EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Again, I wasn’t prepared with that kind of specific line of questioning from the member, but I will commit to providing that information to members before the session is over.
These were important as an introductory mainly to see the impacts of financial issues into the economy in Nunavut.
I also have another question that has do with the NNI Policy.
For instance, we believe that Nunasi was one of the major proponents. So my question is: in its evaluation of the Nunasi Corporation’s response to the RFP issued earlier this year, how did the government address the issue of Inuit ownership? Was Nunasi’s proposal awarded with a bid adjustment for Inuit ownership and does the GN consider Canadian North to be an Inuit firm, yes or no?
I will have the DM for CG&S to answer that, please.
I’m looking for the NNI Policy. There has been an addendum and there are now seven additional items added.
The question was raised with respect to this matter and it’s in regard to all the airlines that run inside of Nunavut and how the NNI is applied.
We have an outline of how the NNI Policy applies to the airline corporations and we have corresponded with the airlines on the application of the NNI Policy.
My answer is yes, NNI was included in this evaluation.
Mr. Curley: Yes, I understand the application of the NNI Policy for all contracts. (interpretation) My question was in regard to the proposal that was submitted by the Nunasi Corporation, which qualifies under the NNI Policy as an Inuit firm.
However, Canadian North is not considered an Inuit firm under the NNI Policy because they don’t qualify as an Inuit firm when it comes to bidding for contracts.
My question was: is Canadian North an Inuit firm, yes or no?
Again, Mr. Akeeagok will respond to that.
From what I understand, for the Inuit firm status of Canadian North, it’s owned 50 percent by Inuit of Nunavut but Nunasi Corporation responded to the Request for Proposals. We conducted our evaluation using Nunasi Corporation’s eligibility and Canadian North is part of the Nunasi Corporation group of companies.
The minister was advised by the Department of Health and by all of their officials in the Assembly this winter that when they’re evaluating the bids, they should look at the economic impacts of awarding medical contracts when the airlines have started to operate.
Did the department look at the economic impacts depending on who the contract was awarded to? Is the outcome the way you thought it was going to be?
I think we need to change our officials here again. I would like to have our Deputy Minister, Mark McCullock, at the witness table if it’s okay with the committee.
Chairman (interpretation): Do members agree to bring the Deputy Minister of Community and Government Services back to the witness table?
Chairman: Thanks Alex Campbell and David Akeeagok.
We will come back with Mr. McCullock.
Welcome back, Mr. McCullock.
I will have Mr. McCullock respond to the question.
Mr. McCullock.
Mr. McCullock: Thank you very much.
In the RFP document, we have issued an Addendum 7 and it was a very expensive document of about 15 pages or more and it outlined exactly how the NNI Policy would be applied because this exact question came up in the bidders’ conference and they wanted to know how we would apply the policy.
So we put together an example of how it would be applied and we applied it exactly the way it was outlined in the addendum.
So to answer the question, did they receive an adjustment, the answer is yes, they responded under the name of Nunasi and they did receive an adjustment.
I can tell you the actual amount of the adjustments that were given to the three vendors in that they all got an adjustment.
I can tell you that the largest adjustment was given to First Air, I can tell you the next in line was Kivalliq Air, and then it was Nunasi.
Chairman: After you speak, please thank the Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McCullock.
It is important to try and understand how it is applied. I think we’re dealing with a legal interpretation of provisions of the NNI Policy.
My question that was referred to or alluded to earlier was that Canadian North is not an Inuit firm.
Do you agree that it is not an Inuit owned firm according to NNI Policy, yes or no?
Mr. McCullock: Thank you very much for the question.
Chairman: Wait a minute.
Mr. Curley, you have to thank me first.
I will have Mr. McCullock respond to that question.
Chairman: Mr. McCullock, go ahead.
The legal entities that responded to the Request for Proposals did not include Canadian North, it included Nunasi.
