EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We received the request on Monday, and indeed, approved that request today.
If that is the case, it is good to see the effective wheels of the government moving, but if you could just confirm the date on that letter of request for an extension.
That is what I would like to see or find out for sure.
He said he didn’t have it with him, but if he can let me know of that at some future date.
He had indicated that they had agreed with that request. Can he indicate exactly what they agreed to?
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. Picco.  Hon. Ed Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The written request was acknowledged to extend the reporting timeframe to me as minister responsible for energy. We accepted that request and have extended the date to February 1, 2005, I believe.
Question 020 – 2(2): Community Initiative Program
I was waiting to get my hand noticed.
I will ask one question instead of two questions.
I would like to address the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Simailak.
I think there is a program in his department called Community Initiatives; what is that program used for?
How can the residents of Nunavut benefit from that?
The program is for the communities and can be requested through the hamlets.
It is an initiative for economic-development sort of programs for the residents of Nunavut, within the community.
From April 1 to September 15 is when they can request that funding.
If there is any money left over... . I think there was about $100,000.
There have been some requests for that funding.
If there is any money or a surplus of money, then they give out again, by requests from communities.
If that policy is that way, as the minister stated, if it is for only the economic development of a community, how come it has to go through the hamlets?
Hon, David Simailak (interpretation): It could be used for development or benefiting the people within the community.
It could also benefit some organizations.
It could all be requested from other organizations as well as the hamlet council.
In Rankin Inlet, there have been two proposals.
One entity got little bit of money, but I think there are two projects that requested, and one company had wanted to acquire new computers.
The businesses in that community would benefit from it as well.
But the assistant deputy minister stated that there has been an appeal and it could not be carried.
I just wondered if the minister will deny the applicant.
The funding is not really geared towards the purchasing of new computer equipment because it would not really benefit the community.
But I will look into that, Mr. Curley, and we’ll talk with the hamlet council and the mayor of Rankin Inlet. We were not able to do that last summer, but I will have a meeting with your mayor to try to understand what the process was.
Question 021 – 2(2): Visitation of Communities Regarding the Power Rate Increases
I would like to ask a question in regard to the power rate increases.
If there are visitations to the communities, which communities will be visited in regard to the power rate increases?
Speaker (interpretation): Minister for Energy, Mr. Picco.
The visitation by the Utility Rates Review Council has been widely publicized in the local media as well as Nunatsiaq News and the newspapers.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t have that with me, on the actual communities that the Utility Rates Review Council is visiting.
I will have to provide that information to the member.
Does he know approximately how many communities will be consulted?
With the efficient help of the Premier, the minister in charge of the Utility Rates Review Council, we have been able to get that information.
Let me begin by saying that consultations began here in Iqaluit on November 4 and 5.
They’ve continued through Qikiqtaaluk with stops planned for Igloolik, Arctic Bay, Grise Fiord, and Pond Inlet.
The council is currently on the Kivalliq and the Kitiqmeot portion with stops planned for Kugluktuk, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Baker Lake, Rankin Inlet, Arviat, and Coral Harbour.
Additional hearings are being scheduled in Iqaluit for November 29 and 30.
The current deadline for written submissions was for December 6, but earlier we said, in answer to a question from Mr. Tootoo, that we actually extended the deadline for 30 days for the Utility Rates Review Council to be able to their work. Coming out of their consultations are requests for other meetings, and maybe they can be facilitated through the longer timeframe.
I would like to ask again, what kind of mandate do these people that do the consulting have, the people that are visiting the communities?
Does it have anything to do with the higher power rates?
Are they visiting the communities that are supposed to be receiving higher power rates, or what is the guideline?
The process that we have right now goes back to 1995-96 through to 1998 when the last General Rate Application was held.
A lot of the members will remember when those hearings were held throughout the Northwest Territories, which included Nunavut at the time; there were three proposals on the table.
One was for a postage stamp rate, and the postage stamp rate means like a postage stamp, no matter if you are in Inuvik or Iqaluit or Ottawa, when you mail something it’s the same rate.
We looked at community zone rates and actual cost production rates by community.
Mr. Speaker, the General Rate Application of that period picked the community zone rate that we have right now in place, which means the actual cost of generating electricity has to be borne by that community.
That is why, as Mr. Curley was pointing out, some communities are very high and some are very low.
The Utility Rates Review Council has been mandated to review any request for a rate increase under legislation by the Government of Nunavut.
And their job, Mr. Speaker, is to take the proposal that has been made by the power corporation and to go out into the public to get feedback from residents, from homeowners, from businesses, from people in Nunavut, and to ascertain what the total request may or may not be.
