EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Intergovernmental Affairs Branch, Federal Relations. I have met with Prime Minister Harper on a number of occasions.
I was encouraged by an early commitment from Prime Minister Harper on a northern vision that includes devolution and recognizes the infrastructure challenges Nunavut faces.
He shares a desire to have Nunavut gain the tools needed to increase our economic contributions to Canada.
We will need to maintain our intergovernmental activity to ensure the federal government keeps northern issues on its priority list.
At the Canada Winter Games, along with the other northern premiers, I met with Prime Minister Harper to address northern issues, particularly the territorial formula financing and also that the federal budget to be presented on March 19 would at least meet our immediate forced growth needs and begin our long standing infrastructure funding requirements.
We are prepared to begin negotiations with the federal government on devolution so that Nunavummiut can benefit from our abundant natural resources.
The federal government INAC minister appointed Paul Mayer as his Nunavut devolution representative.
The GN and NTI teams have met with him on a number of occasions.
Our major concern is the issue that our internal waters are included in the federal mandate, especially in the High Arctic. We are going to work to ensure they are included.
The Government of Nunavut is participating in Canada’s ongoing negotiations with trans-boundary claims of James Bay Cree and Athabasca Denesuliné.
The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement was ratified and I was pleased to travel to Kuujjuaq with MLA Peter Kattuk in December to sign the agreement on behalf of Nunavut, even though Peter Kattuk is not here.
Canada continues to meet with Manitoba’s Denesuliné and Athabasca Denesuliné, NTI and Kivalliq Inuit Association on southern Kivalliq harvesting rights and land quantum, although they don’t always agree.
We have advised all parties of the Government of Nunavut’s opposition to propose land quantum.
The Government of Nunavut will continue to support the Hudson Bay group NTK, based in Sanikiluaq. The Quebec panel reviewing Hydro Quebec’s Eastmain project did not provide any financial resources to address cumulative impacts from the development but did recommend the federal government implement a research and monitoring program for the James and Hudson Bay ecosystems. The GN will assist NTK in ensuring the federal government implements this recommendation.
The department is also home to a small Energy Secretariat. One of the key responsibilities of the secretariat is to provide advice and support to the Minister of Energy.
Given that 20 percent of the Government of Nunavut budget is spent on energy, leadership and coordination is absolutely necessary. The Secretariat has developed a comprehensive energy discussion paper for targeted consultation on the development of a Government of Nunavut strategy.
These are the highlights of EIA’s mandate and I expect to continue to build upon programs and continue to advance Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as a strong influence in policy development.
I would be pleased to answer any questions or address the comments of my fellow MLAs. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to meet with you this afternoon.
Does the committee agree that officials be brought to the witness table?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, can you escort the officials please.
Mr. Premier, for the record, could you introduce your officials, please.
Although you know who these individuals are, to my right, my Deputy Minister of EIA John Walsh, and to my left, Deputy Minister for Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, David Omilgoitok.
Chairman: Welcome back, minister.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability has reviewed the proposed main estimates and business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for the 2007-08 fiscal year, and I’m pleased to provide you with the committee’s comments.
The committee notes that the department’s proposed 2007-08 budget of $11,306,000 is the same amount as approved for 2006-07.
The department’s budget has increased approximately 46 percent from its initial allocation of $7,734,000 back in 1999-2000.
A number of concerns have been raised during the previous reviews of the department’s main estimates and business plans. I would like to take a moment to note progress and performance in these areas.
In a number of respects, the government’s performance in meeting its statutory tabling requirements has improved since the first few years of the GN’s existence.
EIA has an important role to play in enforcing discipline in this area with respect to the departmental tabling requirements.
The standing committee urges the minister to continue to formally table in the House all policies that are approved by the Executive Council under the signature of the Premier as head of the Executive Branch of government.
Although the committee is aware that GN policies are made accessible through such means as posting them on the GN’s website, the act of formally tabling such items in the Legislative Assembly in a timely fashion serves to recognize and amplify the principle of the government’s accountability to the legislature.
Indeed, the regular tabling of new and revised GN policies provides all ministers with the opportunity to make formal statements in the House on the merits of such policies for the benefit of all members and the listening public.
Members have been pleased with Nunavut’s ongoing work with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon on tri-territorial priorities, as illustrated by the November 7, 2006 renewal of the Northern Cooperation Accord.
