EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
There are some communities that receive the Non-Insured Health Benefits: Arctic Bay has their airport furthest from the community; next is Whale Cove at 13 miles; and then Coral Harbour at 12 miles; as well as other communities that have long access roads to the airport.
There are certain restrictions that apply and that is the biggest obstacle that they face at this time, but I want to assure the member that we will keep that in consideration.
I also thank the minister for stating that they will keep that in consideration.
It is quite obvious that people in duress, especially those who are suffering from terminal illness, are always looking for assistance.
A lot of them go on the local radio and they want to be transferred between certain places.
If insurance is the biggest obstacle, then you should perhaps be looking at our people. Even the community residents have to look after their own and if you are going to look at insurance, then that could apply to the entire community.
Based on his response, I will await a reply following his review and if there is nothing done up until the June session, I will ensure that I bring it up again.
I didn’t hear a question, but I’m sure the minister will look into this for the next session.
Question 039 – 3(3): Homeowner Fuel Rebate Program (Rumbolt)
During yesterday’s oral question period, I asked the minister questions about the government’s Homeowner Fuel Rebate Program.
The minister informed the Legislative Assembly that the government’s Homeowner Fuel Rebate Program was, and I quote, “a very good program.”
However, Mr. Speaker, he also said that the program is not necessary this year because it’s a program that’s only provided in certain years if we have funding available and the weather is unseasonably cold.
Can the minister clarify whether the decision to not offer the program again this year was driven by dollars or degrees?
I thank Mr. Rumbolt for following up. I certainly applaud his initiative and actions to help homeowners.
Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Rumbolt asked the question yesterday, I have gone back to my officials and we’re looking very closely at the program to see if there’s a way that we can consider funding it again this year.
As we have indicated earlier in the budget speech this week, funds are very tight, but I would like to assure the member opposite that I’ll take a closer look at it.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Your supplementary, Member for Hudson Bay.
I had other questions, but considering that the minister has already considered looking into this further, I would like to thank the minister for that on behalf of all of the homeowners in Nunavut.
Question 040 – 3(3): Issues with Medical Diagnosis (Ningark)
I would like to also direct a question to the Minister of Health and Social Services.
A couple of days ago, we were reviewing the minister’s departmental allocations and the minister spoke to the priorities of his department.
At that time, I stated that I hadn’t read anything related to health prevention issues.
Furthermore, inside the Tamapta policy document, it speaks about healthy living for Nunavummiut and to ensure that we prevent sicknesses for our residents.
I would like an update as we often hear of stories of people in Nunavut who make appointments to the health centre but the nurses tell the person that they are fine.
It seems, Mr. Speaker that the proper diagnosis is only made when the disease has become advanced and becomes untreatable.
Many people believe in the government and want to use the health system, but why is it we see misdiagnosis?
Is it because the person does not look ill or sick when they go to the health centre, or is it that the medical practitioners don’t want to conduct testing?
Why do we have a system that allows people to suffer illnesses and by the time the proper diagnosis is made, it is too late and untreatable?
I believe I responded to this earlier, but I will have to go back to the Hansard.
Public health and medical services are two separate divisions.
If we looked at the public health division, they provide quite a few services if we were to review their mandate.
The division provides a lot of disease prevention initiatives, such as vaccinations, flu shots, and those types of services provided by public health. If you look at the Public Health Strategy, it involves the community health representatives.
They are being tasked to look at disease prevention, tobacco cessation, and other similar pubic service announcements via the local radios, and we also have a quit line program that is a toll-free number.
Furthermore, if you look at diseases like cancer, sexually transmitted infections, and mental issues, there is a plethora of information out there for young people.
People would be able to go to the public health facility and peruse the information on the notice boards, but there are many Inuit who dislike reading health notices in syllabics and whenever the patient is bilingual, invariably, they will read the English forms or check online for the information. The digital age allows our people to research specific diseases and to collect information via the World Wide Web.
The digital information available via the computer continues to grow. This includes information on healthy living and healthy bodies.
I can also state that funding for community wellness programs is provided in all of our communities from the federal government in partnership with our territorial government departments.
They are currently working on the details of these programs. These initiatives are ongoing and have improved.
I can state that in comparing this to the past, it has improved.
However, why have these diseases become more prevalent in Nunavut? What are the underlying reasons and mitigating factors for the increases in the number of people suffering from these diseases?
I personally cannot even answer this question myself.
