EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I don’t get into such details as the ones the member refers to because they’re not always available immediately.
Mr. Chairman, virtually all vehicle owners have experienced mechanical breakdowns.
Just because some equipment fails doesn’t mean a contractor will have their contract terminated.
Regulations on fuel are stringent and are constantly being updated as best as possible.
I have heard of only two cases where there were submissions to the appeals board with regard to past fuel contracts.
I agree with the member on his statement about the NNI appeals board having a disagreement. We agreed with their first recommendation and will be moving ahead with it.
We also agreed with the second recommendation and we want it to be complied with.
However, we didn’t agree with the third recommendation that the contract should be terminated and re-tendered.
As well, the NNI appeals board couldn’t agree on that particular issue.
We had an option of not agreeing with that recommendation and we chose not to.
Perhaps I didn’t provide enough response for Mr. Curley.
I know that he doesn’t want to be asked about this particular issue any further, but he is a minister representing all of Nunavut and all Nunavummiut have the right to the information. We respect that and we are aware of it.
There is no need to find anyone who is more capable; he’s got a lot of assistants sitting next to him.
With respect to the appeals board, there is nothing written that the NNI Contracting Appeals Board has to have unanimity in making their decision.
Even the courts don’t always agree unanimously.
Majority rules in this process. In the NNI appeals process, it doesn’t mention that the minister has to agree with their recommendations.
There are various reasons for the board making recommendations.
The board had noted there were too many problems in their operations and thought it best to have the contract re-tendered.
That’s what we’re questioning.
The government should have reopened that contract and re-tendered it. When there are a lot of mistakes made in the contract, the government shouldn’t just accept it.
I don’t think I heard a question, but if you would like to make a comment.
I’m trying to look for that information.
I can state, however, that we felt that the appeals board had made a mistake regarding the recommendations.
We have the right to think that way.
Mr. Chairman, I have no problem whatsoever in responding to being questioned.
I will not tire of being asked questions, Mr. Chairman.
I’m the minister holding this portfolio and I have to answer questions directed my way.
I’m not tired of any questions.
I can say that when we awarded the fuel distribution contracts, we followed the required procedures.
We can’t make everyone happy and we can’t please everyone who puts in a bid.
I can tell you that the people who work in the contracting and procurement division work to the best of their ability.
We will review all the contracts that have been awarded to make sure that they follow the procedures. If there is non-compliance, we will investigate and make changes where necessary in the Petroleum Products Division and others.
In regard to NNI appeals board and the petroleum products contracts, I believe the appeal report has been the most complete in detail, including an addendum.
If some of the information wasn’t given to all parties, sometimes they changed the requirements.
The appeals process made a good recommendation. It was understandable.
There were too many inconsistencies and parts of NNI were improperly applied.
That is why I asked if the NNI Policy is applied when they put in RFPs. Why did they not adhere to it?
The addendums and all the information in the RFP was provided to all the bidders. Everyone was treated equally. No one was discriminated against.
I don’t want to just argue about this issue.
The government didn’t deny anyone. If we needed to make addendums, we did so and treated everyone who put in a bid equally and fairly, and that is clear.
When it came to the application of the NNI Policy, we tried to adhere to it to the best of our ability.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) In trying to adhere to the policy, there was an appeal made on a medevac contract in the Kitikmeot.
During the appeals board’s review, the previous contractor, Adlair, went ahead because the government approved to do so.
However, there was an appeals process initiated on the fuel delivery contract. The new contract that was awarded to a new company was started right away.
How come there was inconsistency between the two?
In one case, we have the previous contractor continuing and only after the appeals board was finished, the contract was finally awarded.
Why did the Petroleum Products Division make a decision like that?
The Department of Health and Social Services is responsible for that contract.
We went ahead with this particular contract, even though there was an appeals process initiated.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) There was already a precedent.
So why didn’t the government use that precedent? The government claims it treats everyone equally. Why did the government then proceed with the contract awarding while ignoring the appeal that had been initiated?
Why was it done that way?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) My deputy will respond to that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Deputy Minister Lausman.
We’re talking about two different contracts here. We can speak for the PPD one. The appeals board rulings are not binding on government and that’s right within the policy.
In this case, we had the appeals board decision reviewed by a procurement lawyer. We were advised by them that the appeals board had erred in their review of this and had made mistakes. On that point, we were advised not to change the award of the contract.
