EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Let me touch up a bit on why the WWF believes strongly in scientific and technological information. Perhaps it’s because they live far away. As Inuit who live on our land and environment, they should believe us more.
My question is regarding one of your priorities for 2013-14. It states, “With the support of residents from Kugaaruk and Baker Lake, develop formal management plan for the Back River…” Is there a mistake? It says Kugaaruk.
I believe Gjoa Haven is closer to the Back River. Gjoa Haven people are originally from the Back River. Can you look into that and see if that community should be Gjoa Haven instead of Kugaaruk?
I think Member Ugyuk could agree with me that Gjoa Haven residents are closer to the Back River. Some people who lived in the Back River now reside in Gjoa Haven. I believe Kugaaruk should be changed to Gjoa Haven.
Can you please look into that?
For those of us living in Kugaaruk, we appreciate that our community is included here, but everything should be correct. I just urge the department to look into that and I don’t have any further questions.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Minister Arreak.
WWF is now establishing their office here in Iqaluit and they will be hiring individuals or they will have a worker here in Iqaluit.
In regard to the request from the member, yes, the member is correct. It should not be Kugaaruk; it should be changed to Gjoa Haven.
I thank the member for correcting that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no more names on my list. We’re on page I-5. $18,076,000.
Go back to page I-3. Environment.
Branch Summary. Detail of Expenditures. Total. $22,353,000.
Are we agreed that the Department of Environment is concluded?
Thank you, Minister Arreak.
I thank my colleagues for their very good questions and for their suggestions and recommendations.
We are part of our wildlife and environment and we have been living up here for thousands of years.
That is why we know our environment better than anyone else. Because of the fact that we have lived up here for thousands of years, we have gained this intricate knowledge.
I thank my officials, David and Niki, and David Monteith for being here from parks.
I would also like to thank the staff who work very hard and tirelessly in our office. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also thank your officials for providing support to their minister.
We will proceed with the review of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs on page B-4. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier, (interpretation) do you have opening comments?
Bill 24 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2012-2013 – Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs – Consideration in Committee
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Yes, I do.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Madam Premier. (interpretation) Please proceed.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the main estimates for the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for 2012-13 and the business plan for 2012-15.
The department has two sides, each with a deputy minister.
The executive provides support to cabinet and ensures consist quality of documents going to cabinet.
The executive also coordinates the government-wide business planning functions and the achievement of the priorities set under ᑕᒪᑦᑕ/Tamapta: Building Our Future Together.
Intergovernmental Affairs coordinates intergovernmental and circumpolar relations and, in support of the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, addresses aboriginal issues for the GN. The department oversees and provides direction on the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
The department’s main estimates total for fiscal year 2012-13 is $20,785,000.
This amount is composed of approximately $14.1 million for salaries and benefits and $6.7 million for other operations and maintenance costs.
This is an increase of approximately $765,000 over the main estimates of 2011-12.
This is largely due to the NTI versus Canada lawsuit, which is budgeted at $1.0 million for 2012-13.
As you know, in 2006, NTI filed this lawsuit against Canada for its failure to implement the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Canada succeeded in obtaining a court order to add the GN to the lawsuit.
While we did not choose to be implicated, we are obligated to comply with the order of the court and must defend the interests of the Government of Nunavut.
Devolution remains a special focus for this government. We continue to promote increased awareness and understanding among Nunavummiut and Nunavut organizations of the importance, goals, and benefits of devolution of powers from the Government of Canada to the Government of Nunavut.
The department continues to work on establishing the government liaison officer positions in the communities.
Recently, we hosted the first GLO conference and training session in Iqaluit and look forward to hosting additional conferences and training sessions as this vital network grows stronger to serve our communities.
An important priority under the department is the creation of a child and youth advocate.
Drafting of the legislation for this position is currently underway and I will introduce a draft bill in the June session.
This would put us ahead of our original project timeline. My department has received overwhelmingly positive feedback related to this important initiative.
That concludes my opening remarks. Mr. Chairman, I welcome your comments and look forward to answering your questions on the EIA business plan for 2012-15 and the main estimates for 2012-13.
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan) (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Premier.
Madam Premier, please introduce your officials.
To my right is Daniel Vandermeulen, Deputy Minister, and to my left is Aluki Rojas, DM for Intergovernmental Affairs.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts have comments?
