugning what I did was not my privilege.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) I just need to clarify (interpretation) who you directed your point of privilege to.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, to the minister and also to the member from Quttiktuq, but I also have a second point that I wish to raise on the point of privilege. It was alluded earlier by the member from Nanulik… .
Chairman: Mr. Curley, for your information, if you are going on to something else, I have to deal with your first issue first.
To the point of privilege, do you have any comments? Mr. Elliott.
I’m not sure how to respond. I was just pointing out that I’m concerned about our private information of Nunavummiut all across the territory in terms of how our information is handled and how it’s not handled. Maybe this is a perfect example.
We are being told by the Minister of CGS that everything is fine and there are protocols in place.
At the same time, this is an example of a document that has, as Mr. Curley pointed out, showed up on his doorstep in a brown envelope. How are we going to guarantee that our health records don’t end up on someone’s doorstep as well?
So I don’t know what the concern is from Mr. Curley, but I did not mean or intend to infer that he was giving out cabinet secrets or giving out information he shouldn’t. I was just trying to prove a point that I want to ensure that my residents in my constituency are protected and have their health records secure.
Mr. Minister, do you have comments on the point of privilege? Minister Kusugak.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Mr. Chairman, the document, I understand, wasn’t ATIPP’d. I’m sure it’s ATIPP-able, but it wasn’t ATIPP’d.
The discussions and details of the emails that went back and forth were from the Department of Health, of which he was minister of at the time.
So if Mr. Curley didn’t indicate that they were brought to him in a brown envelope, I just assumed that he was the Minister of Health at the time and that’s how he got them. If I misunderstood him, I apologize.
Mr. Chairman, that’s why I think it’s important that if the members wish to discuss that, they can request that it be tabled so that we can all respond to it. No, I would never do such a thing. I was no longer a minister when I was presented that.
Chairman: Members, I’m sorry for the little bit of a delay here.
I believe the Member for Rankin Inlet North has made a clarification on the document he has tabled. I also believe that all has been clarified and we will leave it at that.
Mr. Curley, your next point of privilege.
Mr. Curley: My next point of privilege infringes on my right and entitlement to speak for 10 minutes on items related to public estimates, particularly Government Services on J-6. One of the amounts of services that Government Services provides is a procurement issue and Article 24 is really actually a procurement-related provision for Inuit firms.
The Member for Nanulik inferred, I believe, I was off the topic and creating a delay in the proceedings.
I believe this debate is actually creating a sidetrack, not me, and I respectfully ask that my rights and privileges not be interfered with because the government services issues that I raised were all related to the procurement practices of the GN and required clarification from the minister.
I will continue to insist that my right as a member not be interfered with by any Member of the House.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Mr. Ningeongan, I will give you an opportunity to clarify.
I was just simply trying to assist the Chair in reminding members that there are other avenues and other forums to deal with what was being put upon the Committee of the Whole.
I just thought we went beyond the scope of what we were attempting to do here with the Department of CGS for the 2012-13 budget proposals.
I would also like to state for the record that at any time did I try to interfere with any time that was allotted to Mr. Curley’s time because it had already expired.
So therefore, I was just trying to point out that the committee has a role to deal with the 2012-13 main estimates and that’s what I wanted to continue on with given that we are quite behind.
I felt that if Mr. Curley misunderstood me, I apologize, but I also would like to state for the record that there are other avenues, like the Auditor General will be bringing up an issue on procurement next month.
That would be an excellent opportunity to discuss those other issues that we have touched up on this evening.
Basically that, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. I’m sorry. Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan.
Mr. Ningark, do you have comments on the point of privilege? Mr. Ningark.
I came from the old school of thought and my opinions or statements may be outdated.
So I agree with my colleague, Mr. Curley.
Under J-5, Branch Summary, Government Services, this is where safeguarding the government funds became very important.
I don’t mind adding a little bit of spice to this discussion, Mr. Chairman.
In this House, when it comes to procurement of public funds, we have to safeguard the public funds. We have to look at different ways of efficiency and effectiveness and public confidence.
So I believe that when Mr. Curley talks about this procurement, he wasn’t getting off topic, he wasn’t getting off the discussion on J-5, and I believe the member is right.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. (interpretation ends) I would like to confirm, Mr. Ningark, that you were talking about page J-6 and not page J-5, as you stated.
As the Chairman of the committee, I approve of the reference to Mr. Ningeongan’s comment. They are in order. If Mr. Ningeongan was misunderstood, I agree with his apology.
I believe that this has been resolved.
I have Mr. Ningark on my list for this page. (interpretation ends) Mr. Elliott, I thought you were finished. My apologies.
Mr. Elliott, continue, please.
I thought I was finished too.
With the discussion that just happened and the great debate that we just had, I think it’s great that we have the opportunity to discuss these issues. I think I want to assure that I have trust in the Minister of Health and I have trust in the government. I also have trust in the officials here.
With that said, I know the minister had mentioned that they’re working on the policies and working with Health and Social Services on it.
That brings me hopefully to my final question, which would be: once the policies have been completed and gone through cabinet, will the minister table them and allow us to have a copy to see what the policies actually are?
I, too, was hoping that was your last question, not this one but the one prior.
Mr. Chairman, it’s very important that the public documents that the government has, especially in terms of health and privacy issues, are that, that they are kept private and only to those who need to see them.
We are working within the departments, all those responsible, to make sure that that is so.
I thank you for your trust in me and my staff.
Once we have gone through and all the proper procedures are done in terms of the policies, they will be going through cabinet, and then they will be online.
I hope that response [is enough].
Continuing with my list is Mr. Curley.
Mr. Chairman, it was made clear to one of my questions that there was a misunderstanding of my question when it related to sole sourcing municipalities with projects.
I wasn’t talking about statutory funding annual requirements.