EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Now, that is going to take some time and consultation to have that done. It will not be done during the mandate of this government and will be the responsibility of the next government to take that over.
We are on page E-4. Justice. Branch Summary.
Directorate. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) The person who was going to speak apparently left the House. I have several questions and I know that I probably won’t get answers right away for some of them.
I want answers to the questions that I asked earlier.
I commented on the fact that the RCMP headquarters and the people who made the foundation are trying to keep the lots frozen. The coolants were not working properly. They should ensure that it’s frozen all the time.
The permafrost is melting and they’re not using proven technology. Apparently, they built quite a few buildings in the north. However, the Nunavut government buildings usually don’t sink when one year has elapsed.
For that reason, I believe that the Nunavut government does better in the construction of its buildings than the federal government.
Can the minister tell us whether he has been kept informed and how they can rectify the problem of the RCMP foundation melting if it can be rectified?
Before Minister Shewchuk responds, let me remind you that the Speaker has allowed us extended hours. We will conclude when we wish to do so. This is just a reminder so that we will all be aware. (interpretation ends) Minister Shewchuk, please.
I will comment not only to this question but to his opening remarks. He brought up many issues there.
First of all, he is absolutely correct in saying that in Nunavut, our major obligations and authorities are not very much different than other jurisdictions across Canada. The one major responsibility that was not devolved to us is the court prosecution services, which stays with the federal Crown. So that’s an important issue and that pretty much is the only issue.
In regard to the RCMP, first of all, everybody knows that we have an agreement signed with the RCMP. There were previous agreements up until the one that we had just signed for a renewal of 20 years. In that previous agreement, we had no responsibility for RCMP infrastructure.
In the new agreement, we do. We are going to be part and parcel of any development or planning with the RCMP, but also with that comes a cost to us too of our 70-30 percent share. So the structure has changed.
In regard to the RCMP headquarters here and the issues that are taking place, the Government of Nunavut has no obligation in that at all, which is a good thing.
That’s between the RCMP and people who constructed the building.
I must say that I am in constant contact with the commanding officer of the RCMP here on almost a weekly basis. So we do keep in touch and we’re being kept informed on all happenings with the RCMP.
With this building, he has given us information that it’s not a major structural issue that’s happening there.
The building is operating, it will continue to operate, and that the fix of the problem will happen this summer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Iksivautaaq. I have further questions with respect to two parts, really. The first one is I understand that there’s an investigation going on with the one who designed the foundation of this building.
So my question is if you’re up to speed on this thing. If so, could you explain to the committee exactly why the investigation is needed and, if so, who initiated the investigation? The RCMP itself or the Department of Justice of the Nunavut government?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. Minister Shewchuk.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I’m unaware completely of any investigation going on and the RCMP would probably indicate that to me if we had any ties to it as the Government of Nunavut. If there is an investigation going on, it was probably requested by the RCMP or Public Works of Canada that would have been involved in that, but I, as the Minister of Justice, and the Government of Nunavut have no knowledge of that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. Prior to moving along with our review, I wish to remind you, Minister Shewchuk and your officials that if you’re going to be talking amongst each other, you should mute your microphone. We can hear your entire discussion when the microphone is on.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Perhaps if the minister understands my question, can he inform us about this article that ran in The Globe and Mail in two parts?
In the older case, the story stated that there was an ongoing investigation of some project managers, (interpretation ends) the Department of Public Works and the Government of Canada. (interpretation) Once the minister has researched this story, I wonder if he would be able to provide the background that was the basis for this story. Thank you.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a briefing note from the RCMP I’ll read here.
It doesn’t refer to the investigation, but it does refer to this: the current situation, interim measures have been taken to stabilize the facility.
The RCMP is working with Public Works, government, and Service Canada to retain the services of an independent consultant and engineering firm specializing in arctic construction on permafrost to provide recommendations to permanently stabilize the foundation.
That’s what I have. Thank you.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stop at this point regarding that matter. We were informed that once further details are known, they will be provided to the members.
I’m sure we can understand the situation.
However, this other question I want to ask relates to another matter within the Department of Justice. It is obvious they advise other departments on legal issues, in other words, legal advice.
Further, am I correct in my understanding that the Department of Justice advises all departments with respect to their Nunavut Land Claims Agreement obligations?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, that’s correct.
