EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
My question is: is it going to be independent from the government or part of a government organization or board?
I would like to get clarification on whether the status of this body will be independent since most advocacy organizations are usually at arm’s length from governments.
I would like the minister to elaborate on the plans for this body’s creation, as per their vision.
As I stated earlier last week, the issue has been raised by various parties as to their respective organization’s visions of this type of body and how it should be structured.
To date, the officials conducting the study are making preparations on what the body will look like based on their reviews of the provincial models and their operations. The cases they have looked at in the provinces usually involve an independent process outside of government that creates the advocacy body, which itself is independent of government.
The current model is being looked at and it will include the consideration of an independent body as part of this initiative.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for the response and I comprehend fully that the idea is to have it completely independent of the government.
That is what I think I understood.
If this is indeed the envisioned structure for this body, how long of a timeframe are we looking at prior to its establishment?
Many Inuit would like to see this body created and we hope that is the case.
As the legislators responsible for our children, we have to have the proper information to make the right decisions therein.
Our expectations are that the legislation creating this body will be ready for review during our upcoming 2012 spring session. (interpretation ends) In English, the legislation is expected to be in place in the spring of 2012.
Question 269 – 3(3): Legislative Agenda for Child and Youth Advocate (Elliott)
Actually, I had a question for the Minister of Environment, but the Premier’s answer has brought up another question.
I think she said, in the answer to Ms. Ugyuk, the spring of 2012, yet in her Minister’s Statement, it says, “I will introduce a draft bill in the June session,” which would happen in June of this year.
Where the confusion comes for me is: will this be tabled or will it go into the House for first and second reading, so then it can be discussed in Committee of the Whole?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) According to the information that I have, the legislation is expected to be introduced in the spring of 2012.
Specifically, what I would like to know is in terms of the wording of being introduced.
Will you be introducing it for first reading of the bill and second reading of the bill?
I can’t forecast whether the bill will be read for the first or second time and whether it would be completed in time for the first or second reading. As I don’t have the current information to confirm this, we will be able to determine that during the spring session. I will be able to respond once I have the information.
Tabled Document 152 – 3(3): Report on the Impacts of the European Union Seal Ban (Arreak)
I am pleased to table the Report on the Impacts of the European Union Seal Ban.
Minister responsible for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation, Minister Taptuna.
Tabled Document 153 – 3(3): Procurement Activity Report for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation for the Period April 1, 2008-March 31, 2009 and April 1, 2009-March 31, 2010 (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the Procurement Activity Report for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation for the period April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 and April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010.
Bill 25 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 6, 2010-2011 – Notice
Bill 26 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2011-2012 – Notice
Bill 27 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2012-2013 – Notice
Bill 28 – Write-off of Assets Act, 2011-2012 – Notice
Bill 29 – Write-off of Assets Act, No. 1, 2010-2011 – Notice
As the sponsoring minister, I give notice that on Wednesday, February 29, 2012, I will move that the following bills be read for the first time:
Bill 26, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2011-2012;
Bill 27, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2012-2013;
Bill 28, Write-off of Assets Act, 2011-2012; and
Bill 29, Write-off of Assets Act, No. 1, 2010-2011.
Bill 30 – Building Code Act – Notice
Bill 31 – An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act – Notice
I give notice that on Wednesday, February 29, 2012, that Bill 30, Building Code Act, be read for the first time; and also on the same time, that Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 32 – An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act – Notice
I give notice that on Wednesday, February 29, 2012, that Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Legal Services Act, be read for the first time.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, February 29, 2012, that Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act, be read for the first time.
Those are in order.
>>House recessed at 15:10 and Committee resumed at 15:37
Chairman (Mr. Tapardjuk) (interpretation): Thank you for returning to the Committee of the Whole.
I would like to call the committee meeting to order. We left off on page G-10.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bill 21, Bill 24, and Bill 34.
Today we would like to resume our review of Bill 24 and the Department of Education and, if time permits, we would like to commence our review of the Department of Health and Social Services.
Before we proceed, I would like to inform Jeannie that we are on page G-10.
Minister Aariak, you haven’t gone to the witness table yet.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Yes, please.
Minister, for the record, please introduce your witnesses. Minister Aariak.
We are pleased to be back here.