That is their job.
They will report back to the Minister of Energy; the Minister of Energy then will look at the report, consult with the cabinet and so on, and then they move forward from there.
I don’t want to interfere in the Utility Rates Review Council process; it’s an independent process of that body, and we’ve got some very good, skilled people on that committee. Again, the proposal they are looking at is the proposal made by the power corporation; it’s not a government proposal. It’s a proposal made independently by the power corporation to the Utility Rates Review Council.
That is why the Utility Rates Review Council is looking at it independently.
Speaker (interpretation): Final supplementary, Mr. Kattuk.
But I have a concern, as I stated earlier on in this House, in regards to my community of Sanikiluaq. If their rates increase, it will not be good for my community.
I think those people that are consulting in the communities should have been talking or should have been visiting the communities whose power rates are going to be increased.
There are going to be a lot of concerned people in my community.
I would like the minister to consider that those people that are visiting should go to my community of Sanikiluaq because we are going to get a power hike.
I understand the concern the member had. The work that the Utility Rates Review Council is doing right now is based on a proposal made by the power corporation.
The power corporation has said, this is what we think we need; a postage stamp rate as we explained earlier.
I can’t tell, no one in this House can tell, if a rate will go up and how much by community, until the Utility Rates Review Council has looked at the financial data provided by the power corporation, the cost of doing business, and so on.
At the end of the day, I believe the government realizes, and I think we’ve said that over the last day-and-a-half now in the House by some of the statements by the finance minister and so on, and the speech from the throne... . We realize that you can’t put an abnormal burden on our smaller communities, because there is no base.
Eighty percent of all income generated by the power company comes directly or indirectly from government.
When you look at the member’s community, for example, in Sanikiluaq, the biggest users of power in Sankiluaq are the health centre, nursing station, and the school.
The hamlet is not a tax based municipality, so the money that the power corporation generates from Sanikiluaq would be a transfer from the government of Nunavut, because we fund the hamlet.
The housing increase, if we increase the housing... . There may be fifteen homeowners in Sanikiluaq at the most, the rest are social housing units or staff housing.
That means the government of Nunavut has to pay for that increase.
We realize that eighty percent of revenue is generated from one group of people, in this case, the Government of Nunavut, and the impact should not be carried on the backs of the consumer in general or the constituents.
I believe we’re cognizant of that, but at the end of the day the Utilities Rate Review Council has to do their work; they will come back with their recommendation.
I will contact the URRC and say that there is a request to visit Sanikiluaq, on behalf of the member, but again they have to fit that into the schedule that they have already come up with.
I’m not sure what the logistics of doing that would be, but I will make the request as asked by the member on behalf for the member , thank you Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Question 022 – 2(2): Renewing Eye Doctors’ Contract
My question is directed to the minister of health.
The eye doctors usually visit the communities, which is really good, but in my constituency there has been concern in regard to the optometrist’s visits and the eye doctor’s visits.
Sometimes, after the eye doctors arrive, the patients have to wait until well over four months for their eye glasses, and then once the eye glasses arrive they receive the wrong prescription glasses.
Therefore, I would like to ask the minister responsible: what’s the contract for the eye doctor?
Are you going to be renewing the contract?
Mr. Speaker (interpretation): Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Brown.
Miss Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The contract with the health department varies.
They visit communities for a certain amount of days, but I will have to find out how many times a year they visit your community.
I don’t have that information at my fingertips.
Once I get that information I will be able to respond to you, as I have no knowledge of what the figure is.
Mr. Speaker: The minister is taking the question as notice.
Question 023 – 2(2): Health Care Funding Details
I appreciate the minister giving us a fiscal update today on the health care funding.
On September 16 I read a news release, a government news release, that the department would inject 200- $300 million in the next 6 years.
What I’m wondering is if the minister could provide us with the information on what exact details of the deal will be revealed to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance, Ms. Aglukkak.
Hon. Leona Aglukkak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In terms of the two meetings that we’ve had with my colleagues, the Premier as well as the health minister, what I outlined today about health as far as the increases to the formula... . As it relates to your question, I can commit to providing the details to the House during this sitting.
Can the minister assure the House that funding will be used for health care and not for anything else, for example, a bail-out of the Nunavut Power Corporation?
I outlined in the update the funding that will go to health.
One example is medical travel.
The federal government has agreed to cover 50 percent of the medical travel costs for Nunavut, and that is specifically for that area.
The other area, as I have mentioned, was related to health capacity building, training as far as the delivery of health.
Those funds have been identified and earmarked for health services.