That brings up another question related to the agreement, specifically based on my understanding of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Under Article 24, it speaks to government contracts. Which department has the onus to abide by the NLCA, specifically the provisions of Article 24?
First of all, based on our understanding, legislation such as the Financial Administration Act and all government agencies are bound under the provisions of Article 24. Further, in the definitions, it states that the NWT Power Corporation is exempted from this article and it stops there.
With respect to any offshoots of this exempted body, it is silent. In my opinion, it implies that the Qulliq Energy Corporation isn’t exempt from this article.
Based on this situation, has your department provided any legal advice as to whether Article 24 is binding to the Qulliq Energy Corporation?
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan) (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley.
I will have Deputy Minister Tarnow answer that.
Yes, we have provided advice to that effect, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tarnow.
I think it’s important because we, as committee members, have not been able to get clear information from the responsible minister whether or not Article 24 applies to Qulliq Energy when RFPs and tenders are put out and whether or not the NNI Policy applies.
It’s still a moving target. They claim to signal to us that it is optional.
I think the legal wording of that agreement is that it’s not optional. It is either binding or not binding. There are no grey areas that are supposed to be exercised by officials in the government when dealing with Article 24.
Having said that, what advice have you provided to the government departments as to whether or not it’s binding?
I’ll have Deputy Minister Tarnow answer that.
Mr. Tarnow: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, our advice is that it is binding.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I appreciate that response. I believe the article is really quite clear because it has constitutional status and so forth.
I have read the article. I was part of the negotiations, actually, when dealing with that and it was the NWT Power Corporation at that time that was exempted, but it was not grandfathered. We made it clear that it should not be grandfathered so that there would never be a grey area subject for agencies not to abide by Article 24.
Having said that, I would like to thank the minister for indicating that. That will make my job a lot easier when dealing with some of the ministers.
I don’t think that was a question. Mr. Tapardjuk.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, if I’m not mistaken, we are on page E-4.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask this short question to the minister. I wasn’t sure I quite comprehended the previous response.
The Nunavut government and the RCMP have an agreement that outlines their shared plans for the upcoming year. In 2010-11, a short report was tabled entitled (interpretation ends) “Shared Directional Statement.” (interpretation) It outlines what the plans are for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 fiscal years. I think I misunderstood when you mentioned the 2012-13 shared directional statement.
Has it been presented between the RCMP and your department? Can I get clarification on that, Mr. Chairman?
We do have a shared directional statement signed by both parties that was signed in November 2012 for a two-year term, a shared directional statement with the RCMP that was tabled in the House.
Will you be presenting the shared directional statement and tabling it in the House?
Were there any problems involved as to any advice given?
Under the first shared directional statement, will we be getting a report? Will someone be reporting on the first agreement?
Was it adequate? Do you need to amend it?
I want clarification on that, Mr. Chairman.
In the first shared directional statement, I believe it was for a term of one year. I am not aware if there was a report or an analysis done on the results of what was accomplished during the vision of that statement.
This shared directional statement is just for a period of two years, I believe. Something that we would consider is analyzing it after the term to see what accomplishments were made.
No wonder. It should be our expectation because these agreements are followed.
We have to ensure there is an analysis of whether it was being followed. If it didn’t work, then it can be removed.
The Tamapta Action Plan states that during this mandate, the Government of Nunavut will develop a comprehensive Crime Prevention Strategy based on Inuit societal values and involving Nunavummiut in the efforts to reduce the need for intervention by the justice system.
As of today, what is the status of the Crime Prevention Strategy?
When will the MLAs be shown the Crime Prevention Strategy that is based on Inuit societal values?
Just give me a second here to get the briefing note on this.
First of all, I think Mr. Tapardjuk highlights something that we all know is very important, and that’s crime prevention. We have all spoken to it already and he has passionately in his opening remarks. We want to reduce the number of people who are going into corrections and we want to get rid of them, not put them in there.
It all relates back to crime prevention.
There are very many people, groups, and Inuit societal values that are incorporated into this strategy. That is including community justice committees, elder committees, the RCMP, wellness people in communities, and there’s a whole dynamic group of people who are involved in this.
The Crime Prevention Strategy is moving along.
There are three elements to its framework which the Department of Justice sees as long-, medium-, and short-term phases in the overall framework. The first part, the long-term part, is looking at youth and gang prevention and crimes around youth. The medium term is the Nunavut Crime Prevention Strategy.