People can generally tell when they are suffering from sickness. Even if they don’t read about the symptoms, they know that they are sick as their body is in pain.
When a person is suffering from pain, they go to the health centre where they explain the symptoms to the nurses, but they’re not properly diagnosed and just sent home.
On more than one occasion, I have heard from patients’ relatives who question why our doctors find out the cause of sickness when it’s too late for it to be treatable.
The patient is suffering and tries to get it treated. How can we correct the misdiagnoses that occur?
Perhaps once the health department personnel are fully staffed in all communities and we have specialists available, we may have less of an issue.
I wish to respond to the member in regard to the nurses in the community health centres. Their duties don’t include full diagnosis and they are not doctors, so they are unable to properly diagnose the cause, but they generally refer an issue to a doctor.
Either they refer the patient to the next visitation of the doctor or if they feel that the sickness is at an advanced stage, then they send them out for testing.
It would be a lot better if the diagnosis was faster and they were able to diagnose them properly.
In some cases, only when specialists arrive in the community are they able to properly test and diagnose the person.
It’s very hard to try to diagnose every patient and every illness.
Sometimes they are lucky that they are able to do a proper diagnosis.
It seems a lot of people fall through the cracks and misdiagnosis is generally not on purpose.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. minister for his response.
We are aware of the many difficulties that we have and sometimes you have to wait for a specialist.
However, when the specialist arrives in the community, they are so inundated with work that they are unable to see all of the patients. This is a problem in itself.
Many people have concerns, including the nurses. So I urge that the department look at not just setting aside two or three days for a specialist to arrive in a community, but to give them enough time so that they are able to diagnose all of the patients who require them.
Again, we can’t just walk across the road and go to a doctor and say, “I would like to make an appointment.”
A lot of times, we have to wait an indeterminate amount of time before the next specialist visit. Is there any way to fix the time lag here?
I personally can’t respond to this because I’m not a medical expert by any means.
We do have a chief medical officer who takes notes and we will ensure that we pass along the concerns of the member, including their recommendations.
Again, illnesses and diseases run the gamut from terminal to ongoing, so we have to try to look at the most prevalent sicknesses and prioritize the specialists.
Sometimes it may involve participation between the patient and the nurses.
If we start taking ownership of the health system, then it would enable the communities to better able to deal with health issues.
I’m very satisfied that you have expressed the concerns of your constituents.
We will pass along your concerns and issues to the chief medical officer and we will ensure that our medical experts review them.
I also thank the Hon. Minister Curley.
Perhaps the community health representatives could go on the local radio to give advance notice of a week or two prior to the doctor’s or specialist’s arrival.
I would like to cite this example: “The specialist will be coming on March 15.
If you want to make an appointment, then come to the health centre.”
It would make it a lot easier for communities if they knew ahead of time.
Yes, we will try to keep that recommendation in mind. I believe that we can make improvements.
If you recall yesterday during our committee review, the deputy minister responded that there was a communication strategy but that we need to improve our communication with respect to public advisories and health matters.
They will be revising the communication strategy, which I reviewed, with respect to local advisories about visiting specialists.
If the member wants to raise a further question with respect to this issue, it would also assist us in our attempts to make revisions.
I believe that it can be incorporated as we need to keep our residents well informed about the visits in the future. I concur with you on this matter.
Question 041 – 3(3): Status of Airport Equipment Shelter for Chesterfield Inlet (Ningeongan)
Now that the minister has had time to update his binders, I want to follow up on the information that the minister provided to me this week concerning the airport equipment shelter for Chesterfield Inlet.
In his return to my oral question, the minister indicated that the department has, and I quote, “revised the scope of these buildings and has re-tendered the projects.”
Can the minister clarify exactly what changes have been made to the Chesterfield Inlet Airport Equipment Shelter project?
Mr. Speaker, the re-tendering of any kind of specific project like that is usually due to over-budgeting. The project that we hope to have accomplished in Chesterfield Inlet and the modifications to the RFP is usually based on the amount of money available for that specific project.
In his return to my oral question, the minister did indicate those factors for 2010.
The original budget for the Chesterfield Inlet Airport Equipment Shelter was $600,000, which was provided through the federal Building Canada Fund.
Can the minister clarify whether this tender was for both the materials and labour to construct the shelter?
Again I thank you for that very important question.
The budgets that are put forth for specific projects like that are usually for the complete package; for transportation, for supplies, and the construction of the infrastructure as detailed in the RFP.
