EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
On March 1, 2012, the minister indicated in the Legislative Assembly that Sandy Akavak of Kimmirut is the Department of Environment’s representative on the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Management Board.
How does the department choose its representative and what qualifications are required of the representative to sit on this board?
Have departmental officials prepared and submitted a written submission to the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Management Board on the establishment of a total allowable take of the southern Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation? If so, what were its contents?
What role does the Sanikiluaq Hunters and Trappers Organization have with respect to the establishment of a total allowable take of the southern Hudson Bay subpopulation?
Speaker: I hear lots of agreements there, so thank you and it shall be so entered into the record as read.
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters. Mr. Tapardjuk.
Committee Report 014 – 3(3): Bill 28, Write-off of Assets Act, 2011-2012 (Tapardjuk)
I wish to report that Bill 28, Write-off of Assets Act, 2011-2012, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Bill 28 will be placed on the order paper for Wednesday, March 7.
Committee Report 015 – 3(3): Bill 29, Write-off of Assets Act, NO. 1, 2010-2011 (Tapardjuk)
I wish to report that Bill 29, Write-off of Assets Act, No. 1, 2010-2011, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 29 will be placed on the order paper for Wednesday, March 7.
Committee Report 016 – 3(3): Presentation of the Report of the Standing Committee on the Review of the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut (Elliott)
I rise today to present the report of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut to the Legislative Assembly.
Since her initial appointment in 1999, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has submitted a total of 12 annual reports to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Since 2005, the government has tabled an annual report on the administration of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The government’s most recent annual report on the administration of the Act was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 28, 2011.
The Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts held hearings on the 2007-08 and 2008-09 annual reports of the Information and Privacy Commissioner on October 1, 2009.
Its hearings on the 2009-2010 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner were held on October 1, 2010.
Following its 2010 hearings, the standing committee presented its own report to the Legislative Assembly on October 29, 2010.
This report contained a number of formal recommendations.
The government’s response to the standing committee’s report and recommendations was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on February 28, 2011.
The standing committee’s hearings on the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner were held on November 24, 2011.
Senior officials from the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs subsequently appeared before the standing committee on November 25, 2011.
This appearance constituted the first time that departmental officials have appeared before a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly to publicly account for the government’s actions in response to recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the standing committee itself.
The 2011 appearances of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and departmental officials before the standing committee were held in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly and were open to the public and news media to observe.
Transcripts from the appearances have been posted on the Legislative Assembly’s website.
While the government has made progress on some issues, the standing committee notes that further action is required in other areas, such as amending the legislation to provide the Information and Privacy Commissioner with clear authority to investigate privacy breaches, moving towards establishing an access to information and protection of privacy regime for municipalities, and addressing the issue of health-specific privacy legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee’s report presents nine formal recommendations.
A number of these follow up on issues that we have brought to the attention of the House in previous years.
Disclosure of Crown agency contracting, procurement and leasing activities;
Disclosure of information in relation to communicable diseases;
The development of health-specific privacy legislation;
The provision of information to Members of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to subsection 48(v) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and
The ability of parties to appeal a decision made by a head of a public body under section 36 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Nunavut Court of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Premier made a Minister’s Statement in the House on October 28, 2011 concerning the government’s plans to amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 2012.
The Premier indicated that “there are a few administrative changes to be considered. However, the major change to be considered is to make privacy oversight mandatory.”
The Minister’s Statement also indicated that “the proposed amendments will bring the Government of Nunavut’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act up to national standards for the protection of personal privacy. …the proposed amendments will allow individuals the ability to complain to the Information and Privacy Commissioner if they feel that the Government of Nunavut has inappropriately collected, used, or disclosed their personal information.
It will also make it mandatory for departments to report privacy breaches within their departments to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.”
The standing committee looks forward to the introduction of these amendments.
As the committee noted in its last report, the increasingly complex world in which we live requires governments to ensure that their practices in the areas of access to information and protection of privacy are up to date.
I would also like to thank the witnesses from the Government of Nunavut who appeared before the standing committee.
Members appreciated their efforts to provide clear information to the committee and to respond to members’ comments and suggestions in a positive manner.
Do members agree that the report of the committee be received and entered into the record as read?
Speaker: It has been agreed to, Mr. Elliott. Thank you.
