EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
So my question was: what steps is that department, the social advocate’s office, doing at a policy level to help individuals with specific concerns that they themselves have brought forward, not what individuals have brought forward?
I hope that’s clearer.
I hope that clarifies the question. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
It is under the Human Rights Tribunal and they work with the Social Advocacy Office.
Again along the same lines of questioning, with the GN’s new proposed Act, Bill 30, the Nunavut Building Code, what types of recommendations will the department be putting forward to address the needs of individuals with disabilities in terms of accessibility and mobility?
I’m sure it will be dealt with by the Department of Community and Government Services.
I’m sure that the Department of Community and Government Services will be dealing with that because they are the ones that are bringing the Act forward.
To me, if the government was functioning properly, when the department that’s responsible for disabilities sees that there is an Act being created or an opportunity to ensure that there is wheelchair access to homes and whatnot put into a building code when it’s the minister responsible for that, I would think that that minister would be contacting the department and passing forward information.
Again, I’m assuming, like the minister had said, they have been collecting concerns and issues to help build policies. So what better department to pass on that specific piece of the legislation?
In regard to policies and the development of policies, we will have to look at it carefully before we put them together.
Other than the $100,000 contribution, what support and resources does the Government in Nunavut direct towards addressing the needs of individuals with disabilities?
We provide funding for Nunavut Makinnasuaqtiit and we provide $100,000 to that organization.
They work together and they have acquired an employee.
They work closely together and they are housed in the same building.
In terms of the interdepartmental Nutrition North Canada Subsidy Monitoring Committee, I wondered if the minister would be able to give me an update on what’s happening with that committee.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I go into my comments, I would like to thank the member for lobbying on the issue of Nutrition North.
They just do surveys and they keep tabs on what Nutrition North is doing.
If I said it in English, they are a monitoring committee and they have members from Health, EIA, and the Department of Finance on this committee.
They do surveys, (interpretation ends) community nutrition program planning, nutrition educational resources, and training and development. (interpretation) They disseminate information out there.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Madam Premier. (interpretation) We’re on page B-4. $5,716,000.
I started off with a good morning to Nunavummiut and now it’s good evening.
Well, if it’s under this page, I would like to have the opportunity to ask a question under B-4 and I think it should be provided with a simple answer.
I know that it might not be under the responsibility of the Premier, but since she’s the Premier, I will ask it anyways.
I would like to ask a question on one of the bills.
My question is: would the Premier support the inclusion of senior officials within the Nunavut government in the Integrity Act?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Enook. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
I don’t know if I understood it. I’m not sure which Act he was talking about. I would understand it right away if he said it in English.
I will follow what I always make fun of. (interpretation ends) Would the Premier support an expansion of the Integrity Act legislation to cover senior members of the public service?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): We can look into it if they’re not already covered under that Act.
I could tell the Premier that the Integrity Act only covers Members of the Legislative Assembly.
The Premier knows that. Only Members of the Legislative Assembly are under the Integrity Act. My question was: would she support the idea of the senior members of the public service to be included in the Integrity Act?
Thank you very much for that clarification.
Yes, it’s only for Members of the Legislative Assembly.
The senior members of the public service are covered under the Code of Ethics and Values.
I would like my Deputy Minister, Daniel Vandermeulen, to make a supplement to my comment.
The senior management of the public service, as indeed all of the public service, is governed by the Code of Ethics and Values. Particular issues that are probably of particular interest, things like conflict of interest, we’re still governed by all of the ethics surrounding conflict of interest; we have to declare conflict.
The Code of Ethics and Values is also part of the Public Service Act. There’s legislation that we fit under there.
I’m not trying to drag this on. What is the difference between the MLAs being covered under the Integrity Act and the public service, particularly senior management, being covered under their own Act?
Could you explain the difference between the two?
I will direct this question to my Deputy Minister, Mr. Vandermeulen.
The Integrity Act governs the Members of this Assembly and that means that this Assembly, in that way, is really self-governing.
So if any charters are brought or shown, then you yourselves censor yourselves. In the case of deputy ministers and the rest of the public service, we’re governed by the Public Service Act and we’re subject to the penalties of that legislation.
To combine the two together would, in fact, diminish your ability to govern yourselves.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I apologize if I made you misunderstand.
I wasn’t asking for them to be combined. My question was: why is it not possible for the senior members of the public service to be covered under the Integrity Act?
I will have Mr. Vandermeulen respond to that question.
Just to add a comment then, we are subject to equivalent penalties under the Public Service Act. For senior officials, such as deputy ministers, to be brought under the Integrity Act would require a change of legislation and would actually put us in the same category as you. That’s inappropriate.
