EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In terms of the houses and the units that were not burnt and then the request for proposals went out, is it not a policy within the Nunavut Housing Corporation… ?
You had mentioned and said to Mr. Okalik that, in the future, you would put them out to be sold.
I think one of things we have talked about in the House before is to have more people purchase their own homes. Why was this practice not followed for this situation?
In speaking with the housing authority, they informed me that they have had no success in attempting to sell some of the written-off units in the past and, as such, had made the recommendation to dispose of them in this manner instead.
By saying that we will advertise for sale in the future does not necessarily mean that we will be successful in getting people who are interested in doing so, but we will make that attempt.
In terms of the request for proposals that went out, if I understood you correctly, it was for all of those units.
It was one request for proposals to remove 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 238, 239, 240, and 241.
I don’t want to be delaying anything.
I am aware that there were as many as six separate requests for proposals related to the removal of units for new construction.
Of those six requests for proposals, were they all awarded to, did you say, two companies, or one company, or how many companies received… ?
Was it six separate companies?
The information I have is that there were three separate companies that received the awards.
In terms of the three separate companies that were awarded the contract, the assumption was that these units would be taken off the lot and put into the dump or torn apart, as Mr. Okalik had indicated. Did all three companies sell them or put them into other business interest, or did two of them tear them down and put them in the dump as the request for proposals had originally stated?
Firstly, the request for proposals did not stipulate to bring the houses to the dump; it was for the removal of the units and to do a lot clean up, as well as some other work on the lot in preparation for new construction.
I really do not know what the companies did with all of the units once they were placed in their hands.
In terms of these three companies that had completed the work and removed the houses, do you know where these houses have gone?
Mr. Barriault: Mr. Chairman, no, I do not know where all of those houses have gone.
Some may have gone to the dump and some may have been reused for other purposes.
In terms of the lots that I had mentioned earlier, could you tell me which ones actually have houses on them?
I’m assuming these are part of the Nunavut Housing Trust or the affordable housing, so some are probably five-plexes and some are single family units.
I do have a listing of which units have been built on which lots. It will take a few minutes to read them to you.
So I’ll look for these specific units that you are requesting.
For units 207 and 209, five-plex no. 207 is now there. For units 234 and 236… . Actually I’m reading off a request for proposals, not off the write-off list, so these may not match.
You will have to pardon me.
For 234 and 236, five-plex no. 234 is now in that location. For units 211 and 213, there is a new four-plex currently being built on that lot. Units 215 and 217 also have a four-plex being constructed on it as we speak.
Reading from the list, I’m just missing 230 and 232, and as well, a four-plex is being built on that lot.
Okay, so that’s actually quite interesting. That’s 26 housing units. Of those 26, are they complete and we have 26 families living in those?
The five-plexes are complete and have families living in them.
The four-plexes are currently under construction.
Mr. Elliott: That’s all I have for now.
I keep getting signals that these old lots, when they were empty, they were prepared for new construction. Subsequently, who did the clean up after the removal of these units?
As I believe I had noted earlier, the requests for proposals included the removal of the units as well as the clean up of the lots and the preparation for the new units, including utilidor and utility connections.
I don’t have any more people on my list here, so I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort Minister Curley and his witnesses out and bring Minister Peterson and his witness back in.
We will go back to Schedule. Part 2. Total. $863,039.90. agreed?
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 43 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 43 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman: Thank you. Does the minister have any closing comments?
I would like to thank the committee for their excellent questions.
They were very detailed questions and we kept track of them.
I would like to ensure the members that accountability is very important to the government and we will take note of their recommendations.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Minister Kusugak and Minister Curley, for being here today to answer your detailed questions.
I would like to thank the officials from both the Department of Community and Government Services and the Nunavut Housing Corporation for their attendance here today to help provide the detailed answers to your questions.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like thank my officials, Peter Ma and Jeff Chown, for attending today.
I appreciate yourself and your witnesses for answering questions here and also Minister Tagak Curley and Minister Kusugak.
Sergeant-at-Arms, can you please escort the minister and the witnesses out.
I would like to make a motion to report progress given the time.
Your committee has been considering Bill 42 and 43, and would like to report that Bills 42 and 43 are immediately ready for third reading. And, Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be agreed to.
“Mr. Kosiak.”
Bill 37 – Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 37, Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, be read for the third time.
Bill 42 – Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 42, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2, be read for the third time.
Bill 43 – Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the very hard-working Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011, be read for the third time.
Bill 35 – Licensed Practical Nurses Act – Third Reading
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 35, Licensed Practical Nurses Act, be read for the third time.