It has been received and it will be so entered into the record as read.*
Tabled Document 163 – 3(3): Information Brochure - Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services (Ell)
As I indicated in my Member’s Statement, I wish to table today an information brochure concerning the Office of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services.
I encourage all members to review this document with care.
I look very much forward to reviewing that document.
Tabled Document 164 – 3(3): Articles Concerning People of a Feather Documentary (Rumbolt)
I wish to table today copies of news articles relating to the documentary by Joel Heath and the community of Sanikiluaq called “People of a Feather, a film about survival in a changing Canadian Arctic.”
*See Appendix for full text of Committee Report 16 – 3(3) filed with the Clerk.
I encourage all Nunavummiut to read these articles and to visit the website, “People of a Feather.”
Tabled Document 165 – 3(3): Alaska Suicide Hospitalizations: 2011-2012 (Elliott)
Tabled Document 166 – 3(3): GNWT - Donation of Food Act (Elliott)
I have two to table.
As I indicated in my Member’s Statement, I will be tabling a number of items this week concerning the kind of work that needs to be done to effectively implement our territory’s suicide prevention action plan.
The item that I am tabling today is a publication from the Alaska Injury Prevention Center concerning suicide hospitalizations.
I urge all members to review this with care.
I also have here further to my oral question regarding the donation of food, I would like to table a copy of the NWT Donation of Food Act for all members to view, but in particular, the Minister of Health and Social Services.
Mr. Speaker, the text of this bill itself actually fits on one page.
I table it so that the minister can view it and possibly answer my questions that I posed earlier.
Tabled Document 167 – 3(3): 2010-2011 Annual Report for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation (Taptuna)
I am very pleased today to table the 2010-2011 Annual Report for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation.
Minister responsible for the Nunavut Arctic College, Minister Shewchuk.
Tabled Document 168 – 3(3): 2010-2011 Annual Report for Nunavut Arctic College (Shewchuk)
I am pleased to table the 2010-2011 Annual Report for the Nunavut Arctic College.
Bills 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 34 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
In accordance with the authority provided to me by Motion 22 – 3(3), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
>>House adjourned at 15:13 and Committee resumed at 15:37
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Good afternoon.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 24 and commence with the review of the Department of Community and Government Services and, if time permits, followed by the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, followed by the Nunavut Housing Corporation, as well as the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance.
Are we agreed that we want to continue with our review of the department?
We will proceed with the review immediately.
Mr. Kusugak, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Chairman (interpretation): Do you agree to bring in the minister’s witnesses?
To my left is Kathleen Lausman, Deputy Minister, and to my right is Alma Power, Director of Finance.
We will proceed with the department and at this time, we are on page J-5.
I have a couple of questions on J-5, if I could.
First of all, in my opening comments, I mentioned that the Northern Employee Benefits Service Pension Plan Protection Act was passed in 2009 and I talked about the need to protect municipal employees and their pension plans.
Your department’s 2011-14 business plan indicates that a legislative proposal has been drafted.
When will the Standing Committee on Legislation receive this legislative proposal and when is your plan to introduce the bill in the House?
We are still working on that very issue and we hope to be able to bring something forward by this fall.
The only other question I have on J-5 is your department’s draft 2012-15 business plan provides an update on one of its 2011-12 priorities, which is to “Review municipal funding and grants to ensure appropriate resources are allocated to communities.”
The status indicates that your department “has completed a municipal funding review. The report is being circulated to relevant stakeholders for their review and feedback.” When do you expect this report to be tabled in the House?
We have finished the draft report. We are currently reviewing the report.
We hope to be able to introduce something into the Legislative Assembly by the fall.
I have no more names on my list. J-5.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $66,434,000.
Turn to page J-6. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services. Branch Summary. Government Services.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $73,306,000.
We are now dealing with the Department of Community and Government Services.
I would like some clarification and to keep it brief, I would like further information on the Inuit firm status, which I believe was initiated by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and the other one is the Nunavut firm status, which I believe was initiated by the Government of Nunavut.
Are they recognized at the same level or are they viewed differently by this government?
I would like the minister’s opinion on this.
Minister Kusugak, he would like clarification.
With regard to Inuit firm status, Nunavut Tunngavik initiated that program and they identify which firms have Inuit firm status.