We’re your servants and we shouldn’t be put in the category of our bosses, to keep it very simple.
That’s why we’re in with the rest of the public service under the Public Service Act and your issues are resolved as under the Integrity Act just as Members of this Assembly. So there’s no crossing of the two groups.
Whatever you want to do, it’s possible to change the legislation if you really want to change it.
The reason why I asked the question is because there are a lot of people who think that the senior government officials, such as the deputy ministers, have a lot of power and they can do whatever they want to do. They even have more powers than the ministers themselves.
I have seen that myself.
The senior government officials have to follow a strong law. We cannot accept any gifts if it costs a certain amount of money.
That’s why I asked the question.
The deputy ministers are very powerful and they can be persuaded to do things that are not legitimate.
I will deal with this some other time. That’s the end of my questions.
I didn’t hear a question, but I hear what he’s talking about.
He also stated that he will be asking questions of this nature later on.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Madam Premier. (interpretation) We are on B-4. $5,716,000.
I can’t really see what I’m reading.
Thank you, Madam Premier.
Under B-4, Directorate, it states that the Office of the Premier looks at… .
If I’m wrong, Mr. Chairman, stop me, and I know you want to run the meeting in a proper manner.
When we got the Nunavut government, we gave our rights to the federal government and we were supposed to get some funding from the federal government as aboriginal people and land claims beneficiaries.
Is that one of the reasons why the federal government wants to take us to court along with NTI, because of the amount of money that we got from the federal government?
That money is going to be used for land claims beneficiaries.
I think it has been about 14 years that we will be receiving that money.
I wonder if that’s the reason why the federal government wants to include the Government of Nunavut with NTI.
I just wanted to know if you wanted to respond to that.
When Nunavut Tunngavik brought the federal government to court, the Nunavut government was not involved, but the federal government stated that the Government of Nunavut had to go to court too and we could not say “no” and we had to try to protect ourselves in court for that reason.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): When Nunavut was created, I’m sure we remember that the Prime Minister of Canada of the day was really happy to see Nunavut created. The countries were very pleased and proud of the fact that Nunavut was put on the map. Also, he announced publicly that Nunavummiut are his partners.
We’re now on page B-4. $5,716,000.
Sustainable Development. Branch Summary.
I don’t believe it’s Ikupivvilirijikkut in Inuktitut. That’s probably incorrect as that term is now defunct.
We’re on page B-5. $2,412,000.
I referred to this offhand in my comments to the minister’s opening comments and it was clarified by the minister in their response.
This was with respect to the federal government not living up to its obligations, which is the cause of the court case.
Furthermore, the Nunavut government has been added to the case, as they have been in partnership with the federal government in implementing the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. This also includes implementation prior to the establishment of the Nunavut government, but our government was grandfathered in by the federal government.
Due to this reason and the clarification contained in the opening comments of the Premier, as well as the opening comments of the standing committee chairperson, the ongoing NTI lawsuit against the federal government has caused a schism, complicating the progression of the devolution file.
Has the court case implicated or complicated the devolution talks we have tried to get going?
I know that the court case has not yet begun, but it seems to have an effect. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
That’s not the case. We haven’t been told that and we haven’t received correspondence in regard to that.
NTI filed this lawsuit against Canada for its failure to implement the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. We haven’t heard from the federal government that devolution is going to be stopped.
One issue that validates it is that NTI is negotiating for land with the federal government and others. The negotiations are ongoing, even with the lawsuit against Canada. The negotiations have been ongoing, even though NTI has filed this lawsuit against Canada.
For that reason, I don’t believe that the lawsuit is the cause for stalling devolution negotiations.
This had to be responded to since the standing committee’s made that inference in their opening comments such that it seemed to be affecting our situation. I understand the Premier’s response.
However, in your business plan, page 21 to be exact, it states that the government wants to progress towards an agreement-in-principle related to resource development.
What can we expect? It says on top of the page that “Formal AIP negotiations can only advance once the Government of Canada appoints a Federal Chief Negotiator and acquires their mandate…in support of a strong land and resource management regime for Nunavut. This has required active engagement with the other two Parties and multiple stakeholders.”
What kind of engagement do you follow with the two parties and who are the multiple stakeholders or parties?
If he can tell me what page that is. It’s okay; we found that page in the business plan.
Let me read that paragraph.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are in discussions and dialogue with the federal government and NTI. There are three parties: the Nunavut government, NTI, and the federal government.