Yes, I do have a couple of quick comments.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the proposed 2012-13 main estimates and 2012-15 business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2012-13 operations and maintenance budget of $20,785,000 has increased by approximately 3.8 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2011-12 main estimates.
The number of positions in the department has remained stable at 120.0 PYs.
The standing committee notes that the organizational structure of the department has changed significantly since the introduction of the 2011-12 main estimates.
In 2011-12, the department had 8 branches and 15 divisions. The proposed 2012-13 main estimates for the department indicate that it now has 5 branches and 16 divisions.
One of the most noteworthy changes concerns the department’s Devolution Division.
In 2009-2010, the size of the department’s Devolution Branch was 5.0 PYs.
An additional 2.0 PYs were added in 2010-11. An additional 2.0 PYs were added in 2011-12, increasing the size of the branch to 9.0 PYs.
Last year, the department’s business plan indicated that it planned to add 3.0 additional positions in 2012-13, bringing the total size of the branch to 12.0 PYs.
Members will recall that concerns were expressed during the review of the department’s 2011-12 main estimates with respect to the need for such increases given that formal devolution negotiations with the federal government have not yet commenced.
However, the department’s 2012-13 main estimates indicate that the department is requesting funding for only 7.0 PYs and that the Devolution Branch has been relocated within the department as a division within the new Sustainable Development Branch.
Mr. Chairman, last year’s Budget Address stated that, and I quote, “A devolution agreement would bring us royalty payments on our natural resources but it may be many years before we can bank that money.”
Members also note that NTI’s ongoing lawsuit against the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement further complicates progress towards starting formal devolution negotiations.
Mr. Chairman, the Commissioner’s Address of April 1, 2009 announced the creation of a new social advocacy office, which has been established as a division in the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
One of the department’s priorities for 2012-13 is to “Complete the review of government social safety net programs and implement structural and policy changes to support self-reliance.”
In November of 2010, the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs awarded a $337,100 contract to the Genesis Group to conduct an assessment of the government’s social safety net programs.
The report from this review has not yet been tabled in the Legislative Assembly and the extent to which the government has accepted any or all of its recommendations is not clear.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Legislative Assembly have frequently expressed concern and frustration that the reports produced by such reviews are not tabled in the Legislative Assembly in a timely manner.
The standing committee urges the Premier to ensure that such items are tabled in the House in a timely manner so that all Members of the Legislative Assembly have the opportunity to consider their conclusions and recommendations.
Another departmental priority for 2012-13 is to “Complete the legislation development process for an independent Child and Youth Representative…” The standing committee notes the importance of ensuring that this initiative complements the government’s ongoing work to introduce a new Child and Family Services Act.
On October 18, 2010, the GN and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated announced that both entities would be cooperating on the development of a poverty reduction action plan for Nunavut.
On November 30, 2011, the GN and NTI issued a joint communiqué following the conclusion of the Nunavut Poverty Summit.
One of the commitments in The Makimaniq Plan is for the government to “introduce legislation for the implementation of the long-term Poverty Reduction Action Plan.”
Members note that legislation in this area has been introduced in a number of Canadian jurisdictions and look forward to further clarification of the government’s plans.
The standing committee also notes that the department’s proposed business plan indicates that the Social Advocacy Office will maintain an active presence with respect to interdepartmental initiatives to address such issues as suicide prevention.
The standing committee also notes that the 2010-11 annual report of the Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council was recently tabled in the House.
The request for proposals for this review indicated that a final report was due by June 15, 2011.
The department’s 2012-15 business plan indicates that this review has been completed. The report was tabled in the House on February 28, 2012.
The standing committee again emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the final reports and recommendations emerging from the work of consultants in such areas be tabled in the Legislative Assembly in a timely manner so that all members have the opportunity to review their work.
Mr. Chairman, last year’s Budget Address indicated that the government’s review of its structure will consider “the number of departments and agencies, their mandates and organizational designs.”
This year’s Budget Address announced that the government has decided to move forward on some specific recommendations, including transferring the Energy Secretariat to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
The standing committee also notes that the statutorily-required 2009-2010 and 2010-11 annual reports for the department’s Bureau of Statistics have not yet been tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
However, none of the GN’s 2012-15 departmental business plans make any reference to the Affordable Energy Fund.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2012-13 budget for the Energy Secretariat is $641,000.