The NNI Secretariat at ED&T is the one responsible for Nunavut firm status.
Nunavut beneficiaries are the responsibility of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and I think they make up approximately 85 percent of the population.
Sometimes businesses that fall under the Inuit firm status and the Nunavut firm status work together to procure contracts, for example, through a joint venture or partnership.
Although I can’t say this is exactly what we did, when various RFPs are put out, we do see proposals where a business with Inuit firm status partners up with a business that has Nunavut firm status.
Mr. Ningark: Qujannamiik, Mr. Chairman.
This is where we are venturing into a little bit of dangerous field there. (interpretation) Inuit usually don’t have a lot of money and I believe the companies with Inuit firm status usually get minor contracts.
However, companies with Nunavut firm status tend to be awarded major contracts.
If businesses with Inuit firm status partner up with them, they would increase their share of contracts.
I don’t know of Inuit businesses that use territorial or federal government funding programs for architecture, engineering, and those types of contracts as we’re still trying to master those fields.
The Nunavut firm status companies could use the Inuit firm status companies to acquire contracts or get a larger percentage. I’ll just use charter airlines as an example. Are the Inuit getting the short end in acquiring these types of contracts from what he knows?
I want to treat everybody equally, but I’m looking at my communities of Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk. They suffer a very high percentage of unemployment and don’t have the resources to get the major contracts.
We, as politicians, are thought to not care about (interpretation ends) fair and open competition. Mr. Chairman, there is a general perception out there that politicians don’t necessarily support fair and open competition when it comes to their communities and businesses.
I would like to make a statement coming from my heart. Fair and open business means everything to me and everything to my communities that I represent. That’s the only way that we can win some of those big contracts, just for the record.
(interpretation) I don’t want the Inuit companies to lose out when they become partners of Nunavut business.
You don’t necessarily need to answer my question, but I would appreciate it.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with Mr. Ningark. This government believes in the utmost fair and equitable way of making sure that the politicians don’t get involved in decision-making on who gets contracts.
Politicians should not decide who gets a contract and who doesn’t. It has to be dealt with in a very fair and equitable way, following all contracting rules and procedures. And that is done to date.
It’s important that that be understood.
This government also believes that as many Inuit as possible should venture into business and that’s why they allow companies to partnership with people who specialize in other fields. We cannot decide who an Inuit company is. That is decided by NTI.
They have their rules and procedures. From there, if we said that no partnership should go in, we would lose a lot of Inuit businesses that are able to bid on these contracts.
(interpretation) If Inuit firm status companies want to be partners with larger companies, we invite them to do so because we need to see many more Inuit businesses.
They don’t necessarily have to be professionals in design and architecture. Like the example Mr. Ningark used, they can partner up with design and architect firms.
The member stated that he believes Inuit businesses are not partnering. There are Inuit firms that are very capable. Some of them have partnership agreements with Nunavut companies and other Canadian companies, especially in regard to mining exploration.
We are in support and encourage Inuit firms so that they can have a good future. That’s why we provide support, but we cannot say who can be an Inuit firm.
When there are contracts that come up, the politicians and cabinet ministers cannot be involved in selecting or granting of these contracts.
When the RFP sealed envelopes are opened, the bids are reviewed and screened by the contracting specialists, who work on all contracts, and the bid that is the best and most appropriate is selected.
In my perception, this process works rather well.
I certainly hope I have responded to the member’s question.
I had a concern since I don’t think there are too many Inuit who are contractors and I would prefer that Inuit firms not just be used as a cover with the profits slipping to the south.
I am in full support of viable Inuit firms and they are recognized as having status as Inuit companies under Article 24. We also have been informed that Articles 23 and 24 are still not being implemented properly by the federal government.
I believe that these two articles are the subject of an arbitration case between the parties.
Another question I want to raise is about the local hamlets, the LHOs, Nunavut Arctic College, and Inuit organizations that don’t have the Inuit firm status as per the requirements of the land claims.
Sometimes these organizations hire more Inuit than other bodies as they are local bodies.
I do understand that as a municipal government, hamlets are not businesses.
However, I wonder if the hamlets, LHOs, Nunavut Arctic College, and Inuit organizations have been given Inuit firm status or at least recognized as Inuit bodies.