To date, we know that the federal government has to yet appoint a federal chief negotiator because we are unique as the Nunavut government and because we have to discuss these matters with various leaders and also other parties down south.
To date, the federal government discussion is becoming more frequent and it’s at a higher level.
I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
When the officials are negotiating with other officials down there, we would like to provide support.
They’re not negotiations; they’re just preparing for negotiations. NTI and the federal government have an agreement and they both have bureaucrat departments.
One thing I would like to hear from the Premier is how we can expect the negotiations can go ahead when the Prime Minister had not formally told you that the negotiations will continue.
Can you tell us and Nunavutmiut whether we should be expecting the negotiations to occur before our mandate is over?
Just to move further, in English, in regard to multiple stakeholders, I just want to make a supplementary. We are trying to inform different parties, such as the municipal councillors, and we discuss this matter with the mayors at their meetings, including the Inuit associations, and we keep them abreast of our progress in this regard.
Just last month, the Prime Minister was in Iqaluit and I met with him. He made an interesting comment. In December 2011, I met with him in Ottawa, along with the INAC minister.
In February, we had another discussion that was a continuation of our meeting in December about an impending appointment of a federal representative on devolution.
I mentioned that I don’t just want a devolution representative, but that we need a bona fide chief negotiator.
That is what I told the Prime Minister.
When we met in Iqaluit in February, he said that we can now put together a negotiation team.
That elevated the status of the devolution issue and we are now discussing actual negotiation teams.
That means this issue is going forward and I believe it is firmly on its way to fruition.
That is good news indeed.
Once the Prime Minister made those comments, did you follow it up with correspondence?
The issue is no longer in doubt, that devolution has to be negotiated between the federal and Nunavut governments.
That is why I’m asking if you have written to the Prime Minister as follow-up and urged him to put his negotiating team together.
It’s all good and fine to make preparations for negotiations, but it could end up costing precious dollars, especially if the federal government actually had no intention of naming their negotiators.
It sure would be enlightening to hear if you did follow up with the Prime Minister in writing.
Yes, when we met, that is what we discussed along with other issues surrounding increased self-reliance.
I have subsequently written to him further to what we discussed at our meetings to ensure that he would have a written record of what transpired between us.
I wanted to impress upon the Prime Minister how important devolution is to us in writing and that is what I did.
I’m wondering if that letter could be tabled at our spring session and the progress being made by the federal government on establishing their negotiators at the time.
That would enable us to have Nunavutmiut involved by having those discussions in the House.
I’m also hopeful that it would give members an opportunity to come up with ideas and suggestions.
That would be a productive way to prepare for negotiating devolution issues, so I wonder if you would be willing to do that.
I have received a letter. After we had a meeting with the Prime Minister, he wrote a letter to me and I’ll be able to table that information.
I am pleased to hear that. I’m sure we will be prepared to make statements in regard to that at that time. We would like to hear NTI’s position on that and if you received a letter from NTI, if you can include that when you table the letters.
I would like to raise another issue in regard to your business plan. Although I don’t have the page that there are five branches and looking at the chart in your opening comments, there are now seven branches and you just appointed two with the same title.
You appointed senior advisors. I would like to ask you where they are in the budget and if it remains the same. There’s a principal secretary and there are two senior advisors.
Where are those positions located?
The positions are here at the Legislative Assembly. Most our staff at the Legislative Assembly did not change. In our Devolution Branch, we have more positions there.
One position is in Ottawa. We used to have a position in Ottawa. The deputy minister is now retired and because we want to have a position in Ottawa for devolution, there’s a temporary position in Ottawa.
The other one is in Iqaluit who works with the devolution office. This position is geared more towards policy and planning.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Premier.
Now I have a better understanding. Under policy planning or sustaining development, who do they report to? The Premier works there and I think there could be a conflict of interest.
So therefore, I would like to ask the Premier about the two positions that have the same exact titles and they’re both senior advisors, and there’s a principal cabinet secretary. Who is the senior at the senior level? What do they advise the Premier on?
The negotiations are delayed right now, so it seems like they hardly have any work to do.
The English title of these employees who handle these responsibilities is “advisor.” This term can mean all sorts of different workers in various capacities who are working in our offices, who are considered advisors in the English language.
Ever since they became employed in our department, they have worked hard to develop the interaction with the provincial as well as the federal governments revolving around laying out the reality we face by providing information on what Nunavut is, what it needs, as well as the reasons for devolution. Additionally, they provide support to our office with respect to this area of preparation, with various detailed contents, as this is a huge task.
Preparation and planning is intrinsic and we are starting to see what requirements we need to comply with in order to begin.