I thank the minister for that information.
On September 16, in fact, there were two news releases issued by the Government of Nunavut.
Both had the same title, “Nunavut Negotiates Multi-Million Dollar Health Deal.”
The deal would inject between 200- and $300 million over the next six years into Nunavut’s "health system".
That was the first news release that was recalled by the Government of Nunavut.
The second news release, with the same title and information, said the deal would inject between 200- and $300 million over the next six years into Nunavut’s "public accounts".
I just found that kind of an interesting thing to do.
Could the minister explain to the House why the government found it necessary to recall the first news release?
First of all, from what I understand, the news release was presented during the First Ministers’ meeting, the early one in September.
From what I understand, there was a minor error in the first release, and it was recalled and the second release was deemed to be good.
So, I am taking it that the minister is committing that the 200- to $300 million dollars negotiated for health care will be used only for health care in Nunavut.
Is the minister giving her commitment to us today if that is in fact the case?
There were two funds introduced.
There was the changes to the formula financing.
There was also incremental funding for health and there was also incremental funding under the new arrangement the federal government introduced, which is the base, which is referred to as the floor.
So, there are three areas of incremental funding that we received from the federal government.
Not all of that will go towards health; these areas specific to health will go to health, but that does not exclude the department of health from also accessing funding under the new formula as well as the floor arrangement.
Question 024 – 2(2): Update on the Location of a New Heritage Centre
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth and Heritage.
As we are aware, the first Assembly paid over $300,000 to pay for the consultants to find out where the heritage centre would be located.
They made recommendations to the government which would be the best ideal place.
Have you selected from the recommendations a location?
Specifically, have you decided as to where the heritage centre would be located and what kind of criteria have been set?
Speaker (interpretation): The minister responsible for heritage, Mr. Tapardjuk.
Yes, it is true: back in August 2002 there was a review done on the heritage centre.
They tabled it in June 2003 during the Legislative Assembly meeting in Baker Lake.
At this time there is a working group that has been struck to review this with representatives from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Inuit Heritage Trust and also our Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth. Together we have formed a working group that just recently started.
I can say, Mr. Speaker, that this is running a bit late, but through negotiations, we are now trying to identify an individual to work.
This working group is now looking and reviewing the recommendations.
Also we are now consulting with the federal government and they have stated that the federal government would be willing to pay for half of the heritage centre, but we have to find the other half on our own.
For that reason the working group is now reviewing the recommendations.
Once they have decided, then they will make recommendations on the location of the heritage centre.
Mr. Speaker, we are expecting that from the working group, but at this time I cannot identify, formally, as to where the location would be of the heritage centre, because we are depending on the working group to do their review.
I thank the minister for responding.
The second question that I would like to ask is if you can inform the House as to who the members of the working group committee are, if possible.
And also, if there is going to be a community consultation tour, would the working group recommend the location?
Is this working group going to make a recommendation to the cabinet before they make a decision?
I would like to hear more about that.
The working group committee will review all the recommendations that were made.
For example, if they identify one community, how can we give services to the smaller communities.
So, those are the issues that they will have to review and they will have to weigh that.
As I stated, in 2003 they made recommendations in the Baker Lake session.
At this time the working group committee is now reviewing the decision made in June 2003, as we are aware.
During the Arviat meeting we agreed that we need to establish the heritage centre, therefore the working group has been charged to review the whole thing.
Also, the working group, after their review is done, would look at where they would receive the funding, where the ideal location would be.
We envisioned the location, but we cannot state where the new location would be as we speak and not until the working group has completed their review.
I’m sure that cabinet will be informed after the recommendation by the working group.
After the working group has made their decision I will inform the House.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I think this is my last supplementary.
Some of the communities expect to see the heritage centre, and they expect to be involved. If this goes ahead it would be ideal.
The reason why I’m asking this, Mr. Speaker, is that it states in our document that it would be ideal to have the heritage centre be part of the Legislative Assembly.
I was wondering, are you considering making the heritage centre at the new Legislative Assembly?
The working group committee is now just working on reviewing the heritage centre; Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Inuit Heritage, and Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth and the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, we will need support from the business sector as we try to identify the funding for that.
So, the working group is diligently reviewing this and we expect the working group to come up with their recommendations after their review of the June 2003 decision.
The working group will provide recommendations to us.
Written Question 006 – 2(2): Public Housing Construction in Nunavut
I am going to read it in English: “A Written Question to the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Hon. Peter Kilabuk.”
(interpretation ends) By community, how many public housing units were actually constructed during the construction season for each of the following fiscal years;
2004-2005 to date April 1 2004, to September 30, 2004
What were the actual costs for units for construction and material in each community in each of the construction seasons listed above?