I was expecting that to be pointed out. That non-binding provision doesn’t mean that the minister should not comply with the recommendation. Would I be correct in saying that?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: If I could have Ms. Lausman answer that.
The reason the appeals board process isn’t binding is because these contracts must be fair, open, and transparent and they must be awarded according to proper procurement law.
That was the desire of seeking a legal opinion to make sure that that was followed so that we did not err in awarding a contract inappropriately.
I understand what Madam Lausman is saying, that they must comply with the procurement law. The procurement law, in this case, is the NNI Policy.
It is really quite clear that the appeals board indicated that there were inconsistencies. It was implied even through the finance minister’s statement that they’re going to make it more consistent, assuming that it hasn’t been applied consistently by the contract manager, which, in this case, is CG&S. Why not make it consistent so that the evaluation can have criteria that are transparent?
I believe that when the finance minister was speaking to the concern of consistency and stuff that he was referring to, some people in the business community had issues with it and that it was not necessarily the issue of this government.
I think I have constantly indicated that Article 24 is above territorial law. If there are any inconsistencies, and I read that provision, the agreement shall prevail.
I’m not even sure sometimes that government officials respect that provision. They believe that the contract and procurement laws, whatever they are, what I call civil law, the courts have arrived at are superior.
Not in this case because Article 24 is sanctioned by the Constitution right in the preamble of Article 2. It forms part of the Constitution Act. If there are any inconsistencies in applying Article 24, which I assume NNI is part of that, then the agreement shall prevail to the extent of this disagreement.
So I would like to be assured by the minister that we, the GN, the government, particularly CG&S, will continue to respect the provisions of Article 24 and the NNI Policy.
I don’t profess to be a procurement lawyer or a constitutional lawyer by any means.
I will assure the member that we will look into those assumptions that Mr. Curley is making. There is procurement law and Article 24 refers to procurement law.
I will ensure that our department will look into the terms and the issues that Mr. Curley is talking and ensure that our procurement department follows the procurement laws and those of Article 24 and NNI, and so on, Mr. Chairman. I will assure him of that.
We’re on page J-9.
I would like to join this spicy discussion.
It seems that we’re talking about ethics, laws, and abuses of the laws.
When it comes to making a public bid, there is always a winner and loser, and so on.
My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that any unsuccessful bidder believing they have a cause can bring action in the private law. That’s my understanding. Usually it’s under the law of contracts and tendering.
So we have that option in this public government.
As to my colleague from Nattilik talking about her community, every co-op in every community is elected by the people in our community.
It is their prerogative. It is their choice as to whether they want to joint Arctic Co-ops or not. If they don’t like dealing with being a member of Arctic Co-ops, they also have the choice of removing their co-op from Arctic Co-ops.
Turn to page J-10. (interpretation ends) Public Stores Revolving Fund. (interpretation) Are there any questions on page J-10?
If there are no questions, we will go back to page J-3.
J-3. (interpretation ends) Department Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $188,127,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Does the committee agree that the Department of Community and Government Services is concluded?
Thank you, Minister Kusugak.
I thank my colleagues for reviewing this.
I am very pleased that we are able to have this kind of debate in the House and that all members had the opportunity to ask their questions. We tried to respond to the questions we had answers for. I commit to try to answer some of the questions we couldn’t answer.
Mr. Chairman, if I could add, I would like to thank the Nunavut emergency response team.
They work very hard and never give up. I would like to thank them very much. Also, I thank the Petroleum Products Division and all the people who work very hard for CGS and work very hard.
I especially thank my colleagues for having a very healthy debate on that.
That concludes my closing comments. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would now like to ask the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister Taptuna, (interpretation) if he would like to start with his opening comments.
Bill 24 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2012-2013 – Economic Development and Transportation – Consideration in Committee
Chairman: Mr. Taptuna, go ahead with your opening comments.
It is my pleasure to appear before the Committee of the Whole to present the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s budget for 2012-13.
As I did when I appeared before the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development in January, I will use this opportunity to describe the changes proposed in next year’s main estimates and business plan and to outline some of the spending priorities proposed by the department.
Following my opening comments, I will be pleased to answer questions posed by the members of this committee about our proposed budget and program activities for 2012-13.
The budget we are reviewing today is for expenditures for salaries, grants and contributions, and operations by the Department of Economic Development and Transportation. The total budget I am proposing for the 2012-13 fiscal year is $58,998,000, which represents an increase of $643,000 from the current year’s budget.