This House stands adjourned until October 29 at ten o’clock in the morning.
>>House adjourned at 17:53  Appendix – October 28, 2010
Reports of Standing and Special Committees  Standing Committee on
2008-2009 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut  and the
2009-2010 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut
October 2010
James Arvaluk, MLA
Fred Schell, MLA
Adamee Komoartok, MLA
John Ningark, MLA
Allan Rumbolt, MLA
Jeannie Ugyuk, MLA
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting the report of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 Annual Reports of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Alexina Kublu assumed her duties as Languages Commissioner of Nunavut in January of 2009, in the final quarter of the 2008-2009 fiscal year.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the Languages Commissioner’s 2008-2009 Annual Report was tabled in this House on March 18, 2010.
In September of 2010, her 2009-2010 Annual Report was backdoor tabled with the Clerk of the Assembly, pursuant to Rule 44(2) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly, and was formally tabled in this House on October 22, 2010.
The Standing Committee held its hearings on the Languages Commissioner’s reports from September 29-30, 2010.
The hearings were open to the public and news media to observe and were broadcast on local cable television.
Transcripts from the Standing Committee’s hearings have been posted to the Legislative Assembly’s website in both Inuktitut and English.
Mr. Speaker, this was Ms. Kublu’s first appearance before the Standing Committee. Witnesses from her office were also present.
The Standing Committee was pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss various issues relating the Languages Commissioner’s mandate and the activities of her office.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank the Languages Commissioner for appearing before us.
A number of themes and concerns emerged during the Standing Committee’s review of the Languages Commissioner’s reports.
Mr. Speaker, the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut has three main areas of responsibility: the investigation and resolution of complaints relating to language rights, providing guidance and support to various bodies and institutions, and the administration of her office.
With respect to the investigation and resolution of complaints relating to language rights, the Languages Commissioner’s 2008-2009 report indicated that her office had received one formal complaint during the year.
The report did not provide any specific details or information on the nature of the complaint nor the means by which it was investigated and resolved.
The Languages Commissioner’s 2009-2010 Annual Report indicated that three formal complaints were received during the year.
Again, no specific details or information on the nature of the complaints and their resolution were provided.
Both reports indicate that the Office is very busy answering “daily inquiries” as well as addressing requests for information and concerns brought forward by members of the public or by various institutions located in Nunavut and elsewhere.
During her appearance, the Languages Commissioner identified a number of issues that had been brought to her attention through conversation, anecdote or within the context of seminars and workshops.
She indicated that these also constituted complaints about language rights.
However, neither report provides any statistical or analytical information on the types of complaints, concerns or queries handled by her office over the course of the year.
During her appearance, the Languages Commissioner indicated that by including details on complaints, her reports would “become a burdensome and very thick document.”
Standing Committee Members have noted that other Independent Officers of this Legislative Assembly, as well as in other jurisdictions, are able to successfully provide informative detail on the type and nature of complaints or requests received and addressed by their offices without the reports becoming overly lengthy or revealing confidential information.
Standing Committee Members are of the view that in order to gain a greater appreciation of the workload and focus of resources within the Office of the Languages Commissioner as well as the effectiveness of her role in this regard, it is important that a significantly greater level of detail regarding this element of the Languages Commissioner’s responsibilities be included in her annual reports.
The Standing Committee recommends that the Languages Commissioner records, measures and analyzes the nature, type and number of complaints, concerns and queries that are identified and handled by her Office on an annual basis and provides a clear and detailed summary of these and any other relevant information in her annual reports.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee recognizes that the Office of the Languages Commissioner has put a great deal of effort into establishing and refining a complaints resolution process.
The process is depicted in flowcharts contained within her annual reports and described in a document published on the Languages Commissioner’s website.
Members would have appreciated information on what kinds of challenges were faced and successes achieved while implementing the complaints resolution process.
For example, Members would have appreciated an explanation as to how and why the complaints resolution process was modified in 2009-2010.
The Standing Committee recommends that the Languages Commissioner includes a detailed summary of the application and results of her Office’s complaints resolution procedure in her annual reports.
In the absence of any detailed information regarding the nature of complaints and queries received by her Office over the past two years, it is difficult to determine how and why these two departments were selected for this investigative process.
Further, the Languages Commissioner does not provide any detail in her reports with respect to the focus or process of conducting her proposed investigations.
The Standing Committee looks forward to revisiting this issue in the future.
The Standing Committee recommends that the Languages Commissioner includes a detailed summary of the reasoning, purpose, progress and results of her systemic investigations in her next annual report.