The adjustments were given to Nunasi’s proposal and the adjustments were based on the addendum which stated, in great detail, how the adjustments would be applied based on Inuit content, which included Inuit employment, doing business with Inuit companies, it was very detailed.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McCullock.
What we’re getting at is really trying to find a loophole in the application of NNI provisions to try and make the contract work for specifically non-Inuit firms because Calm Air is certainly not an Inuit firm which currently does the operations in the region.
Do you agree that Calm Air is not an Inuit firm, yes or no?
Minister Brown… I didn’t hear, you have a Point of Order?
The airlines themselves aren’t on trial here in this forum and it’s not up for the witness to decide: do you ask him his personal opinion, do you agree, do you disagree that this is an Inuit owned firm, this is not an Inuit owned firm.
The gentleman sitting at the table and indeed any witness or anyone here in the House doesn’t have an ownership list to tell me exactly who owns who and who owns what.
What the witness has said is that on the addendum to the contract, the company that was awarded was Nunasi Corporation in this case. First Air, for example, I believe is operatively known by Bradley Air Services, but just because they have a name, it doesn’t mean it’s the operating name.
So that’s a good example of what you have to be careful of in a case like this.
So my Point of Order is that the member should maybe just change the phraseology of his question so that the witnesses can answer. They can’t answer something that they don’t have ownership lists of, and so on and so forth, and you can’t ask them for their opinion.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, there wasn’t any.
The NNI Policy is not some insignificant document.
It is a very clearly stated document based on the Inuit rights and Inuit owned provisions, and it calls for provisions in the Inuit lists of firms, whether or not various bidders that are bidding for government tenders are really qualified to be given any points based on the fact of whether they will be asked to supply a service through the contractor or subcontract work, or whatnot.
So they are all listed in the provisions that we have on the table.
It’s really clear that whoever is operating an airline, for instance, for medical travel in my region, which happens to be Calm Air, I know for a fact that they are not an Inuit firm according to this list.
Therefore, I’m asking how in the world they get to be given Inuit firm points when they are not legally points.
So I think we really don’t need to debate this issue, we want to get on with dealing with the motion and the tabled document, Mr. Chairman.
I think you will have to rephrase your question.
Mr. Chairman, my question to the minister is: why did the government allow points to be awarded to a non-Inuit owned firm when they are acting as subcontractors or supporting contractors?
It appears that the government was really, in a way, manipulating the various points that Inuit have an agreement with as to who should be awarded points.
These are not technicalities really, these are very important clearly spelled out points.
So are you satisfied that the contract awarded by allowing technicalities to rule is the best way to go about awarding contracts at the expense of the patients that require emergencies to get to and from point A to B?
Mr. McCullock will respond to that question.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. McCullock.
Mr. McCullock: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Excellent points about the NNI Policy. In the addendum that we issued, the NNI Policy focuses on Inuit content, labour of Inuit content, Inuit businesses that are dealt with, money that is exchanged with Inuit businesses, people that are employed by the various businesses and in the NNI Policy, in the bid adjustment addendum that we issued, we explained exactly how that would be evaluated.
So in fact, it avoids people perhaps that play the policy just by a title and in fact, gave points and put weight on the actual Inuit content. So in fact, I do think that this is an excellent way to have evaluated it.
I alluded to the advice that this government recommended at that time that as the minister, before awarding the contracts to airlines regionally, that you would consider possible economic impacts to the local region as well as the existing airlines.
Are you satisfied, in hindsight, now that you have operated for approximately four months, so that economic benefits are turning out exactly as you had planned them?
Mr. Campbell would like to respond to the question, so I will allow him to do so.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The bottom line, in response to the member, is that we don’t have that statistical information at this point in time. We have only been operating now for about four months into the New Year on the new arrangement.
We are, as a department, starting to work on putting in place the reporting of the schedules, who’s taking what flights, and having regular reports done up by our regional office to monitor the use of the airlines to make sure that the percentage that was allocated to the different airlines was being consistently followed and applied across the board.