To my left is my Deputy Minister, Kathy Okpik.
To my right is Ms. Fanjoy, Controller.
Welcome, Deputy Minister Okpik and Ms. Fanjoy.
We are under G-10 and according to my list of names, Mr. Enook, if you have any further questions or did you run out of questions? Your name is still listed, so please continue.
I thank you again for having kept my name written down.
I don’t have too many other detailed questions, but I just need clarification on the financial assistance program for Nunavut students.
Mr. Chairman, when I use the word “ilinniaqtit,” I use it in the context of an adult student taking post-secondary courses.
So when I use that term, I want everyone to understand that I’m talking about those students.
Mr. Chairman, if I can get your concurrence to continue with my line of questioning on problems faced by these students, which can lead to stressful situations, I wanted to raise a question.
When the financial assistance program process is undertaken, this leads to a frenzied process of back and forth communications, usually via facsimile, with papers being sent back and forth, which also leads to further delays.
Why hasn’t this process ever been improved? Is it because this program is written in stone and cannot be changed? Is that why it cannot be improved?
This problem is now known and understood by departmental officials, at least in the Department of Education. That is why the department is trying to computerize the whole application process so that it doesn’t lead to further time delays with the back-and-forth faxing of the paperwork.
That is why we have tried to computerize it to ensure a faster process.
I also thank the minister for her response.
I want to refer back to the comment stating that the process would become computerized.
Now, while they are completing the digital application process changes, does this mean that our current students will experience the same time lag issues related to their applications?
Up to now, the Department of Education hasn’t received any information about students experiencing issues related to this program, although I suppose there are a few in that category as has been provided to our colleague for Tununiq.
Prior to the system becoming entirely computerized, our officials are working hard to try to ensure the program runs smoothly for our current applicants.
Prior to raising another question, I just cannot understand the response provided by the minister because she has stated on more than one occasion that these problems were not known by the department.
In light of the fact that all students experience some problems throughout their courses, I find it hard to believe that the department is unaware of the issues.
Do I understand that the department has never heard of any complaints from students about all of the barriers they face under this process?
Is this what I understand?
I regret that students faced these problems and that our department was not aware of them. There are different funding programs that students can apply for. There are assistance funds that are available from the Nunavut government as well as other agencies and organizations.
Without knowing exactly which program is causing the issues, it is hard to determine which program needs improvement. That is all I can speak to at this time.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Premier.
Any further questions? Mr. Enook.
If I were to raise questions on matters outside those operated by our government, I would just be wasting time as we cannot make decisions on matters that are not under our mandate.
I’m trying to direct my question with respect to this aspect of the government operations as this is a program created by the territorial government to provide financial assistance to Nunavut students.
I don’t question any other aspect of our government operations.
I want to raise this question. During Friday’s question period, the question I raised as a member doesn’t seem to have been raised before based on the minister’s response.
Are her senior advisors omitting issues that require her attention about these pressing problems that the majority of our students face?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Aariak.
With respect to issues passed on to the HQ administration, we are informed whenever a complaint or an appeal is submitted to our department. It is generally related to individuals who were refused for funding assistance. I personally haven’t heard of actual cases submitted for resolution at our office and if I have been informed of a previous complaint, I would immediately notify my responsible minister.
I have received letters from several members representing their communities about any issues related to the educational field. I believe that our administration is open to any recommendations that would improve our service delivery.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Okpik. Mr. Enook.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the deputy minister for her response. I believe I understand this to mean that the program itself is not problematic.
However, this leads me to believe that the employees responsible for approving the funding requests are not communicating with each other. It seems that neither division is working together. In other words, they’re working in a vacuum.
To cite this example, the minister stated that this was the first time she was made aware of the issue and that she lacks background information on the matter.
Additionally, when the deputy minister stated that she has been made aware of a few cases, it seems to me that the underlings who are receiving these complaints are not passing it to their superiors.
Why does it seem as if the departmental officials are not aware of other programs in their department? Is it because communication is an issue? To me, it does not seem so.
I wonder how I can best request further action in representing my fellow Inuit and Nunavummiut. When a concern is brought before the administration, it is an obligation to conduct a review to see if the complaint has any merit, especially when we continually spout our support to our youth in advancing their education. Furthermore, this is true, especially if we want to provide concrete support for our aspiring students.