Mr. Chairman, one of the functions of the department is to support “interdepartmental Sustainable Development groups” and coordinate “GN participation in resource development planning activity and initiatives to improve the regulatory system for land management.”
Last year, the department held a number of public consultation sessions concerning the development of a formal government policy on uranium mining in the territory.
The standing committee looks forward to an update on the status of this initiative.
The standing committee also encourages the Premier to table in the Legislative Assembly the GN’s formal submissions to such bodies as the Nunavut Impact Review Board in relation to major mining projects that are under development.
On April 20, 2011, a new co-operation protocol with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated was signed.
Some of the priority areas identified in the protocol are to review the Child and Family Services Act, consult on the NNI Policy, and develop new regulations under the Official Languages Act and the Inuit Language Protection Act.
On April 14, 2009, the Government of Nunavut issued a news release in which it publicly announced that “Based on the European Union’s (EU) proposal to ban seal products, Nunavut Premier Eva Aariak strongly objects to the EU application to become a permanent observer at the Arctic Council.
‘The European Union’s proposed ban on seal products ignores the very real negative impact their discussions already have on the market for all Canadian seal pelts and on the people of Nunavut,’ said Premier Aariak.
‘The proposal to ban seal products is harmful to Inuit interests, demonstrates a lack of knowledge of its impacts on Arctic indigenous peoples, and is inconsistent with the type of partnership we need at the Arctic Council.
I call on Canada to oppose the EU’s application for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council.’”
During the Premier’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members were frustrated at not receiving a clear indication as to whether the government continues to oppose the European Union’s application for permanent observer status at the Arctic Council.
Members call on the Premier to make a formal statement in the House clarifying her government’s current position on this issue.
The standing committee notes with approval the recent establishment of the GN’s Interdepartmental Nutrition North Canada Subsidy Monitoring Committee and encourages the Premier to update the Legislative Assembly on the status of its work.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2010-11 main estimates included $2.0 million in new funding for the creation of a new government liaison office.
The division’s proposed budget for 2012-13 is $3,575,000.
In September of 2010, the GN filed a statement of defence in relation to the federal government’s attempt to have the GN named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit.
The GN’s statement of defence, which is on the public record, indicates that lack of federal funding is the reason why the GN has not met its Article 23 Inuit employment targets.
It is important that the government publicly clarify its position concerning how much additional federal funding would be required in order to achieve its targets.
Chairman (Mr. Tapardjuk) (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott.
General comments before we get to the page-by-page review.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) I have a short question in reading the two opening comments, one of which is the Premier’s opening comments. I wish to welcome the Premier and all her officials.
I believe that it is very important to the public, regional Inuit associations, as well as Inuit to hear the issues mentioned in the opening comments.
You referenced several reasons, including the federal court case and the federal government’s position that the Nunavut government was party to the case as a defendant.
The NTI court case is over why the governments did not implement certain parts of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It was a decision from the court that the GN was a party to the case and they had no choice but to become a party to the case.
In the opening comments, it was referenced as being part of the reason for the delay, specifically with respect to devolution that our government is working to attain. From what I heard, it is part of the reason for the delay. In reading the standing committee’s comments, I noted that was their assessment on the matter.
It is now clear that this government’s attempts to work on the devolution file is now nothing more than an initiative that will eat up scarce resources if we pursue it any further and the Premier should consider whether we ought to shelve it until this NTI court case has been resolved.
It ought not to matter who started the court case as the government hasn’t complied with its obligations under a legal agreement. Therefore, the case has to continue.
Further, I don’t think we are just being pulled into this by the federal government, as it is also noted that the Nunavut government is also non-compliant with implementation, such as noted by the standing committee on Article 23, Inuit employment within government.
Based on the latest data, the GN has now reached 51 percent with its Inuit employees, although it has hovered around the 40 percent range throughout its existence.
What I’m referring to now simply as a statement with respect to the opening comments is in my opinion, the Nunavut government has to look itself in the mirror and see if we are, indeed, in compliance with our obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Article 24 is a prime example.
Once contracting issues surface or if the government attempts to comply, it should have a strategy in place for all of its departments and whether it is in the public interest to sidestep Article 24 and just have one big contractor.
It’s kind of like this: where one takes pride in sidestepping the contracting obligation imposed by the visionaries who negotiated the agreement by short-changing the small businesses in the private sector into one large contract.
It seems obvious, at least in my estimation, that devolution should be shelved at this current time as we can always return to it later.