At this point in time, I am not able to provide any information on the economic impact that the new arrangement has provided to Nunavummiut. I should also point out, just to reinforce, that there was never any scheduled medical contract in the Kivalliq region before April 1 of this year.
So we are, as a department, taking some of the comments, concerns, and questions that are being raised seriously because I think it’s very important to monitor scheduled medical airlines, it’s costing the government between $24 million to $25 million on an annual basis to deliver that program.
I think it’s really important, given the fact that I stated earlier and it was factual whatever happened to various regions, particularly the Kivalliq region, that the economic impact be seriously considered and that it could potentially harm the local economy. I don’t want you to minimize the fact that a medical contract is just a medical contract, it’s an economic airline transportation policy of Nunavut.
Before the medical contacts were awarded to the various airlines in the Kivalliq, the airlines were all participating in the system because of the free competition.
So that’s the best arrangement. That was a free enterprise, complete free enterprise, without government intervention. Government intervention is not always positive.
And I believe I cautioned the government and the minister at that time that before you evaluate it, consider the potential impact. Are you satisfied that that potential impact was carried out?
Was it considered? If you realigned and awarded contracts, there could be consequences.
Was that actually part of the consideration taken in view of the fact that we did advise you in this House?
I will have Mr. McCullock also respond to the question.
Thank you, Mr. Curley, for the question.
I know that when the RFP document was drafted, the evaluation criteria did not specifically talk about economic development, this was for medical travel.
However, I agree with you that there are benefits in having open market free competition.
And in the interest of open market and free competition, we went to market and this was publicly advertised. Everyone had the same free open market opportunity to respond to this competitive process.
I believe that, as a competitive process, as far as economic development goes, we have seen in Nunavut one of the airlines, as a result of the competition, has expanded and hired more Inuit people, employed more staff, and are spending more money in Nunavut.
I think that everybody has felt that.
But I will tell you that the evaluation criteria that were outlined in the document itself did not specifically talk about points for economic development because this was focused on health travel.
However, we did believe and we understood that in the interest of free market and free competition, and we agree with you that free competition is important and that it has its benefits, and we do believe that we are receiving some of those benefits now.
Recognizing the clock, as per Rule 6(1), I now recognize the clock and we will report progress.
Your committee has been considering Bill 39, Tabled Document 216 – 2(4), and now, we would like to report that Bill 39 is immediately ready for third reading.
Bill 36 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No 4, 2007-2008 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Quttiktuq, that Bill 36, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 4, 2007-2008, be read for the third time.
Bill 36 has had its third reading and is now ready for assent.
Bill 37 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2007-2008 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nanulik, that Bill 37, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2007-2008, be read for the third time.
Bill 37 has had its third reading and is now ready for assent.
Bill 38 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009 – Third Reading
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 38, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009, be read for the third time.
Bill 38 has had its third reading and is now ready for assent.
If there are no more, (interpretation ends) Item 22.
Orders of the Day for September 12:
This House stands adjourned until Friday, September 12, at 10:00 a.m.