Education is indeed important.
Education is very important to everyone.
In order to determine if the issues raised by the member are appropriate, we will ensure that we carefully scrutinize the matters raised. Not all applicants for the FANS program are approved and this is unfortunate, but it’s something we all have to be aware of.
If a review is required, we will commit to it, especially since the member raised the issues via his comments.
So I concur with the member that we can conduct a more thorough review of the matter.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for her response.
If we were not provided the response, “we will look into it,” it would be much better.
I would really prefer that the whole program be comprehensively reviewed. We should stop saying we will conduct a review.
With respect to students who are not approved for funding, are they included in this review? We are all aware of policies and legislation that bars certain individuals from being approved with no means of appeal, although most cases tend to have reasons for non-approval.
I believe that the biggest problem faced by those students approved for funding is that they have to then go through a bureaucratic exercise to obtain their funding. This is the biggest obstacle. Once the student is approved, it just seems more barriers or problems crop up to complete the paperwork.
That makes the approval seem trivial as it leads to more work to complete the process. That is the real reason why students are unhappy with the way the funding approval process plays out and I believe it causes the most unhappiness.
The last question I have with respect to this matter is that I’m aware of other agencies that provide funding for students, such as NGO student funding programs.
Here in the Baffin region, Kakivak Association is one of these funding bodies.
Has the departmental bureaucracy ever attempted to communicate with these bodies?
An example would be departmental representatives conducting best practice surveys to learn how best to operate a funding program that provides the most benefit with such questions as what works best, what causes the most problems, and teamwork. Has the department ever explored multi-agency discussions on this issue?
We are on G-10. Adult Education and Post-secondary Services.
Total Operations and Maintenance. Minister Aariak.
When I was here in front of the committee last week, I remarked that the funding program was being reviewed, but the process is still ongoing.
Once the review has been completed, I will be able to provide a better response and I want that totally understood.
Once the process has been digitized, it will make it much easier to resolve the problems students face today.
The program is being reviewed with an emphasis on the funding process, including the work to digitize the application process in order to lessen the problems.
There is also a committee comprised of various representatives from different organizations, such as the federal representative from HRDC, including the Inuit organizations that provide funding and meet to resolve problems.
They debate these issues when they review issues.
Yes, I totally understand my colleague’s questions, including the questions he raised on Friday.
A matter which is quite disconcerting to me is the minister’s insistence that she hasn’t heard of these issues previously. This is kind of shocking to hear because it seems to indicate an employee is not fulfilling their responsibilities.
It seems that the overriding mentality of those involved is that this program is being reviewed, so why should they fix it. I wonder why this is the case with this minister.
I believe that she is not being provided with the proper briefing notes since ministers must always be made aware of problems, sometimes on a daily basis.
The reasoning here is this: in Nunavut, students taking post-secondary courses, whether it’s NTEP, the Nursing Program, or the Environmental Technology Program, or non-trades courses, generally tend to have families and children. Sometimes these students experience a lot of hardship just trying to attend to their classes.
Many students expect approval to programs that are meant to assist them, particularly this program. It would be better if the students at least can get this funding because it would help.
Madam Minister, why aren’t your officials keeping you apprised of these problems that cause difficulties?
I am holding the portfolio temporarily for the Department of Education. However, I can state unequivocally that my deputy minister always keeps me informed of priority issues that a minister requires.
With respect to the review of the student assistance program that is ongoing at this time, the review was undertaken since the officials themselves identified the need for a review to resolve the problems that exist within the program. These areas that require improvement will be assessed.
Once all problems are identified, such as “due to this requirement, the students experience these problems,” they can brainstorm to resolve the barriers in order to expedite the process. This is currently what is occurring. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. During our representation here on behalf of Nunavutmiut, we can state that the government should never state that a minister is only holding a portfolio temporarily.
The minister is still responsible, even if it’s short term. If the person believes it’s only temporary or even if they want it short term, they are still responsible as a minister.
Due to this reason, I want a bit more detail about this professed departmental review. What kind of mandate does it have? When was this authorized?
Furthermore, who do they report their findings to? I don’t quite grasp who or what is to be reviewed in the FANS program, if I am correct. Perhaps it would be prudent to clarify these details to the House.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the member for the question, which is good to hear. I thank him for raising that.
