EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I have to review what is not here, even though it says I have to refer to the material handed out here.
Let me put on my glasses (interpretation ends) the new contracts will cover all of Nunavut.
I’m sorry but I don’t have the information that the member is seeking. I can only go with the briefing notes that I have. This is all that I have for today and nothing more has been given.
I’m not going to say anything more that I am going to mislead the House because I don’t want to have to do that.
The contracts to be awarded are for three years with two additional one-year options to extend the contract.
I would appreciate if the minister could provide that information and also assure us of what all of the proponents were told, if you want to call it the rules of the game and how it would be played and that, upfront that the government hasn’t changed any of those rules throughout the process.
Hon. Paul Okalik: We would be putting ourselves in a liability situation if we were to change the rules in mid-process.
So all of the processes were followed and everyone was given an opportunity to bid and respond to the RFPs.
We’re awaiting the signature of these contracts so that we can disclose them.
So I think that we have explained what we could and what we can disclose at this point. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that the RFP process is different than a tender process; it allows for objectivity and discretion on behalf the government to pick and choose what it wants and not necessarily going with the best price.
Can someone in the government assure us, as my colleague pointed out, to ensure competition, that that was a factor taken into account and that they don’t just hide behind the fact that it was the best price?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, we know that this is a difficult one for everyone and we would love to see more competition throughout the territory so that our constituents can pick and choose the best services and the best prices. So that’s one of the primary reasons why we go through the RFP process - to allow everyone an opportunity to bid and succeed and allow for more competition throughout Nunavut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess we will have to wait until our spring sitting to deal with this because the government doesn’t want to seem to give us any information now.
As I mentioned to the motion earlier, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister or her officials to give us a rationale as to how they came up with an additional $1 million for medical travel.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation) The motion was already carried and I had allowed the members to speak to the motion.
I allowed the members to speak when the motion was moved, so I will disallow your question because I already allowed questions to be posed at that time.
(interpretation ends) Questions on H-7.
With that motion, I guess what I’m getting at is they increased the budget by $1 million.
When asked about it, they seemed to give an indication that they would speak to it with the officials and their chair of how they came up with that amount. I indicated that I still didn’t feel it was an adequate amount, so I would like to hear how they came up with a new amount for medical travel.
As I said, the motion was already carried and I gave us time to speak to the motion.
I still declare the question as out of order.
It seems very pathetic that this government does not want to explain how they come up... I mean we’re here to ask about the budget.
They got a new amount in the budget now of, if I understand it correctly, $44,959,000, so I would just like to figure out how they came up with that number.
Chairman: The motion was already approved and like I said, it was discussed.
I will use my discretion and recognize only those who have not asked questions to this page.
I reminded you that I will use my discretion.
We’re on Branch Summary. Health and Social Services Treatment.
New figure as per amended.
Mr. Curley: Yes, I never did ask this question.
Mr. Chairman, my question is to the Minister of Health.
In evaluating the bids from those airlines, we’re not sure how many participated and we’re not 100 percent sure exactly which airlines participated yet, I would like to ask the minister: were the airlines clear when they teamed up as partners in submitting a joint tender?
Was that also evident that there may be one bid from more than one airline?
So I would just like to get the minister to clarify for us because receiving two proposals when they’re partnered together does not necessarily mean that competition is being applied if the contract is awarded to that joint proposal.
Can the minister clearly explain that that may be happening in the Kivalliq region?
You may not have asked this question but you already had your chance on this page. As I said, I was going to be using my discretion for members to ask questions.
You used the ten minutes allotted time on the page and as I already made my ruling, I will not allow the question to be answered.
Mr. Curley, are you challenging my ruling?
If you are, I’ll... Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, you allowed me to ask a question and I did, and therefore, your ruling appears to be contradicting what you just provided me with.
I believe the minister heard the question and she should be given an opportunity as I was given the opportunity to ask a question without preconditions and the minister simply should respond because for me to exercise my privilege to challenge would be just a delay tactic right now.
So I think the minister can simply indicate whether or not there were joint proposals submitted.
As I mentioned, you appear to be challenging my ruling and I rise to report to the Speaker. We will have a short recess.
>>Committee recessed at 10:03 and resumed at 10:26
Can you speak to the challenge to the ruling during the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Arreak.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I wish to report a matter which arose during proceedings in Committee of the Whole this morning.