Minister of Environment; Minister of Health and Social Services
Friday, September 12, 2008
Pages 4784 – 4834
Opening Prayer 4784
Ministers’ Statements 4784
Members’ Statements 4786
Returns to Oral Questions 4790
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4790
Oral Questions 4792
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 4814
Point of Order 4829
Report of the Committee of the Whole 4832
Third Reading of Bills 4832
Orders of the Day 4833
Friday, September 12, 2008 4784
211 – 2(4): Training Partnership with Baffinland Iron Ore Mine and Nunavut Arctic College (Picco) 4784
212 – 2(4): Wildlife Symposium Planned for Early 2009 (Akesuk) 4785
213 – 2(4): Literary Book Prize (Tapardjuk) 4785
522 – 2(4): Rethinking Polar Bear Management Practices (Curley) 4786
523 – 2(4): Terry Fox Head Shave (Tootoo) 4787
524 – 2(4): Kitikmeot Volunteer Firefighters (Peterson)) 4788
Return to Oral Question 623 – 2(4): Tax Issues (Tapardjuk) 4790
642 – 2(4): Voter Identification Requirements for the Federal General Election (Curley) 4792
643 – 2(4): Dust Control in Smaller Communities (Simailak) 4793
644 – 2(4): Political Interference in Criminal Justice System (Tootoo) 4794
645 – 2(4): Critical Housing Shortage in Cambridge Bay (Peterson) 4796
646 – 2(4): Status of Two Five-Plex Housing Units for Sanikiluaq (Kattuk) 4798
647 – 2(4): Dilapidated Office Building in Kugaaruk (Mapsalak) 4800
648 – 2(4): Update on GN Policy on Smoking in Apartment Buildings (Curley) 4801
649 – 2(4): Update on Investigation of Nunavut Business Credit Corporation Files by RCMP (Tootoo) 4803
650 – 2(4): Update on New School for Sanikiluaq (Kattuk) 4804
651 – 2(4): Update on Assistance for Bathurst Inlet and Umingmaktok (Peterson) 4806
652 – 2(4): Responsibility for Uninhabitable Units (Mapsalak) 4808
653 – 2(4): Secure Young Offenders’ Facility (Tootoo) 4809
654 – 2(4): Changing Scientific Methods Currently Practiced in Nunavut (Curley) 4810
Bill 39 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009 – Third Reading 4833
Ms. Leona Aglukkaq, Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Mr. James Arreak, Honourable Levi Barnabas, Honourable Levinia Brown, Mr. Tagak Curley, Mr. Peter Kattuk, Mr. Steve Mapsalak, Honourable Patterk Netser, Honourable Paul Okalik, Mr. Keith Peterson, Honourable Edward Picco, Mr. David Simailak, Honourable Louis Tapardjuk, Mr. Hunter Tootoo.
Speaker (Hon. James Arreak)(interpretation): Good morning.
Before we begin, I would like to ask Mr. Curley to say the opening prayer.
Speaker (interpretation): Good morning, Premier, Ministers, Members, visitors in the Gallery, and all Nunavummiut.
I send my greetings to the residents of Qikiqtarjuaq.
Minister’s Statement 211 – 2(4): Training Partnership with Baffinland Iron Ore Mine and Nunavut Arctic College (Picco)
Hon. Ed. Picco (interpretation): Good morning, (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to announce to the House that a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, between the Department of Education, Nunavut Arctic College and Baffinland Iron Ore Mine have been finalized.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement will link together employment programs, training, apprenticeship and trades for the people of Nunavut.
It was developed as part of the implementation of our Nunavut Community Skills Information System, or NCSIS, in the Qikiqtaaluk region this summer.
The objective, Mr. Speaker, of this MOU is to establish a partnership in developing a cooperative approach to education, labour force research and training around mine-related industries and activities in the Qikiqtaaluk region.
Mr. Speaker, we have committed to working together to develop education and training programs. In addition to activities related to career planning, orientation and development for students and beneficiaries, this will build capacity and facilitate their acquisition of transferable skills.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education is working with the three regions to promote the development of employment and training programs associated with our mining sector. We have been working diligently to identify the appropriate means to cooperate and provide effective services to Nunavummiut.
Mr. Speaker, this latest MOU will help ensure that more of our beneficiaries can take advantage of our territory’s emerging economy by linking employment opportunities with the appropriate skills training.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Baffinland and Nunavut Arctic College for their commitment to helping Nunavummiut train and acquire skills here at home and for seeing the potential right here in Nunavut.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we can all take pride in realizing our future successes. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister’s Statement 212 – 2(4): Wildlife Symposium Planned for Early 2009 (Akesuk)
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and good morning, my colleagues.