As I stated earlier, we have no authority to determine the Inuit firm status of any organization or business. NTI has the responsibility and jurisdiction to make the determination of Inuit firm status, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Member for Rankin Inlet North, Mr. Curley, was going to applaud, so I want his support on this matter.
I have already gone through the issues I wanted clarification on, so I will conclude with that.
My time will end prior to my completion as I also recognize my colleagues’ right to speak to these issues.
Perhaps you can set aside the remaining time for your next time limit and request for consent to do so.
Mr. Minister, did you want to respond although it is just a comment?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to provide some background on the matters that the minister commented on. I agree with what he stated and I don’t have issues with what I heard.
However, what I wanted to speak to was with respect to contracts. At least in Nunavut, we have this requirement for Inuit firm status. It is different from the Inuvialuit and Makivik land claims set-up where they only have one firm that is recognized as an Inuit firm.
The Inuvialuit firm is the Inuvialuit Corporation and they are the only ones that can bid on contracts in their region by the NWT government.
In the Quebec region, only Makivik has that status.
We have a different set-up here in Nunavut and that is why it is unique.
I personally asked for this change, as I was involved at that stage.
The business community in Nunavut is progressing within the territory. With the recognition of this status, it allows them to benefit from future developments.
That is why the minister talked about the companies that qualify for Inuit firm status.
However, the one thing I want to comment on is with respect to Article 24. Several ministers have responded to previous questions about Inuit firm status and that they don’t have jurisdiction to make a decision on Inuit firms as they are registered with the NNI Policy.
They can qualify for specific contracts, but it’s outside of the purview of the government’s ability to determine their status.
There are two areas that tend to be confused and mixed up, at least from my perspective, and I want to comment in English to make it very clear.
(interpretation ends) First of all, I think we need to be very clear that there’s nothing wrong and Article 24 is a free enterprise concept for Nunavut, which is, in my view, better than the socialist type of government that likes to just contract one organization or a sole source arrangement to whoever they think they are pleased with.
Article 24 is a competitive process to allow Nunavut’s economic groups to play and have an opportunity. It doesn’t guarantee them anything. Inuit credentials as an Inuit firm by NTI don’t give any right of being an Inuit firm, the right to compete in a particular field and be accorded with the sector credentials.
It’s up to the contracting management as to who is able to perform a contract under that requirement.
They are sometimes too mixed up.
An Inuit firm doesn’t… . Again, it’s not guaranteed that they are able to compete in performing in a particular sector in the economy.
That’s up to the terms of reference of the RFP or whatnot that is designated.
Sometimes there is confusion on that, I think, but I think we understand that.
There’s also nothing wrong with the NNI Policy. There may be some glitches here and there, but actually nothing wrong. If the government is committed to implementing it, there has to be a fair system in honouring it and that it would be applied.
So my question is: do all public tenders, other than the emergency type of stuff like the health professional stuff, normally have a notice that NNI provisions apply? One question.
Yes, there are provisions where they would not and that would be because cabinet has approval to override. Other than that, yes.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak Mr. Curley.
Again, I think that’s where it’s quite evident right now. The minister replied that NNI provisions are normally included in the notice of the public tender.
The minister indicated, and I think this is something that NTI should look into, that the cabinet can override that provision.
I disagree with that because Article 24 can override territorial law and that’s quite clear in Article 2.12.2.
In the provision, the article says that if there is any inconsistency or conflict, the land claims agreement will prevail to the extent of the conflict.
So my question is a simple one: who decides if the case is required? Who recommends that NNI provisions should not apply?
You have to realize that in saying that, the exception is when the cabinet would approve. That’s rare.
The only exception would be something like the fuel contract and something like that, where it would have an overriding issue with affecting the whole territory.
It’s not like the cabinet would go and say, “Well, let’s have NNI exempt on the snow removal contracting,” or things like that.
In the case of answering his question, that would be a recommendation by the client department.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I will not take much longer. The only area where I have questions on is the principles.
The member immediately across from me, Mr. John Ningark, stated that members support the review of the NNI provision and I know that NTI will have comments on their recommendations.
The contracting departments, I believe, have the ability to enhance the process, especially in relation to joint partnerships where the non-Inuit company owns 49 percent and the minimum Inuit portion is 51 percent.
My own preference is for a company to be 90 percent Inuit owned company or even 100 percent, which is even better.