Mr. Speaker, during the Languages Commissioner’s appearance before the Standing Committee, Members raised a number of concerns with respect to the current status of the Inuit language, including statistics on usage, standardization, writing systems and terminology.
Members greatly appreciated the Languages Commissioner’s insight on these issues.
During the Languages Commissioner’s appearance, there was some discussion concerning the spelling of the name of the building into which her Office is planning to move.
While the Standing Committee appreciates her Office’s commitment to linguistic accuracy, Members would caution the Office to not allow relatively trivial matters to distract from more significant challenges.
Members would also be unsupportive of any decision on the part of the Office to delay its planned occupancy until a specific piece of signage were replaced, given the potentially significant costs that could be incurred in relation to lease agreements.
Given that it is a part of the Languages Commissioner’s mandate to provide advice to the Minister of Languages, government departments and institutions on language-related issues, the Standing Committee looks forward to further discussion and elaboration of the Languages Commissioner’s views on these issues in the future.
The Standing Committee recognizes that certain responsibilities concerning language, such as the preservation and revitalization of the Inuit language, fall under the mandate of the Minister of Languages while other responsibilities fall under the mandate of the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit, the Inuit Language Authority.
It is important that the Languages Commissioner clarify her working relationship with these and other entities within the context of her own Office’s mandate.
During the Languages Commissioner’s appearance, Standing Committee Members also raised a number of issues with respect to the current status, language service needs and demands of Nunavut’s francophone population.
While the Standing Committee was given to understand that the Languages Commissioner has undertaken to address certain issues relating to the lack of French language services in Nunavut, Members were surprised to note that the Office of the Languages Commissioner has not yet developed a formal position on certain important criteria relating to the delivery of such services, such as the definition of “significant demand.”
The Standing Committee recommends that the Languages Commissioner and her staff work to establish specific benchmarks and criteria with which to evaluate and report on support for language rights across Nunavut and that the results of applying these criteria and benchmarks be included in her annual reports.
Mr. Speaker, in reviewing of the Languages Commissioner’s two annual reports, Members noted that while the 2008-2009 annual report contained four specific recommendations, the 2009-2010 annual report contained no new recommendations.
Instead, the Languages Commissioner’s 2009-2010 annual report included a ten-page insert which repeated nineteen recommendations that had been put forward by her predecessors over the previous ten years and which discussed the government’s progress in addressing those recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, Standing Committee Members are disappointed that the Languages Commissioner chose to repeat recommendations from past reports with the implication that no action has been taken to address them rather than acknowledging the progress that has been made over the past ten years in addressing language issues and needs across Nunavut.
Indeed, the introduction of two new pieces of language legislation and the commitment to the new mandate of the Office of the Languages Commissioner as well as the establishment of the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit are significant examples of progress in this area.
Standing Committee Members were further disappointed that the Languages Commissioner did not include any forward-looking recommendations in her 2009-2010 annual report for the consideration of the government and Legislative Assembly as a whole.
The Standing Committee recommends that specific studies conducted by the Office of the Languages Commissioner, such as the 10-Year Review which was included as an insert within her 2009-2010 Annual Report, be presented as distinct publications of the Office and not as components of the annual reports.
Mr. Speaker, during the Languages Commissioner’s appearance before the Standing Committee, Committee Members were pleased to have had the opportunity to address a number of issues relating to the provision of language services in the private sector.
The Standing Committee applauds the Languages Commissioner for her proactive role in assisting and supporting private sector businesses and other organizations, such as Regional Inuit Organizations, in addressing their need to develop and implement Inuit Language Plans.
Standing Committee Members encourage the Languages Commissioner to continue to work with non-government entities regarding the requirements of the Inuit Language Protection Act.
Members further encourage the Languages Commissioner to place a priority on assisting entities to meet legislated requirements in industries where public safety issues are critical, such as the mining industry and the airline industry.
Mr. Speaker, Committee Members were surprised that the Languages Commissioner does not appear to have given detailed consideration to the issue of language services provided within Nunavut by federal entities or federally-regulated entities, such as banks and airlines.
During her appearance, Members were disappointed that responses to questions in this area were somewhat superficial.
As awareness of language rights and responsibilities within Nunavut increases, the Office of the Languages Commissioner will likely be called upon to provide informed and evidence-based advice, direction and mediation in this area.
Standing Committee Recommendation #6:
The Standing Committee recommends that the Office of the Languages Commissioner be prepared to substantively address issues relating to the delivery of services in the territory’s official languages by federal and federally-regulated entities.
Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Office of the Languages Commissioner is supported by a budget which is approved by the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
The Standing Committee on Oversight on Government Operations and Public Accounts has noted that the budget for the Office of the Languages Commissioner more than doubled between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.
Committee Members recognize that much of this increase is accounted for by the restructuring of the office and an increase in staff to meet the demands of the Office’s new mandate.
Mr. Speaker, the Languages Commissioner’s work plan for 2010-2011, as included in her 2009-2010 annual report, provided minimal detail on the proposed activities of her Office for the current year.
The mandate of the Office of the Language Commissioner must be clearly defined and activities of the Office towards meeting that mandate should be clearly described.
The Standing Committee recommends that the Languages Commissioner take every opportunity provided with the presentation of her annual reports, during appearances before the Legislative Assembly and in other formal appearances to clearly express her mandate and position on language legislation and its implementation.
Given that the budget of the Office of the Languages Commissioner has increased to well over $1 million, and noting that the Legislative Assembly will soon be considering the Languages Commissioner’s proposed budget for 2011-2012, as a component of the Legislative Assembly’s budget, it is important for the purposes of accountability that the Office’s request for funding be supported by a detailed business plan which demonstrates how the budget supports the mandate of the Office of the Languages Commissioner.
This process will also assist Members of the Legislative Assembly to evaluate the effectiveness of the Office of the Languages Commissioner and provide support as necessary.
The Standing Committee further recommends that the Office of the Languages Commissioner prepare a complete business plan for the upcoming fiscal year which clearly outlines the mandate of the Office, details activities which support the mandate of the Office, and describes specific budget allocations for each level of activity to be conducted by the Office of the Languages Commissioner.
The Standing Committee notes the role of the Management and Services Board of the Legislative Assembly in this process.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude the Standing Committee’s report with an important observation made by the Languages Commissioner during her appearance and which was echoed by several Committee Members throughout the two days of hearings.
Support for language and culture starts at home.
As parents, educators, representatives and leaders, we all share the responsibility of promoting Nunavut’s languages.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule 91, I move that the report of the Standing Committee be received by the House.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Pages 2919 – 2971
Opening Prayer 2919
Ministers’ Statements 2919
Members’ Statements 2922
Returns to Oral Questions 2927
Oral Questions 2929
Reports of Standing and Special Committees* 2942
Tabling of Documents 2945
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2945
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2970
Orders of the Day 2971
Friday, October 29, 2010 2919
220 – 3(2): Northwest Passage Trail Interpretive Program (Shewchuk) 2919
221 – 3(2): Nunavut Devolution (Aariak) 2920
222 – 3(2): Opening of the New Arctic Bay Airport (Taptuna) 2921
223 – 3(2): Release of Nunavut Housing Needs Survey (Curley) 2921
338 – 3(2): Reflections on the Democratic Rights of Nunavummiut (Aupaluktuq) 2922
339 – 3(2): Condolences to the Family of Firefighter Louie Qimirpik (Schell) 2923
340 – 3(2): Resigning from Executive Council, not as Member of the Legislative Assembly (Tapardjuk) 2923
341 – 3(2): Passing of Former Greenland Premier Jonathan Motzfeldt (Okalik) 2924
342 – 3(2): Trick or Treat? (Elliott) 2924
343 – 3(2): Child and Youth Advocate Must Be a Priority (Ugyuk) 2925
344 – 3(2): Solid Waste Issues in Pangnirtung (Komoartok) 2926
Return to Oral Question 476 – 3(2): Equality in Sport (Tapardjuk) 2927
Return to Oral Question 484 – 3(2): The Fate of Axel Heiberg Forest (Tapardjuk) 2928
Return to Oral Question 478 – 3(2): Update on Projects (Kusugak) 2928  Return to Oral Question 490 – 3(2): General Rate Application (Kusugak) 2928
504 – 3(2): Polar Bear Populations (Ningark) 2929
505 – 3(2): Economic Development in Smaller Communities (Rumbolt) 2931
506 – 3(2): Public Health Strategy (Elliott) 2932
507 – 3(2): Polar Bear Sport Hunts – Baffin Bay (Okalik) 2933
508 – 3(2): Staff of Medical Travel Office (Komoartok) 2936
509 – 3(2): Personal Use of Government Vehicles (Schell) 2938
510 – 3(2): Application of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in Nunavut Courts (Ugyuk) 2940
511 – 3(2): PPD Contracts in Nunavut Communities (Elliott) 2940