I exercised my discretion pursuant to Rule 77 and limited members to one opportunity to speak to a page of the main estimates for a maximum of ten minutes.
I recognized the Member for Rankin Inlet North and provided him with an opportunity to speak. When provided with such an opportunity, he asked a question on a page on which he had previously asked questions.
I ruled the question out of order.
The Member for Rankin Inlet North stated a disagreement with my ruling. I viewed this as a challenge to my authority as a Chair.
I am reporting this matter to you to deal with as you see fit.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arreak and Members.
I have received the report from the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
I note that the Chairman exercised his discretion pursuant to our Rules which are intended to provide for the efficient use of time and to maintain order in the House.
(interpretation ends) For that reason, I uphold the Chairman’s ruling and find that the question posed by the Member for Rankin Inlet North was out of order and the Committee of the Whole will now resume it’s deliberations with Mr. Arreak in the Chair. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): We will resume. (interpretation ends) We’re on page H-7.
My Point of Order is the fact that my question on how they came up with the total amount of medical travel and transportation budget was ruled out of order and I was told that the motion was already passed.
Mr. Chairman, my point is the motion was just for that $1 million to be added to the Main Estimates of the Department of Health and Social Services under Treatment Branch. My question was on the total amount and not the $1 million, so I would like to get a ruling on that, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think that it should have been ruled out of order because the motion was under $1 million and my question was on the total amount.
As with my first ruling, he appears to be challenging my ruling, so I rise to report to the Speaker.
We will take a few minutes break.
I would like to ask the Member for Uqqummiut and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Mr. Arreak, to make his comments.
I want to make another complaint.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, the ruling that I made in the committee was challenged by the Member for Iqaluit Centre.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arreak and members.
Earlier in today’s proceedings, the Member for Iqaluit Centre asked a question regarding the rationale for the motion moved by the Minister of Finance to increase the budget for the Department of Health and Social Services by $1 million.
The question was ruled out of order by the Chairman on the basis that members had been provided with an opportunity to speak to the motion at the time it was made.
I had the opportunity to view the proceedings as they were progressing.
I would like to add that when a motion is before the committee, the members are given the opportunity to speak to the motion and state the reasons as to why they support or do not support it. No member is required to speak to a motion.
The motion which was dealt with this morning is somewhat unusual in that the matter is now being discussed by the committee as part of the Main Estimates of the Health and Social Services.
However, I note that the Member for Iqaluit Centre has already spoken to matters on this page of the main estimates and he is bound by the ruling pursuant to Rule 77 that members will be allowed to speak only once to this page for a maximum of ten minutes.
Accordingly, it is unnecessary for me to rule on whether or not the question was in order. (interpretation ends) The point is moot as the member has used his allotted time and is not allowed any further questions on the page currently before the committee.
However, I remind the House that when the Committee of the Whole returns to page H-3 of the department’s main estimates, all members will have a further opportunity to ask questions for a maximum of ten minutes. (interpretation) Thank you.
I’m sorry, Members.
You will resume your committee meeting from here.
We’re back again.
Treatment. (interpretation) Does the committee agree to bring in the minister’s officials?
Thank you. (interpretation ends) Page H-7.
New figure as per amended. $138,236,000.
Are there any questions on this page?
Maybe we will get some answers on this page, I hope. Mr. Chairman, can the minister indicate if the money that they pay individuals that take in boarders because the boarding homes are full comes through this program.
Mr. Tootoo: It felt good to get an answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Can the minister indicate how that works if a client comes down let’s say here to Iqaluit and is going to be boarded rather than going to the boarding home? What processes are in place or could you explain how that whole process works?
When the boarding home is full, they make an arrangement for private accommodations for the patient.
Who makes those arrangements; is it the Department of Health or the individual?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Chairman, the boarding home makes the arrangements, if they’re full, to go to private accommodations and sometimes, the department also does that for the patient.
I would like to ask the minister: are there any forms that are required to be filled out by anybody in that process?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I don’t know if there are any forms filled out.
I would assume there has to be. If people get paid, they have to have some kind of paper trail. So I’m just surprised the minister doesn’t even know if there are forms required to be filled out for that, so maybe if she can find out for us and let us know.
My employee in the audience said that there’s a form that’s filled out.
Can they indicate what’s on that form?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I can get that in a few minutes. I’m assuming the name, date of arrival and departure are on the form but I’ll just get the note from my employee and share the rest if there’s anything beyond that.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Are you finished?