Mr. Chairman, on December 28, 2005, the GN announced the appointment of a Chief Negotiator for devolution talks with the federal government.
The standing committee remains firmly supportive of the devolution initiative and notes that the department’s 2007-08 business plan indicates that the GN has a goal of achieving an Agreement-in-Principle on devolution by December 31, 2007, and a Devolution Final Agreement by December 31, 2008.
On December 2, 2006, the Federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs announced the appointment of a Ministerial Representative for Nunavut Devolution.
The standing committee looks forward to the federal government’s designation of its formal negotiator.
In a recent speech delivered in Ottawa in December 2006, the Premier expressed concerns regarding the federal government’s reluctance to include Nunavut’s internal waters as part of devolution talks.
The standing committee supports our government’s position on this matter.
The standing committee continues to believe that it is important for our government to come to the bargaining table with credibility and confidence.
Our ability to achieve a significant transfer of responsibilities will be strengthened if we can clearly and convincingly demonstrate to Ottawa that we are successfully and responsibly managing our own affairs.
It is important that our government act on recommendations made by this standing committee and the Auditor General of Canada to strengthen the government’s financial management structures and practices. As we’ve heard over the last few days, those steps are starting to take place.
The standing committee has previously encouraged the Premier and his ministers to account more frequently and formally to the House on their activities and achievements at the numerous federal/provincial/territorial meetings at which they participate.
While members do note the formal communiqués that are issued from such gatherings, the committee believes that our ministers should report back to the House more directly on their success in advancing Nunavut’s specific priorities at such meetings.
The standing committee has noted that ministers have been more proactive during the past year with respect to tabling reports on their intergovernmental initiatives and activities, and the committee looks forward to the continuation of this practice.
The committee continues to support a positive working relationship between the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, while appreciating the government’s efforts to be candid with Members of the Legislative Assembly concerning the rationale for its own position in areas where the two parties may have honest disagreements on specific issues such as Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s recently announced lawsuit against the federal government.
The Government of Nunavut’s obligations and activities with respect to the territory’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act are coordinated by the department.
The standing committee notes that the government has been working to develop a privacy impact assessment process for Government of Nunavut departments and public bodies.
The committee looks forward to continuing its work in this area and notes that it has held three public hearings since the beginning of the second Assembly on the annual reports of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Chairman, transparency and accountability must be more than a mere catch phrase. It must be a set of values which guides us as a public government. Thanks in part to the recommendations made by the standing committee, the Government of Nunavut has improved and expanded the range of information that it makes available to Members of the Legislative Assembly and the public.
Members are pleased that annual reports on government-wide grants and contribution expenditures, contracting, and leasing activities, and bonus and travel expenditures are now being tabled in the House.
The standing committee has pointed out before, the bottom line is this: the public has a right to know in detail where its tax dollars are being spent. Making detailed information public on a routine basis also serves as an effective deterrent against wasteful spending and abuse of process.
Mr. Chairman, one of our collective goals announced at the 2004 Arviat caucus retreat was to explore overarching legislation to govern the accountability of public bodies across the territory. Issues of transparency and disclosure need to be part of this initiative.
An important issue that continues to need to be addressed is a system for the registration of lobbyists. In a number of Canadian jurisdictions, the government regulates their registration of paid lobbyists. This is to help ensure that there is no secrecy when it comes to the public knowing who is acting on behalf of private interests.
Generally, a public registry exists that clearly indicates who is lobbying on behalf of whom.
This transparency is important when it comes to the public’s ability to know who is attempting to make representations to the government decision makers and on what subject. We continue to need such a system in Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, the department is responsible for the overall implementation and monitoring of the GN Decentralization initiative.
According to the department’s 2007-08 business plan, a total of 459 GN positions have been decentralized.
The business plan also indicates that the government is looking at various issues that are impeding the filling of decentralized positions.
The department is planning an annual decentralization planning and reporting meeting for 2007 to provide an update on the status of decentralization in Nunavut.
According to information revealed in a recent Return to Written Question posed by a member of this House, a total of 124 decentralized GN positions remain vacant as of September 30, 2006.
Although this is an improvement over the 143 vacancies recorded on December of 2004, it is clear that decentralization has not been an unqualified success.
Recent reports of the Auditor General and the standing committee recommend that the GN review aspects of its decentralized financial management structure.
The GN has indicated that it continues to study this issue.