As a minister, you continually have to review the pressing issues within your portfolio and all ministers are faced with the need to review matters.
In that same vein, I appreciate your various lines of questioning regarding the services and programs the members feel need improvement. You have identified issues you want clarified and I thank you for that.
For a more detailed response, I will have my deputy minister respond as this is an operational matter within the daily operations.
We have collaborated on this issue as a departmental committee. This committee includes personnel from Arviat, our HQ offices here in Iqaluit, my ADM, as well as the director of policy and planning.
Additionally, the elders’ coordinators are also involved in the work.
This is an ongoing process, especially in how we will define the policy application. We’ve had an initial meeting with representatives from outside the GN, such as Nunavut Arctic College and NTI, whom we have to consult with further on this issue.
That is how we are implementing this review.
Yes, another question I wish to ask is with respect to the FANS program application process.  When funding is requested, we heard that some students are not eligible.
We understood from the remarks on Friday that students also face funding barriers when they apply as all of their prior year’s income has to be included.
It doesn’t matter if they held a job, whether it was a part-time position, or if their spouse was working full time or part time, as this will affect their funding levels.
Does it mean that all their annual income or benefits from the various scholarship funds have to be included in this prior level of income? If the annual household income was above the threshold, does this mean they are not eligible? What is the maximum amount that can qualify?
What is the minimum and maximum amount listed there?
In this case, I refer to the maximum because students above a certain income level are not eligible and that is obvious. What is the cap on their earnings before they can qualify for the financial assistance program? I would like clarification on that first.
I’ll have my deputy respond to that question.
As far as potential student options, there are three main organizations where they can get financial assistance. The first one they can apply for is this FANS program we are discussing. For those students taking Arctic College courses, they can apply to FANS, which has various categories for funding levels.
If the student is single or if they have dependants or a spouse, or if their spouse is working or not, then the levels correspond to the number of dependants that student is responsible for.
For example, anyone attending Nunavut Arctic College with a spouse and four children would receive $1,719 monthly.
If they are married or they are with a spouse who is not working and they have four dependants, they would receive $2,600 per month. Alternatively, any student who is a single parent with four dependants would receive $2,350 monthly.
To add to this, this number can apply to a student with a spouse and three children as the spouse would be counted as a dependant.
Everything is categorized and when they fill out the form, they have to state whether their spouse is working or not.
If a spouse is working part time or on a casual basis, I haven’t heard about that issue, but I will have to ask our departmental officials about the details. However, if the spouse happens to find employment partway through the school year, they would still have to report it.
I would like to ask another question on this matter.
On Friday, it became obvious that the officials were not really paying attention when our colleague was asking questions with respect to the students who are already approved. Based on the comments, apparently, it takes an interminable time prior to the approved students receiving their funding.
Perhaps it would be easier if the schools would publicize the time periods required for the approval process prior to the start dates. I imagine they have to apply by a certain month or week in order to get funding. Does the department have a schedule or outline of the time periods for this approval process that a student can review prior to applying for a course?
Can we get a bit more information on this, details such as application start dates, the length of the approval process, and the deadline? I imagine there is one.
Are the students given this information prior to applying? This is based on the previous questions raised on this matter. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
The FANS application form clearly identifies these dates.
July 15 is when the application forms need to be sent in for the fall semester.
November 15 is the deadline for the winter semester. The corresponding spring semester deadline is March 1.
When you responded last week, I understood the statement that the minister made. Once a student’s application form has been approved for funding, the process usually takes five days to get the cheque or deposit completed.
As I stated, the process takes five days, after which it is sent out, and that is the way it used to be. I would like to have my deputy minister respond as this is an operational issue within the day-to-day operations of the department.
We try really hard to conclude the applications within this five-day period after the application has been approved. It usually takes two weeks for electronic PAL transfer deposits to a banking institution.
When a student doesn’t have the same banking institution as the GN’s bank, it usually takes a bit longer for the transfer to get deposited into their account, which people have to be aware of.
The GN’s bank is the Royal Bank. So when students have an account with a different bank, it takes a bit longer for the transfer to go through. It is also much faster if the student has an RBC account, especially in the same branch.