I am appreciative of the workers because we have started to progress towards developing dialogue with the federal government, and it seems our determination and commitment towards this goal have been recognized.
There are many various aspects of this file that they have been providing assistance with.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Madam Premier. (interpretation) I have no more names on my list. B-5.
Very briefly, I don’t want to take too long, although I know that I have been elected and I could use my 10 minutes.
Under page B-5, in regard to devolution, devolution activities in Nunavut, the lawsuit by NTI for the federal government for… .
The Nunavut government didn’t initiate the lawsuit and we didn’t want to be part of that lawsuit.
With the Premier’s leadership, the Nunavut government didn’t want to take part in the lawsuit because we wanted to negotiate with the federal government for devolution.
I believe NTI’s lawsuit is delaying devolution talks.
NTI, I’m sure, wouldn’t be helping us when we start dealing with the devolution file. Before the lawsuit is closed, why am I concerned about NTI?
Because I’m a land claims beneficiary and they have vast lands in the Nunavut territory.
We have been given 352,240 square kilometres of land through the agreement.
There are 38,000 square kilometres with surface rights through NTI.
Just prior to the lawsuit closing, I would be concerned when the Nunavut government starts to negotiate for devolution because NTI is our partner for devolution negotiations.
I just wanted to make that comment, but yes, I know that we can negotiate with the federal government at this time.
Are we going to have an agreement?
No? I wanted to talk more about the NTI lawsuit. Before the lawsuit is closed, I believe that devolution talks can’t go ahead.
We have vast lands and we have surface rights to huge parcels of land too.
Chairman (interpretation): We usually ask for general comments before we review page by page, but I’ll give you an opportunity to respond, (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
Briefly, first of all, I would like to say that I appreciate and thank NTI for supporting devolution discussions and thoughts.
During their AGM, NTI had moved a motion to support the Nunavut government and urging the Nunavut government to start the negotiations.
At our next meeting, I’ll table NTI’s motion so that everyone can see it.
Also, I looked into NTI’s lawsuit. I was wondering if NTI’s lawsuit was delaying devolution talks.
I asked the Department of Justice and they said it was the case and they said the lawsuit is not going to have a negative impact on the negotiation talks.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Madam Premier. (interpretation) We’re on page B-5. $2,412,000.
Turn to page B-6. (interpretation ends) Nunavut Cabinet. $5,040,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to page B-7.
Commissioner of Nunavut. $287,000.
Turn to page B-8.
Intergovernmental Affairs. $7,330,000.
Go back to page B-3.
Department Summary. Detail of Expenditures. Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $20,785,000.
Does the committee agree that the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs is concluded?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier, (interpretation) if you have any closing remarks, you have the floor.
I thank each and every one of you and for your good questions and they’re well noted. Our constituents of Nunavut need to hear the operation of EIA, especially on devolution talks, and that’s our priority.
We’re progressing well with the talks and I will keep the members abreast of the progress.
I would like to thank my officials with the Department of EIA. I thank them very much because they worked very hard and diligently. Also, the GLOs are increasing in the communities.
I thank them because they worked very hard. These positions are new.
I also thank Mr. Vandermeulen and Aluki Rojas.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Premier Aariak. I thank your officials, Mr. Vandermeulen and Aluki Rojas, for appearing before the committee.
Members, we will now move on to the Office of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, if you can proceed to the witness table.
If you have opening comments, you may now proceed.
Bill 24 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2012-2013 – Legislative Assembly – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to appear before you this evening to present the 2012-13 main estimates and 2012-15 business plan of the Office of the Legislative Assembly.
The proposed 2012-13 operations and maintenance budget for the Office of the Legislative Assembly is $16,898,000.
This is a small decrease from the 2011-12 main estimates, which were 16,935,000.
As members are aware, The Order of Nunavut Act is now in force.
The legislation establishes the Order of Nunavut Advisory Council, which I chair in my capacity as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
The council’s other members are the Senior Judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice and the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
Support to the council is being provided by the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.
The investiture ceremonies honouring the first three members of the Order of Nunavut have been successfully held in Iqaluit, Arviat, and Rankin Inlet.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the recipients and their families.
At the start of our winter sitting, I announced that nominations for the order have reopened for 2012.
Nomination forms and other information have been sent to all members’ constituency offices and we are looking at providing information directly to Nunavummiut in the coming weeks through such means as household mailings and notices on community radio and television.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the advisory council as we work towards holding the investiture ceremony for recipients later this year.
In October of 2011, Bill 22 was passed by the Legislative Assembly.