I have a question but I want to get the response from the minister with the information first before I continue with my questions.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Minister, do you wish to bring in a witness?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If members will allow, I’ll ask Kevin to come here to answer what’s on the form.
Chairman (interpretation): Does the committee agree to bring the witness in?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witness in.
Minister, please introduce your witness.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Kevin Compton and he will answer the question.
Welcome, Mr. Compton.
Mr. Compton, do you have information as requested?
Mr. Compton.
Mr. Compton: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The information that’s listed on the travel warrant includes the name of the individual, the community in which they would be travelling from and to, the date of their appointment with the doctor, and the estimated date of return back to their home community.
I think that’s the travel form.
I’m just wondering for the boarders. Are there any forms that they have to fill out and what information goes on there? That’s what I was getting at and I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I’ll get Kevin to answer that.
Mr. Compton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The only form that has to be filled out by the person travelling is the travel warrant as completed by our travel personnel that’s making the travel arrangements for the individual.
All the other documentation that’s required is completed by the boarding home.
I’m just wondering if the boarding home would receive or handout and receive some type of confirmation to the people that are taking on that boarder as far as enabling them to get paid.
The information that’s completed by the boarding home is then passed on to our Department of Finance for payment, which would give the name of the individual, where they stayed, and the length of their stay.
I guess I’m glad to find out where that comes from now.
The point that I want to make is it was mentioned yesterday that some of the people who are taking in boarders, and I know it’s the practice that’s just been started in the last two years, are getting, over certain amounts, taxed on it.
Could the minister or officials ensure that whoever, if it’s the boarding home, is making individuals that are taking in boarders aware that that could be deemed as taxable income and that they would get taxed on it?
I don’t believe that that’s happened to date.
When the individuals are paid, it’s the requirement by the Canada Revenue Agency that anybody who receives income has to be issued an information slip, and therefore, once the information slip is issued, then it has to be reported to the Canada Revenue Agency as taxable income.
I realize that but I mean the people who are taking in the boarders don’t know that ahead of time.
I just want to make sure that the department could commit to making sure that those individuals that are taking in boarders are aware of that prior to them agreeing to take in boarders.
It is my understanding that the Department of Finance has taken on the responsibility to notify people that they will be issued T-slips after receiving income.
That doesn’t help those people. I mean, the Department of Finance doesn’t find out until after they have done it.
What I’m trying to get at is that those individuals are made aware of that fact prior to them taking in boarders because, for some people, they may know, “If I’m going to get taxed on this, the $50 that I get is going to turn into less than that and I’m going to have to pay on it at the end of the year,” that may affect their decision on whether or not to take on a boarder.
My question was: would the department commit to making sure that people, when they’re asked if they want to take in a boarder, are made aware that it would be deemed as taxable income and that they would be getting a slip from Finance after it was processed?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I’ll get the deputy to answer his question.
Alex Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, the department will commit to preparing an information pamphlet that we can share with the clients who are boarding at the boarding homes.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Tootoo.
We’re on page H-8. Branch Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $54,228,000.
Go back to Page H-3.
Department Summary. Health and Social Services.
New figure due to amendment. $252,388,000. Does the committee agree?
As the Speaker mentioned in his ruling, maybe this is the opportunity to get an answer to my question that I raised earlier - if they could indicate how they came up with that extra $1 million for the budget.
It doesn’t say specifically in the motion where it’s going other than the Treatment Division, so if I could get a clarification on that.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I’ll have the deputy minister answer that.
Alex Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The extra $1 million that we’re asking for to be approved by the members is as a result of fuel price increases that occurred last fall.
We’re taking that into consideration as part of the projections for next year for a total of $44 million for medical travel.
I know the minister, herself, stated before that the best and most accurate number they could use to project their budgets on were actuals, the latest numbers that they have.
Based on the Supplementary Appropriation Bills that are before us, I think there’s another around $4.5 million for medical travel and that’s still about $2 million or $3 million less than what they have in their budget now for the 2008-09 year.
So I’m just wondering if I can get an explanation: how come it’s different than what she had indicated that the best way to go is with what they spent from the previous year, which they know now to be about $49 million?
Why are they budgeting less?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Chairman, during the first five days of Committee of the Whole, I had indicated that we would be increasing the medical travel for 2007-08 by $4 million.