The standing committee looks forward to action being taken to address these concerns.
The department’s 2006-07 Business Plan reflected the creation of a new Energy Secretariat in Intergovernmental Affairs branch of the department. The budget for the Energy Secretariat has been increased from $35,000 in 2006-07 to $202,000 in 2007-08.
Its main priority for 2007-08 is to develop a comprehensive Energy Policy and Strategy with affected departments and agencies.
In December of 2006, the Minister of Energy tabled a document prepared by the Energy Secretariat titled Approaching Ikummatiit: Developing a Nunavut Energy Strategy.
The Standing Committee looks forward to the tabling of the GN’s new energy strategy in the coming year.
In addition to addressing such outstanding issues as the creation of an affordable energy fund, it will be important to examine ways to improve the coordination of energy related functions and responsibilities across the government.
For example, while the Department of Finance administers the Nunavut Electricity Subsidy Program, the Department of Education manages the Seniors Fuel Subsidy Program.
Mr. Chairman, the last theme that I wish to address is performance measurement.
The Standing Committee was pleased to have worked well with the minister in scrutinizing and approving Nunavut’s new Statistics Act, and looks forward to the tabling of its first annual report required under legislation.
EIA continues to have a business plan goal of establishing a GN-wide performance measurements program. It is the committees understanding that one of the first priorities for evaluation is to examine the effectiveness of suicide prevention initiatives.
The committee anticipates that this will complement the efforts of an interdepartmental working group that is developing a suicide prevention strategy for Nunavut, as it is a praiseworthy priority.
The standing committee continues to advocate for performance measurement that looks at actual results and outcomes, and not just activities and output.
For example, one of the stated priorities for the Department of Education in 2005-06 was to “undertake the development of initiatives to address dropout rates.”
However, it remains unclear as to whether its activities and expenditures have actually had any measurable success in reducing the dropout rates.
We need to be able to honestly, rigorously and accurately establish benchmarks to measure our own success in achieving such important goals, and be prepared to re-evaluate our expenditures and approaches if they do not produce results that genuinely benefit our communities and constituents.
Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion, but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
I suggest to members that wherever possible that you ask your detailed question during the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates. Do members have any general comments?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Premier.
I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman for giving me the opportunity to make my general comments.
I wasn’t able to be here in November when we were dealing with the capital budget, but after that meeting, the people of Nunavut heard the Premier say that there were going to be mini Cabinet shuffles.
At that time, some of us knew that wasn’t the case. There was no mini Cabinet shuffle.
At that time, it wasn’t appropriate for the people of Nunavut as we did a review around June at that time.
We didn’t know about any minister that wasn’t performing up to par.
You didn’t give any explanations, but when you remove a Cabinet Member, is it because of the policy, or because the minister is not performing up to par?
I don’t think we should do that, but we can be consulted in an in camera session.
I know that the Premier is given certain powers, but I would like to tell the Premier that the people of Nunavut would like to be informed as to why there would be a removal or a shuffle.
At that time, the people out there weren’t happy and they call the regular members when the Cabinet or the Premier makes such a decision.
There has to a close working relationship among the ministers.
And, in regard to the Minister of Finance, we weren’t asking the questions even though we wanted to because there was a shuffle, and the Minister of Finance was new to his portfolio.
I’ll probably have other questions when the time is appropriate.
Do any of the members have general comments?
At this time there are no general comments.
We’ll take a brief break and return at 1:00.
>>Committee recessed at 11:59 and resumed at 13:01
I know that Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has a lawsuit on gun control, but today in Nunavut, the elders have to renew their gun registration.
Today, they’ve been receiving letters, but they’re unilingual, and they receive letters in English.
They have two months to renew their gun registration.
If I was an elder and I couldn’t read English, even if I received that renewal slip, I would not know what to do.
The gun registration has been in the works for a long time, and it takes a long time to receive the certificate, or the registration, and then the elders cannot acquire guns because they don’t have any proof of their certificate or their registration.
So for that reason, I know this is in the courts right now, but Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has stated that Inuit, even if they don’t have a license or certificate to acquire guns, that they are able to purchase guns.
The federal government is like that to everybody, because all guns have to be registered. They have to have a new gun registration and they have to have a license in order to get ammunition and guns.
This is a huge problem for the people of Nunavut.
Perhaps if I could ask a question first to the minister: what stage is Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated at with the courts?