The short-term goal is community-specific targeted interventions in communities. It is going to be rolled out like this.
In the short term and immediate, the number one goal right now is to work with communities to target specific interventions where crime is taking place.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): My question was: when will the MLAs be shown the Crime Prevention Strategy?
I want an answer, Mr. Chairman.
When do you anticipate tabling it, Mr. Chairman?
I think, for Mr. Tapardjuk’s sake, I’m going to bring a different witness to the table. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): In regard to the minister’s comment, I just wanted him to rephrase.
I know it’s not directed at me, but (interpretation ends) it’s not for my sake; it’s for Nunavummiut. If you can retract your thing there. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, he was addressing his response to me.
If he can retract his comments and just refer to the people of Nunavut, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure.
Maybe there should be a ruling on this.
What I did say is I said, “For Mr. Tapardjuk’s sake, I would bring another witness to the table.”
Maybe I should reword that and I will retract it.
I will say that if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to bring in another witness to the table for the betterment of information for all Nunavutmiut, I will do that.
I believe I heard the committee agree to bring in another witness. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Shewchuk’s witness in.
My new witness on my left is Rebekah Williams, ADM of Justice.
Ms. Williams, welcome.
Mr. Tapardjuk, can you please rephrase your question. Now that Ms. Williams is seated, we would prefer that so she can respond.
As MLAs, we are provided with clear direction of our government from the reports of the departmental officials.
I appreciate that for their openness in that regard.
However, when all we get are reports outlining the action items related to strategies, such as the Crime Prevention Strategy with its associated funding requests, I imagine that these approved funds have already been expended for that purpose, the (interpretation ends) Crime Prevention Strategy.
(interpretation) The question I had was this: what date are you anticipating tabling this information in the Legislative Assembly so that regular MLAs will also understand the strategy and be party to these expectations?
That was my question, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Tapardjuk for the question.
I am very confident that my ADM can answer that question fully.
Firstly, I can make this statement. As per the minister’s previous statement, there are three main priorities we are focusing on within the Crime Prevention Strategy that we would apply to prevent crime in Nunavut.
The first priority which we are trying to implement is collaborating with the federal government on the strategy with associated funding requests to identify short-term priorities.
We can state that in the three- to six-month period upcoming, we will be working with our federal counterparts.
It can only be extended through a written request or proposal.
We are targeting communities with the highest crime rates and they will be our first priority.
Further, the second priority relates to another crime prevention initiative. Just recently, a youth conference was organized to take place in Clyde River, with a training workshop, including a brainstorming session related to crime prevention amongst youth in Nunavut. These would be radio-based and this initiative has consumed a substantial amount of funding.
Fortunately, we have been able to provide additional funding from our operational funding.
With respect to the Nunavut-wide strategy that members have been asking to be implemented to lower our crime rates here in Nunavut, we’re working towards this goal.
We also have researchers available to sniff out, analyze, and determine what the indicators are for youth crime and what the reasons are for why youth commit crime.
That is the crux of that report. Prior to the end of this government’s term, we hope to have that report completed and we hope to have it tabled to this government before that time. What I can state at this time is that we are targeting this spring or summer to release the report in its entirety.
These are the three priorities we have focused on, although we deal with other matters on a daily basis in your communities, especially the community justice outreach committees to whom we provide funding specific to crime prevention.
That is ongoing work within our department.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you. That was understandable.
Actually, with the expectations resulting from the minister and his statements regarding strategies and associated funding requests, we get reports about these initiatives. However, we never get told dates about when the strategies would be started and why. I wanted to understand the reasoning as it can lead to expectations.
Mr. Chairman, one of the priorities for 2013-14 outlined on page 35 in the business plan is they will “Continue to provide and expand training to Justices of the Peace” and they will consider the idea of special constables.
Can the minister report to this House exactly what type of additional training they are envisioning? Do you have new justices of the peaces or do the incumbents already practicing require further training due to their lack of training?
What exactly is inferred by this statement?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The intent by that wording in the business plan during those years is it is to continue and expand training to justices of the peace.
As we have now, there are four levels of justices of the peace. The intention is to keep on training existing and new justices of the peace that we have to bring them up in the scale of levels so that they can deal with more issues in the communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. Mr. Tapardjuk.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you. Is the number of JPs in Nunavut adequate or are you going to do some brainstorming?