This increase is directed to three areas, namely:
$395,000 for the creation of the Community Tourism and Cultural Industries Program, which I announced last fall;
$337,000 for increases in the operations and maintenance budgets for both the Nunavut Airports Division and the Iqaluit International Airport Division to ensure that support for our essential air transportation system keeps pace with Nunavut’s continuing economic and demographic growth; and
$276,000 to cover the increased cost of electricity resulting from the base rate increase.
Mr. Chairman, these increases are partially offset by a decrease of $200,000 in the contract services budget for the Corporate Management Branch and a small and temporary reduction in the budget for the Country Food Distribution Program.
With the exception of these changes, the budget I am proposing for 2012-13 is very similar to the department’s budget for the current fiscal year.
The department remains committed to the Government of Nunavut’s Tamapta Action Plan. Our business plan for 2012-13 continues to focus on priority areas from the action plan, with a particular focus on three of its priorities, the first of which is to:
Reduce Poverty.
On February 24, I tabled The Makimaniq Plan: A Shared Approach to Poverty Reduction.
We will begin implementing this plan with our partners in the Nunavut Round Table for Poverty Reduction.
We will also continue delivering the Country Food Distribution Program, we will begin work towards legislation for the implementation of the long-term poverty reduction action plan, and we will convene a Nunavut food security coalition.
Our second Tamapta Action Plan priority is to increase support for culture and the arts.
As I announced last fall, we have launched a three-year community tourism and cultural industries program, which targets the community-based arts and crafts sector and develops its link to the tourism sector.
In addition, we continue to implement Sanaugait: A Strategy for Growth in Nunavut’s Arts and Crafts Sector and we continue to support the activities of arts and cultural organizations, such as the Nunavut Arts and Crafts Association and the Nunavut Film Development Corporation.
Last but not least, our third Tamapta Action Plan priority is to support community-based sustainable economies.
Our support for community-based sustainable economies is guided by our sector strategies, namely, Parnautit: the Nunavut Mineral Exploration and Mineral Strategy and Ingirrasiliqta: the Nunavut Transportation Strategy.
Each of these strategies encompasses a wide range of important departmental operations.
We are also on track to complete the comprehensive tourism strategy in 2012-13 with a costed implementation plan.
We also support the development of community-based sustainable economic activities through the delivery of our business development programs, the Strategic Investments Program and the Small Business Support Program.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed main estimates and business plan for the 2012-13 fiscal year reflect our ongoing mandate to develop Nunavut’s economy and maintain and improve Nunavut’s transportation system, with particular reference to the priorities spelled out in the Tamapta Action Plan.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to any of the committee’s questions on the 2012-13 main estimates and business plan for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. (interpretation ends) Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development have comments?
Mr. Rumbolt: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Rumbolt.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development on its review of the 2012-13 main estimates and 2012-15 business plan of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2012-13 operations and maintenance budget of $58,998,000 has increased by approximately 1 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2011-12 main estimates.
The number of positions in the department is 136.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan provides an update on one of its previous priorities.
It indicates that “Regional Round Tables have been completed and the Poverty Summit was held in November 2011, where delegates agreed upon ‘The Makimaniq Plan: A Shared Approach to Poverty Reduction’.
Planning for implementation of the plan is underway.”
The standing committee was pleased to note that on February 24, 2012, the minister tabled The Makimaniq Plan: A Shared Approach to Poverty Reduction in the Legislative Assembly.
The standing committee looks forward to ongoing updates on the government’s implementation of this initiative.
The department’s proposed 2012-13 main estimates have allocated $1,312,000 towards its Anti-Poverty Secretariat.
The department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan indicates that one of its future priorities is to “Introduce legislation for implementation of the long-term Poverty Reduction Action Plan and to mandate collaboration of government agencies with Inuit organizations, the private sector, community action networks and other partner organizations.”
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, members were informed that the government proposes to introduce this legislation next year in the Legislative Assembly.
Members look forward to ongoing updates on this important initiative.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members were informed that the 2010-11 annual report for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation will be tabled during this sitting. The standing committee looks forward to reviewing it in detail. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that I do believe the minister tabled that document earlier today.
The standing committee notes that the 2010-11 Annual Report of the Nunavut Development Corporation was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 18, 2011.
The standing committee looks forward to both corporations tabling their 2011-12 annual reports in the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, on October 27, 2011, the 2011-12 Ministerial Letters of Expectation to the GN’s five major Crown corporations and agencies were tabled in the Legislative Assembly by the Minister of Finance.