I am pleased to announce my department will be hosting a wildlife symposium for early 2009.
The symposium is a direct result of concerns expressed by hunters, HTOs, RWOs and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated regarding certain practices being used for researching wildlife in Nunavut.
The broad goal of the symposium is reviewing and renewing the Nunavut wildlife co-management system and the relationship with our co-management partners.
Discussions at this symposium will include: rebuilding trust and relationships; effective communication and consultation; wildlife handling and research methods; and balancing Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and science in a context of growing external scrutiny and pressure.
To make sure the development of this symposium is in an open and collaborative manner, the planning and coordination will be done by a small steering committee consisting of delegates from the GN, the Wildlife Secretariat, NTI and the NWMB.
However, we are anticipating a large number of interested parties will attend this multi-day symposium.
Mr. Speaker, I have always viewed the protection of Nunavut’s wildlife as one of this government’s most important priorities.
With this symposium, we are taking steps to strengthen bridges between all concerned parties and to ensure the health of our wildlife will be strong for generations to come.
Ministers’ Statements. Minister Tapardjuk.
Minister’s Statement 213 – 2(4): Literary Book Prize (Tapardjuk)
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, I stand today in celebration of five successful consecutive years of Titiraliritti.
In 2002, the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth launched the Titiraliritti Nunavut Literary Prize to increase the amount of published material available in the Inuit language.
An annual thematic writing contest takes place with changing themes and prizes to encourage continual participation by Nunavummiut.
The theme for 2007-08 was Kamanaqtut Unikkaat, (a strange event or an event that amazed you).
Over 80 stories were submitted by youth and adult authors.
Since the start of the program, CLEY has received more than 800 submissions.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce the publication of a commemorative book of the winning stories from the first five years of Titiraliritti.
This published collection includes 22 stories written in themes including, but not limited to: humour, legends, and amazing stories.
The launch will take place here at the Legislative Assembly at two o’clock this afternoon and we encourage the members to take these books authored by Nunavummiut to peruse at their leisure.
Ministers’ Statements. (interpretation ends) Item 3.
Member’s Statement 522 – 2(4): Rethinking Polar Bear Management Practices (Curley)
I rise today to address the need to rethink something that has to do with wildlife and I would like to thank the minister for mentioning that in his Minister’s Statement.
We never used to think about all these rules that we have to follow today as we followed our own customs and practices in regard to wildlife, listened to the lessons learned by our parents, and respected the wildlife.
I would like to express my gratitude, Mr. Speaker, by rising today to address the need to rethink existing polar bear management practices in Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, although I have spoken clearly on many occasions on the need to ensure that our wildlife management practices fully respect traditional Inuit knowledge, it is equally clear to me that more must be done.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are approaching a crisis of trust and confidence between communities, HTOs, and the government.
Matters have reached to the point where some leaders are now talking about civil disobedience.
Over the last several months, the Kivalliq has been deeply concerned about cuts in the total allowable harvest of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay.
I will again say, Mr. Speaker, what I have said before: the minister should not accept any recommendations to cut quotas until we rethink the way we count polar bears.
Mr. Speaker, the Kivalliq Wildlife Board has apparently written to the minister on this issue, but has not received a reply yet.
I am glad that the government has stated that it will work to reduce the use of invasive wildlife research methods.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I thank my colleagues.
I was glad to hear the minister state that the department would like to address concerns with certain practices being used for wildlife research.
The elders say that polar bears should not be tranquilized and that helicopters should limit their contact with polar bears, especially in areas of pack ice.
I for one call for a moratorium on the use of helicopters and tranquilizers.
As a result, the government will spend less money on research that Inuit don’t approve of.
Mr. Speaker, on August 28 of this year, the federal Minister of Environment called for a national round table on polar bears. I believe that Inuit must be strongly represented at any such meeting.
When I say Inuit, I’m also referring to elders and not only those who are on wildlife boards but other Inuit who have vast knowledge of polar bears.