Again, Mr. Speaker, some of the revamping of the RFPs is usually because we do need to find the appropriate construction company to build these equipment shelters on budget.
In his return to my oral question, the minister indicated that this project has been re-tendered and that the tender will close on March 8 of this year.
As I noted in my Member’s Statement a few days ago, I believe that it would be helpful for the government to provide MLAs with copies of the tenders and RFPs that are issued for projects in their constituencies.
Will the minister commit to providing me with a copy of the tender documents for the Chesterfield Inlet Airport Equipment Shelter?
We work closely with another department in the tendering process, that being CGS, and surely will accommodate in getting more information out to the communities and the hamlets on specific tenders for their communities.
In his return to my oral question, the minister indicated that “The department is hopeful that these projects can all be successfully awarded for delivery and construction in the 2011 season.”
As I noted earlier, the funding for this and other airport equipment shelter projects in Repulse Bay and Igloolik was provided through the federal Building Canada Fund.
As the minister indicated in his response to my question, the bids that the department received were all above budget.
Can the minister clarify whether the federal funds will remain available to the GN until such time as the projects are successfully tendered?
For some of these specific projects, yes, we do use the Building Canada Fund and other programs that may be available through the ACAP programs.
For sure, Mr. Speaker, the problems we do have in staying on schedule for some of these construction projects are usually due to getting the right construction company, the right bids, and the right tendering, which we always hope are on budget.
Question 042 – 3(3): Update on Grise Fiord Community Complex (Elliott)
Mr. Speaker, I realize, within the Government of Nunavut, we have very limited capital dollars.
A project that has been going on in Grise Fiord for the last couple of years is the community complex, which is at a price tag of about $10 million. I was wondering if the minister could give me an update on that project.
The update on that project is that the community wanted to make some changes, which is information that I relayed to the minister and the community with support from the community, which includes significant changes to proposed infrastructure there.
Planning is underway to make sure that the request of the community for changes does happen.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) Member for High Arctic.
In terms of the timeline for the project, originally the changes that you had talked about were incorporated and were supposed to be included in the designs for the building, and then it has gone through another set of capital planning.
It was the committee’s understanding that the budget would be $10 million with the changes that were already incorporated and that materials would be coming on the sealift boat this year.
Is the timeline still being maintained at that speed?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Speaker, as for the letter that we sent and had consent with the municipality, in the details to that, we had both parties agree that because the construction of the facility and changes to it are in excess of the planned original $11.6 million to the project, the project grew quite significantly, Mr. Speaker, and because of the growth of the facility, the community was in support of delaying construction for a year.
We are basing the delay of the construction for a year with the full support of the Municipality of Grise Fiord. So the construction will go ahead as planned with agreement from the community to commence in the fall of 2012.
In terms of the agreement for the construction of the building, is it all inclusive with Government of Nunavut funds or is it part of the Building Canada Fund?
The original plan of the $11.6 million was always 75-25 in terms of funding with the federal government and this government’s dollars.
The project has grown quite significantly and we are working with the consultant at the moment to see where we can tweak the estimates on construction and begin to look for funding for the project elsewhere.
Again, with it being Building Canada funds that are actually provided in partnership with the federal government, is there a sunset period on those Building Canada funds? Now that the timeline has been held back two years, is there a possibility of losing those funds or is it still guaranteed?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Speaker, no, the plan for construction is still the fall of 2012 and we will be accessing the same funds.
It won’t hinder anything in terms of that.
We are working with consultants in terms of trying to figure out where we could cut costs because the costs for it have increased significantly, and we will be revisiting the funding formula and see where and how we can possibly reduce our costs.
Question 043 – 3(3): Polar Bear Quota to NWMB (Komoartok)
I would like to wish my fellow residents a good afternoon.
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Environment based on his Minister’s Statement.
If you recall, the three communities of Pangnirtung, Iqaluit, and Kimmirut share a polar bear quota. The population base is fairly large, but most of us know that the polar bear quotas are quite small.
There are more bears that are starting to arrive into our communities.
The minister stated that the three communities are being consulted on the results of the latest findings.
The minister also stated that there would be a report sent to the NWMB.
My question to the minister is: what is the possible timeframe for increasing the quota? I know that they still have to consult with the communities. When would the quota be increased by the NWMB?
I would like to advise the House and him that the communities have been consulted; consultation is done with the communities.
It’s a very good news situation, and I expect that once everybody agrees to what that increase may be through the NWMB, we would like to see this implemented before this comes into effect for this new year, which begins on July 1.