I’ll say that for the record again and I’ll get the deputy to elaborate a little bit more on the question.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The current projection for 2007-08 is to spend about $46 million for medical travel.
Based on that information, we have made some calculations including the $1 million that we’re asking for, the $44 million revised budget for medical travel would be sufficient for the next budget year.
We’re also taking into consideration some of the discussions that we’ve had this morning regarding the scheduled medical contract. We are hopeful that through that process, there will actually be some savings to the government as a whole on initiating that process with the airlines.
When they went back and re-looked at their numbers, was that just something that the Department of Health did by itself or was there any involvement from the Department of Finance as well?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I will get my deputy to answer.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, we do have Finance as a resource to our department. We also have financial experts in the department that provides advice to us on some of the trends that have been happening in the medical travel.
So we also use the Department of Finance as a sounding board to provide the necessary advice for the department.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just wondering, from its review, if the $1 million amount is the amount that the department brought forward that they needed an increase for.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: The increase for the $1 million for fuel increase was calculated by our department in consultation with Finance.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand it was calculated there, but was that the number that was brought forward both by the department and by Finance for approval?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Yes, that was my answer. Yes.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The deputy indicated they feel it’s sufficient but it’s still a few million dollars less than what they actually spent this year.
Given the track record of the medical travel numbers and costs going up - when you look at 2005-06, I think it was $39 million and now we’re close to $46 million for next year, and we have spent close to $50 million this year - would the minister commit to providing regular quarterly reports on the medical travel to the Members of the Assembly?
In my letter to the members dated March 5, I committed to doing that.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Are you finished?
(interpretation ends) Page H-3.
New figure due to amendment. $252,388,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Are you agreed that the Department of Health and Social Services is concluded?
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Campbell.
Thank you, Mr. Compton. (interpretation) Do you have any closing remarks? Minister Aglukkaq.
I would like to thank my deputy minister, as well my assistant deputy minister and Kevin for their support, at the same time, the staff at Finance and HSS, with this process and I would like the members for their questions.
Members, go to Bill 23 in your legislation binder.
Bill 23 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation) Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister of Finance, (interpretation) would you like to go to the witness table?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): That’s the only way. Yes, I do.
To my left is my Deputy Minister, Peter Ma and on my right is Roy Green, the Director of Expenditure Management.
Welcome. (interpretation ends) Bill 23 in your legislation binder.
Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2008-2009.
The clauses are from one to 11. Is there a 12th on there where it shows the purposes and departments?
If we have any questions on any of those, under what clause do we ask? Is it those clauses, or where do we ask those questions?
Can you please repeat your question?
We’re on clause 3, the appropriation where it has the total amount. I note that there’s $10,225,000 for the Department of Health that was not previously authorized.
Of that, there was $4.3 million in there for agency nurse contracts. So I’m just wondering if I can find out what the original budget for that amount was if there’s $4.3 million plus. What was the original budget was for that?
We’re dealing with Bill 23, Appropriation (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2008-09.
Clause 3?
Chairman: There is a motion.
Committee Motion 014 – 2(4): Bill 23 Amendment to Operations & Maintenance 2008-09 Main Estimates Schedule (Tapardjuk)
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Under the Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2008-2009, I move that the schedule to the bill be amended by:
striking out “$251,388,000” in item 8 and substituting “$252,388,000”; and
striking out “$970,252,000” wherever it appears and by substituting “$971,252,000”.
That is my motion, Mr. Chairman.
The motion is in order. (interpretation ends) To the amendments to the schedule. Do you agree?
Chairman: The motion is carried and clause 3(1) is amended.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I don’t understand what you said.
What’s your direction?
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Tapardjuk, do you have another motion?
Committee Motion 015 – 2(4): Bill 23 Subclause 3(2) Amendment Strike Out $970,252,000 Substitute $971,252,000 (Tapardjuk)
I move that subclause 3(2) of the bill be amended by striking out “$970,252,000” and by substituting “$971,252,000”.
To the amendment. Do you agree?
The motion is carried and clause 3(2) is amended. To the clause 3 as a whole as amended. Do you agree?
Chairman: Go to page 2. Schedule.
Amounts Appropriated for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2009 as amended. Vote 1.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $971,252,000.
Chairman: Total Appropriation. $971,252,000.
Chairman: Back to Clause 3. Clause 3 as amended. Do you agree?
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 23 as amended?