What panels were assessed under section 12.6(f) of NNI Policy on Construction Contracts in each of the seasons listed above?
What bonuses were awarded under sections 12.1(e) and 12.1(g) of NNI Policy on Construction Contracts in each of the seasons listed above?
Written Question 007 – 2(2): Recidivism Rates and Rehabilitation Programs
I would like to direct the written question to the Minister of Justice, Paul Okalik.
I will read it in English. (interpretation ends)Recidivism rates and rehabilitation program:
How does the Department of Justice calculate the recidivism rates for offenders in territorial custody?
What is the rate of recidivism for adult male offenders in Nunavut?
What is the rate for recidivism for male young offenders in Nunavut?
How does the Department of Justice measure the effectiveness of its rehabilitation programs?
What types of substance abuse programs are offered to inmates in territorial custody with respect to (a) alcohol abuse (b) drug abuse?
What types of rehabilitation and counselling programs are offered to inmates convicted of sex offenses?
What educational and literacy programs are provided to inmates?
From April 1, 1999 to November 1, 2004, how many offenders participated in the substance abuse programs?
What types of employment skills programs exists for inmates?
What types of anger management programs are offered to inmates?
What are the Department of Justices guidelines with respect to rehabilitation programs being offered on a mandatory or a voluntary basis?
What are the guidelines for determining which inmates qualify for on-the-land and outpost programs, and is the rate of recidivism different for inmates who participate in these programs in relation to offenders who do not participate in them?
What rehabilitation programs will be offered at the new Kugluktuk men’s healing facility?
Written Question 008 – 2(2): Dropout and Truancy Rates in Nunavut Schools
My question is for the Minister of Education and it is about drop-out rates and truancy rates in Nunavut schools.
Within the context of the public education system in Nunavut, how does the government formerly determine when a student has dropped out of school?
For each school year indicated below, what were the school drop-out rates, broken down by community, school, grade level, and gender of students:
Within the meanings section, section 27 and section 28 of the Education Act, how does the government determine when non-attendance of school is considered truancy?
For each of the school years indicated below, what were Nunavut’s school truancy rates broken down by community, by school, by grade level, and by gender of students?
2000-2001 school year, 2001-02 school year, 2002-03 school year, 2003-04 school year?
Sections 27 and 28 of the Education Act specifically specify the requirements for attendance at school as well as the consequences for non-attendance.
For the periods listed above, has the department received any reports or queries from schools or district education authorities on the implementation of these sections of the act, and if so, what action was taken?
Written Questions 009 – 2(2): Administration of the Liquor Act and Other Matters
My question is for the Hon. Leona Aglukkaq, the minister responsible for the Liquor Act, concerning administration of the Liquor Act and other matters.
On November 5, 2003, the Nunavut Liquor Act was amended to increase the fines for certain offences under the Act, including the legal serving of alcohol.
On November 6, 2003 to November 1, 2004, broken down by category of offence by community in which an offence occurred, and where public fines were posed for the violations of the act, what were the amounts of each fine?
What was the comparable data for the period of November 1, 2002 to November 5, 2003?
What were the total number of licences recorded under the Liquor Act during each of the following calendar years:
2004 to date?
On December 19, 2001, the Government of Nunavut announced reductions in the fee structure for imported liquor products.
Subsequent to this announcement, what specific methodology has the Government of Nunavut used to measure the effectiveness of its change of reducing the illegal importation of liquor into Nunavut?
How much money did the Government of Nunavut raise for liquor import fees, broken down by community in which permits were purchased, in each of the following fiscal years:
2004-05 to date?
As of November 1, 2004, what expenditures has the Government of Nunavut incurred in respect to the establishment of the Nunavut Liquor Commissioner’s office and warehouse facilities in Rankin Inlet?
As of November 1, 2004, what is the status of repatriation of the Nunavut Liquor Commission programs and services previously administered under the Northwest Territories Liquor Commission on a contractual basis?
Petition 002 – 2(2): Request for a Mini-Mall
I have a petition from Clyde River for the request of a mini-mall; this is privately owned.
We have 333 signatures.
Petition 003 – 2(2): Demand for More Public Housing
I am very pleased to rise today to submit a petition from the Cambridge Bay Housing Association.
It is signed by 208 people in the community of Cambridge Bay, and it says: “We, the people of Cambridge Bay as undersigned, vote for the Government of Nunavut to build more public housing units and to allocate more funding in the 2005-06 budget to do so.”
Speaker (interpretation): Petitions.