Many of our local residents will at least be updated on the status.
Any time the government makes a decision regarding wildlife and when they are reducing a quota for a specified animal, it’s quite obvious that they immediately cut the quota without consulting the community and without working with the community.
The North has a lot of polar bears, and I’m wondering whether or not they could make the process easier to include the communities.
We expect that it will start in the new licence year under the Wildlife Act, which begins on July 1, for resetting TAHs.
Consultations have been done, but the decision is not yet finalized because it needs to go through the NWMB process.
We are looking forward to the results.
Now, if it’s going to be implemented by next year and if this does not proceed, can we expect that the quotas will remain as they are?
I would like to get clarification on that, Mr. Speaker.
I hope I didn’t create confusion, but I’ll be clear about this that we hope that the decision will be made through the NWMB process and that the total allowable harvest could be adjusted and implemented July 1 of 2011.
Question 044 – 3(3): Personal Use of Government Property (Aupaluktuq)
Mr. Aupaluktuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) My questions are for the ED&T minister, the Hon. Taptuna.
Considering the cost cuts to government budgets, there have been concerns from numerous constituents of conducting other business on GN time or personal use of equipment, such as vehicles or tools, as raised by colleagues of mine in the Chamber here.
Mr. Speaker, there are issues that I will ask further in detail during this session. However, my question to the minister is: is there a policy in place that encourages or condones storing or repairing personal vehicles in GN facilities and/or on GN time?
Which minister would like to respond to the question?
(interpretation ends) Minister for Community and Government Services is in charge of government buildings and structures.
Maybe the member would like to clarify which building he may be talking about so that the appropriate minister can respond.
I had directed the question to the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, but I made a mistake. I’m sorry.
In looking at government operations, especially government property and infrastructure, it’s to be used mainly to further the government’s operations.
This is whether it’s a building, a garage, a vehicle, or infrastructure. If it is owned by the government, it is to be used solely for the purposes of the government operations prior to an agreement being established between the government and the community.
These are the regulatory rules we have to abide by and they have to be followed.
Question 045 – 3(3): Community Freezers and Country Food Distribution Initiatives (Ningark)
I would like to direct my question to the Hon. Minister of Economic Development and Transportation.
Earlier this week, the Commissioner of Nunavut’s Opening Address announced that the Government of Nunavut will support the distribution of country food and launch a program to help municipalities upgrade, repair, or replace their community freezers.
Mr. Speaker, this is welcome news for my communities that I represent in this House.
Can the hon. minister indicate which communities will receive assistance in the coming year to upgrade, repair, or replace their community freezers?
Mr. Speaker, the program hasn’t been tabled to start the projects.
In fact, during the Baffin Mayors Conference, I did indicate that we’re going to be working on more or less a first come first served basis, depending on the applications.
For the most part, we’re talking to the communities and encouraging them to put in their application so that we can get to the project. We want to do the project in a correct way, through the regular practices.
For the most part, we do want to make sure that the communities are being respected by actually bringing in their applications and it is more or less first come first served.
Again everything depends on the evaluation of the proposals.
I think every Member of this House will remember that on the same day that the Hon. Minister for Finance made his address, I indicated about the same issue and wished that this would be considered on a first come first served basis, and the hon. minister has repeated exactly what I requested.
Will the hon. minister consider that I was the first member to request a freezer for my community?
Again I’ve got to state that there is an application process.
We are working with other departments and also with the federal government, specifically Natural Resources Canada, and we are looking at ways for alternative energy for the community freezers.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that each community is unique climate-wise.
There are some communities that do not need community freezers for six or seven months out of the year, compared to some that do need them ten months out of the year, so we’re taking that into consideration. Of course, our partners like NTI, and these other organizations, including the hamlets and businesses, want to do the process fairly.
Mr. Speaker, one of his communities did receive a community freezer just recently, three years ago.
Recognizing and understanding that the hon. minister has not got into this initiative or incentive or activity in detail, will the minister consider a community project? My community of Kugaaruk is one that is ideal for that.
As the minister responsible for that, the minister responsible to all of the Nunavut communities for that matter, we do have to try and come up with a fair option, a fair evaluation of the application, and I respect his request of first come first served, but we do have to take into consideration all of the communities for that matter.
I’m not trying to provoke an argument, but the hon. minister has stated that it will be on a first come first served basis in this House.
So will the minister consider Kugaaruk as one of the pilot project communities?
I respect the member’s thoughts on not provoking any kind of argument.