We ought to divert that funding to more useful items and I believe the Premier should provide direction on this file. Even if we are publicly screaming out that we require devolution to meet our needs, with the inference that the court case is tied to this issue and thereby delaying the process, it will be an unending cycle, always slightly out of reach.
We should abandon devolution because it will not affect our current mandate.
This is primarily just a comment on the opening comments, as per your instructions, Mr. Chairman.
B-4. $5,716,000.
I would like to ask the Premier a question on the Utility Rates Review Council included in the opening comments.
I still have comments to make on this matter.
Where does the mandate come from? I personally don’t think our government has any ability to address this rate increase, especially in light of the electricity rate that went up 18 percent, which impacted private homeowners and businesses, and it has caused hardships for many.
This winter has been extremely cold, even though the proponents of global warming maintain it is getting warmer.
We have to keep in mind the 2014 rate increases that are set to be implemented on April 1, 2014.
The Premier, who leads the executive, has to provide better leadership to not allow the deferment of the URRC decision to the next government as they can look at their options, including holding more hearings on the issue. Why isn’t the decision to defer the rate increases to 2014 being considered?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
Firstly, I want to clarify that URRC is an entirely different body, albeit it is housed in the same building, with its own offices, and a separate minister is responsible for the URRC. This body has a board that is working on this and they make recommendations to the minister. So they are separately operating from our department.
That only talks about their location and I’m sure that you can talk about it in the cabinet.
If it’s not approved by the cabinet, and it obviously has to be reviewed by the cabinet, we have to understand.
What I’m trying to say is that in 2014, there’s going to be another increase. Just recently, the Government of Nunavut decided that it would be up to the new government to make a decision.
All individuals can say that in 2014, there is going to be an increase in the rate.
That should be taken out by the Premier. Why doesn’t she exercise her power?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the member for voicing his opinion on the matter.
The minister who is responsible for the Utility Rates Review Council has already identified the matter and that is all I can point out at this time.
The members of the Executive Council work as the cabinet on top of the portfolio responsibilities that they work on diligently. This matter was subject to debate as we tried to render a decision as a government.
However, I don’t wish to speak on issues that are the responsibility of my minister, so I will stop at this point, Mr. Chairman.
I’m sure they work very hard.
What I’m trying to say to the minister is that in 2014, the power rates will be hiked up and I’m sure that it’s not going to be a one-time hike. There are going to be other instances where there would be additional hikes starting on April 1, 2014. I would like the Premier to make an announcement saying that there will be power rate hikes in 2014, just to be frank and to say it out loud.
The Minister responsible for URRC made that decision and it’s the same today.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Madam Premier. (interpretation) Are you done, Mr. Curley?
Mr. Elliott: …(no audio)…I imagine it would under the social advocate’s office but also in the minister’s role as minister for individuals with disabilities.
I was wondering: what steps has the Government of Nunavut taken to identify the range of disabilities faced by Nunavummiut across the territory?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
Within our department, the office the member just referred to, the Social Advocacy Office in English, deals with these matters in their role as policy development and planning, particularly those related to social issues, as this is the office responsible for this mandate.
Currently, they are collaborating with the Department of Justice to conduct research on the residents requiring assistance in Nunavut with disabilities.
If I were to say it in English, (interpretation ends) the Social Advocacy Office is assisting the Department of Justice in compiling information that will be incorporated into Canada’s first report on the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
(interpretation) I hope that was clear.
In the 2008-09 annual report that was completed by the Nunavut Human Rights Tribunal, 13 percent of the concerns brought forward were based around individuals with disabilities and concerns that they had brought forward.
Since you had mentioned that the social advocate’s office is policy-related and developing policy, I guess the question would be: will the government be taking steps to address this from a policy level?
I apologize, but if he could repeat his question for clarification.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Madam Premier. (interpretation) Mr. Elliott, please clarify your question.
I have no problem clarifying it. I’ll try to make it clearer.
In the 2008-09 annual report done by the Nunavut Human Rights Tribunal, 13 percent of the complaints that were brought forward were dealing with individuals and concerns based around people with disabilities.
You had mentioned that the social advocate’s office is a policy-driven office, creating policies for individuals with disabilities.
So I’m assuming that you would have contacted the Nunavut Human Rights Tribunal and found out what these concerns were to help create policy to better deal with the needs that individuals with disabilities are bringing forward.