These letters instructed them to prepare annual reports on their contracting, procurement and leasing activities for tabling in the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Chairman, the Government of Nunavut’s most recent annual reports on departmental contracting, procurement and leasing activities were tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 31, 2011.
The standing committee was pleased to note that the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation’s 2008-09 and 2009-2010 procurement activity reports were tabled in the Legislative Assembly on February 27, 2012.
Although the standing committee was pleased to note their tabling, members strongly recommend that information concerning the Nunavut Development Corporation’s activities be tabled in the Legislative Assembly on an annual basis.
The department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan indicates that one of its 2012-13 priorities will be to “Initiate the preparation of a renewed Nunavut Economic Development Strategy, 2013-2023.”
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan indicates that one of its future priorities will be to, “In consultation with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., draft a revised NNI Policy, implementing the changes identified in the 2012-2013 review.”
The standing committee notes that the minister tabled the NNI Review Committee’s Summary of the 2008-2009 Comprehensive Review Report on March 2, 2011 in the Legislative Assembly.
The standing committee also notes that the 2008-09 NNI Contracting Appeals Board Annual Report was not tabled in the Legislative Assembly until March 22, 2010.
The standing committee urges the minister to table the 2009-2010 and 2010-11 annual reports of the contracting appeals board in a timely manner.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee notes that the Nunavut Development Corporation is required by law to “create employment and income for residents of Nunavut, primarily in small communities.”
The 2011-12 Ministerial Letter of Expectation indicates that “the corporation’s business plan outlines priorities for 2011-2012 that includes the intention to diversity investments by placing equity investments in qualifying Nunavut businesses.
I am pleased to see the Venture Investment Fund reactivated, but encourage you to take a prudent approach to ensure that both job creation and positive investment returns over the long term are optimized.”
The standing committee encourages the minister to place emphasis on increasing the economic opportunities for Nunavut’s smaller communities and looks forward to ongoing updates on this issue.
The department’s proposed 2012-13 main estimates include $980,000 in funding for the country food distribution initiative.
The department’s 2012-15 business plan indicates that one of its 2012-13 priorities will be to “Expand the country food distribution program to include participation from partners, to help ensure the phased delivery of freezers occurs in those communities most in need.”
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members were disappointed to be informed that the department had received only one application requesting funding under this program.
Members strongly encourage the department to work with communities to ensure they are given the opportunity to apply for funding on this initiative and look forward to ongoing updates on this initiative.
Mr. Chairman, as a note, the standing committee notes that the member from Quttiktuq posed questions in the House last week concerning the Community Freezer Program.
At that time, the minister indicated that the department had received nine application requests from communities on freezers.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2012-13 main estimates include $1,050,000 in funding for Nunavut’s three Business Development Centres.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members were informed that the minister would provide a copy of the actions items to the committee.
The standing committee looks forward to receiving this document and encourages the minister to carefully evaluate the results that are achieved by the government’s investment in this area.
The department’s proposed 2012-13 main estimates include $2.1 million in grants and contributions funding for the Tourism Development Program and the Nunavut Arts and Crafts Association.
The department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan indicates that one of its 2012-13 priorities will be to “Complete the comprehensive Tourism Strategy with a costed implementation plan and commence implementation, including development of tourism policies and programs.”
The standing committee looks forward to the tabling of an updated Nunavut tourism strategy.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan provides an update on two of its previous priorities, which were to “Continue discussions with Baffinland Mines (or successor) on the Mary River Project” and “Negotiate a Development Partnership Agreement for the Mary River and Doris projects.”
It indicates that “Preliminary negotiations are underway.
Formal negotiations may commence once the projects receive Nunavut Impact Review Board Project Certificates.”
The department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan indicates that two of its 2012-13 priorities will be to “Facilitate and chair regional socio-economic monitoring committees with support from the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Division” and “Assist in the development and implementation of regional components of the Nunavut Poverty Reduction Action Plan.”
The standing committee looks forward to ongoing updates on these issues.
The department’s proposed 2012-15 business plan indicates that one its 2012-13 priorities will be to “Implement the Ingirrasiliqta Transportation Strategy, including specific initiatives to address the needs of High Arctic communities following direction from Cabinet.”
The members note that there has been a delay on the implementation plan and look forward to progress on its implementation of the strategy.