Funding is involved, so I would like to know what work will be undertaken.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the present state, I think they are adequate, but there are always justices of the peace that are leaving and coming and not wanting to be justices of the peace anymore.
So there is constant training going on. As the population does grow in the territory, there always will be demands for justices of the peace and I could see into the future the increase in demand growing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. (interpretation ends) Justice. Branch Summary. Directorate.
Total Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation) It’s on page E-4. $15,340,000. Do you agree?
Justice. Law Enforcement. Total Operations and Maintenance. $34,185,000. (interpretation) It’s on page E-5.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): With respect to policing services under law enforcement, within the main estimates under the heading “Public Safety Canada,” it speaks to policing services funding in Nunavut.
It states that an increase is coming. The current budget is $29,606,000, but for fiscal year 2012-13, it is listed at $34,185,000.
In the fiscal year 2013-14, there is an increase of approximately 15 percent in the proposed budget, which is rather a large increase in the year-to-year expenditures. Do I understand that the numbers of RCMP officers has increased?
What is the reason for this increase, Mr. Chairman? Thank you.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the increase, as Mr. Tapardjuk says, is around 20 percent. What this accounts for and it is an amount of $4.57 million that the total is for, I can break it down into the numbers and the costs.
The guard cost, Iqaluit detachment, is $209,000; pay increases are $234,000; inflation is $160,000; property is $2.2 million; funding-related relief unit credit for travel is $782,000; carbine purchase is $367,000; extraordinary event costs are $333,000; other new contract obligations are $26,000; and the provost unit, the guard travelling unit is $208,000.
It totals up to $4.5 million or so.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would want to see the actual figures, but what was the $2.2 million that you mentioned for? Can you clarify that, please, Mr. Chairman.
The $2.2 million is for property. So that is our obligation under the new contract and all property that the RCMP owns across the territory that we are involved in.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary.
Justice. Law Enforcement. Total Operations and Maintenance. $34,185,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Under E-6. (interpretation ends) Justice.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $3,441,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Under E-7. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. Justice.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $10,511,000.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are we on page E-7?
Under Court Services, there is an additional 40.0 PYs in 2011-12 and I think there is an additional 8 PYs for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
Have those PYs under the Court Services Division been allocated? There is an increase under that fiscal year.
I want clarification.
Does the number of positions in the Court Services Division increase from 40 PYs in 2011 to 48 PYs in the 2012-13 fiscal year? Why is that?
If I heard correctly, the member is asking if there was an extra allocation of eight PYs under Court Services. That allocation was last year. Those positions aren’t filled yet, but I think that allocation happened last year.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): My question was if these positions were filled.
If not, what is the problem with not filling these positions?
Five of the eight positions are filled. There are three vacant positions.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. (interpretation) On page E-7. (interpretation ends) Justice.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $10,511,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): On E-8. (interpretation ends) Justice. Branch Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $32,145,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) E-9.
Justice. Community Justice.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $4,817,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
I had to go for a break here. I would like to ask the Chair to move back to E-8. If I could, I have very important questions on corrections.
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): I apologize, Mr. Curley.
Is it my understanding that you wish to return to page E-8? Are the members agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): We now return to E-8. Mr. Curley.
I want to ask the minister this question. We were at the opening of the healing facility in Rankin Inlet and I appreciate his attendance for this opening.
Many elders in Rankin Inlet appreciated that event.
Further, your deputy minister along with the ADM has been instrumental in the completion of this project.
However, I would like an update on the status of the facility.
Can the minister provide a short update on what has transpired up to now to this committee?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Minister Shewchuk, please.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the member for being at the grand opening there. It was a very special occasion and a special event in Rankin Inlet.
I think, as I have said before, what you really saw there was a whole community involvement in the facility and how everybody contributed to it working.
Things are going quite well there. We’ve had some growing pains.
We’ve had some staff issues and staff vacancies, but I’m very happy to say that in the last couple of weeks or so, we have now, out of 45 staff there, 42 are filled, so there are only three vacancies left, which is a very good accomplishment. We now do have 17 offenders in the facility.
Out of our 28 caseworkers, I can tell you that 16 are beneficiaries and actually all 28 of them are from Nunavut, from the north, so that’s a very good thing happening there too.