Chairman: Mr. Barnabas, we are under general comments at this time.
They will be talking about what’s happening with their department.
I would like to encourage everyone to be able to ask questions and I know that the funding is limited throughout the government but I would like to say two things in particular because you are dealing with the Department of Justice.
The people that have to go to court in Nunavut and the judges that do the judging of people that have to go through the court, they have to take some time off as well, and they also have to be replaced by other people.
I know in my community in the Kivalliq region, we had to second somebody that’s not from Nunavut, perhaps some judges from Manitoba. This is a problem that the people have been telling me about because they don’t know anything about the lifestyles or the cultures of the Inuit people. What they do follow is the southern way of doing things.
This has been a problem of the people of Nunavut, especially people that have to go to court, and the jury, too, as well because they seem to be sort of the same charges that they have but they give them a penalty of a different thing.
What they do is they use the culture of the southern people and it takes a longer time to understand what is happening, and they charge them in a different way because the people from the south are a little bit different from the judges from here in Nunavut. Even though the Nunavut judges factor the culture of the Inuit people, the judges down south don’t do that.
It creates problems for those people that have to go through the courts.
I just wanted to make sure that I voice my concerns in this House in regard to that.
It’s not just through the courts; there’s also some people that have to go through the court system but not go right into court, such as men; it’s mostly men that have to be kicked out of their house from Social Services in the cold weather if there’s a problem, or family violence, or family disagreements, Social Services have to kick them out, and there’s no place for this individual to go to.
They have no way of getting food for themselves, they just kick them out of the house, and then they have to...it seems like for those people in that situation, they have a hard time and they don’t want to go to their relatives because they know that they’re not going to be welcome.
They don’t even bother to go see the Justice of the Peace and they just kick them out right then and there with no place to go.
I think there should be something done about that so those people are not just kicked out into the cold, and it’s very uncomfortable and it’s very dangerous, too, because there’s a lot of people that want to follow the law but when they get kicked out, they have no other place to go, and they’re in hardship.
I think that has to be looked at again by the government. I just wanted to let the Premier know that these kinds of things happen but I think we have to do something about that.
We will not be talking about that under Intergovernmental Affairs.
We are on B-5. Main estimates.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. We’re not dealing with Justice at the moment, just to let the member know.
If there are none. (interpretation ends) There are no more names on my list for general comments. We will proceed with a page by page review of the departmental estimates starting on page B-5.
Page B-5. Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. Branch Summary.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. I’d like to ask a question of the minister under Energy Secretariat. But I can’t see where it is.
Is it okay if I ask a question under the Directorate about energy?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Yes, under Intergovernmental Affairs, we’ll get to that page, if the member can wait until that item comes up on the page.
We’re on page B-5.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. Directorate.
Under general questions, I would like to ask two questions.
What is the status of the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated court proceedings?
I know that you can’t talk about what is happening in the courts, but we have not heard anything to date about what the position is with regard to gun registration and licensing of firearms.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Yes, as far as I know, it is under the authority of the courts at this time, and it has not gone any further from there.
Today, Inuit are not affected right now. It will not affect Inuit during the duration of the court proceedings.
If it’s not affecting Inuit, why are the Co-Ops and the Northern Stores and catalogue retailers banning people from purchasing firearms if the court proceedings are not affecting Inuit?
Inuit still have to show their gun registration or their purchase acquisition licenses.
That is the problem that we have today.
It states that it does not affect Inuit, but it still affects some of the stores even though some of the stores are thought of in law, they say that they are not Inuit stores.
They have to abide by the rules of the Canadian Government.
We’ll find out what will happen once the court figures it out.
It is also under the Gun Registry so I wonder if Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, have they had any thoughts about whether this Gun Registry and Licensing part of the law could be dealt with by the RCMP in the communities.
This is not really part of the Nunavut government’s responsibility, it’s the responsibility of the federal government because it’s a federal government law, we’re just in support of NTI who will be taking the federal government to court, but there is nothing that we can do about it.
I know this is a problem for the Inuit people, but according to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement it’s the way it is, but there’s going to be another federal election, perhaps the Liberals can be asked that question to see whether they can have that.
We have to be able to ask a lot of questions with the government before we can get the response that we want because we don’t know, because the Government of Nunavut doesn’t really know what’s happening, or they can’t do anything about the federal legislation.