EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In those decentralized communities, it seems that the work that they’re supposed to do is being done in Iqaluit, even though it’s the responsibility of the decentralized communities.
From our understanding, and I know that he’s using Pond Inlet as an example, we’re not trying to take over the jobs or the responsibilities of those decentralized communities.
There are a lot of projects that have to be dealt with and when they’re overloaded, the overflow is handed over to the employees here in Iqaluit.
Even though that’s the case, I don’t quite agree with the minister.
The project people are in the decentralized communities and their job descriptions are specific about what kind of duties they are responsible for.
For example, maybe the reason why the duties end up here is because they don’t believe that they are capable of doing that kind of job in Pond Inlet. If there is an overload, why not add additional PYs to be based out of Pond Inlet?
I think we all know that decentralization is very important to the communities and it creates employment. Those of us in decentralized communities see those types of discrepancies. Sometimes the positions are moved from decentralized communities to the headquarters.
There have been such instances. The projects that should be done in Pond Inlet end up being done here in Iqaluit.
We are dealing with capital planning. Minister Kusugak.
Mr. Enook, I hear your concerns and I know where you are coming from as it’s understandable.
We don’t want to see this situation develop like that, and I don’t think it is structured that way.
However, I will look into this and conduct a review of the member’s concerns. As soon as I have the information, I will visit the member to review the issues he has raised in his comments.
The member is truthful. We don’t want employees who are on payroll with nothing to do. That wasn’t the intent.
I know for a fact that all the positions have a role, at least in the department I oversee as the minister. I know that many employees conduct themselves professionally and that they aren’t just there as token employees to fill the void. I know that they are involved in many projects, but I will commit to looking into the matter that the member just raised as I heard what he stated.
We’re on page H-3. Capital Planning.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This matter, I believe, is under H-3, so I would like further clarification on the NCIAC committee referred to.
As we can also speak to this matter, you stated in your opening comments that the NCIAC has members. Can you provide further information as to who sits on the NCIAC, which mayors or government representatives are in this committee? I would like to hear about the mayors who are involved in this committee, so if you can identify them first.
The reason why I raise that question relates to the NAM crisis which has been ongoing for some time as they are apparently in a deficit situation. The executive director position has been vacant for quite a while and that was why I wanted further clarification on this matter.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you. I also thank the member for that question.
As the member is aware from his past role as a mayor, NAM is a constant source of concern to mayors, especially with regard to its operations.
It is a pleasure to hear members raise these concerns, as our department also shares their concerns.
With respect to the people sitting on the NCIAC from the communities, one member who is currently the chair of NAM, Mr. Paul Haulli, sits in on their meetings. Another member is Percy Kabloona, who sits on NCIAC from Whale Cove. Paul Haulli is from Hall Beach and Jeannie Eqaluk from Cambridge Bay.
These people sit on the NCIAC, representing the hamlets and their fellow mayors. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also thank the minister for identifying the mayors who sit on the committee, as it helps me and my fellow legislators understand as to who sits on the NCIAC to set the priorities for capital projects requested by the communities as well as setting their direction.
The same people on NCIAC are involved in making the recommendations.
Are you talking about another entity?
Could you rephrase that question, please, Mr. Ningeongan.
I just wanted information on who sits representing the government.
You already indicated who was sitting from the hamlet membership.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): I’m sorry. I misunderstood you, Mr. Ningeongan.
From the government side, there is Darren Flynn from our office, and my Interim Deputy Minister, Roy Green, and also from the Department of Finance, we have Jamie Matthews.
During those meetings, they get support from the NCIAC director. (interpretation ends) Qujannamiik, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak, for your response.
I will have a better understanding of how this committee is set up.
For my last question, you didn’t make any indications in your opening comments, but the chair of the standing committee mentioned something about snow fencing in Chesterfield Inlet and Repulse Bay.
Could the minister indicate to me if this project is going to go ahead this year?
It’s in the works right now and they should be going ahead next year, as was written.
Before I go to my question, I would like to make a preamble. I think it was last year when we were talking about the capital estimates.
It seemed like the government was making an exercise on how they can reduce the costs, including CGS and their contracting system.
I believe they were exercising that last year and looking at how they can cut back.
In the standing committee records, the deputy minister stated that they should include freight hauling and to give that to the contractors instead in order to reduce costs. That was one of the options.
I’m sure there were many options.
With the businesses that operate heavy equipment, they are businesses and they are owned by the communities.
There’s a company here that has been here for many years. If what they do in their business is taken over by the government, then the business would fall through.
There were some concerns voiced about those types of situations from Sanikiluaq and Repulse Bay. If the governments take the dump truck, loaders, and so on, it will bring down the businesses.
My first question, Mr. Chairman, is: exactly what kind of government policy does CGS have on local freight and sealift hauling?
I think it would be better if I refer this question to my deputy minister.
During the construction phase for all of the GN capital projects right now, the current process, as part of the construction contracts that are awarded, the responsibility of the contractors is to localize the equipment if it’s not available in Nunavut.
In terms of a transportation company, they’re supposed to use the company that was approached with tendering packages. I think it’s…(inaudible)…right now, but I’m not certain. Once we put those shipping contracts out through RFP, the contractors are supposed to use those shipping lines to mobilize their equipment.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I understand that, but my question was in regard to policies.
There has to be a policy. If there’s a policy, (interpretation ends) that policy should be transparent. (interpretation) It seems like there has been a change.
We’re gong to lose the local freight haulers.
That’s a major concern and there are those company owners who are scared that they might go bankrupt. (interpretation ends) These are important businesses. (interpretation) We have to support our local businesses, even if they increase their rates.
Mr. Green, I’m just making an example.
The government doesn’t need a contract. If the local business is going to be doing the freight and hauling, and so on, then they have to put a ship in Montreal that they would utilize if it’s a supplier ship kind of contract.
When did that policy change? It seems like the policy has been amended.
It was a requirement for the contractor, if they’re going to be hauling, to use the local companies.
We would see more flourishing companies at the community level.
When we put out the RFP, we look at ships that are going to be going up to Nunavut and carrying the annual supply items, construction material, and so on.
I don’t think there is a policy for such, but if there is one, then I will make it available to the Assembly. If there is none, I will also make an indication as such.
I will look into it and see.
If there is a policy, I will table it in the House.
From what I understand, when the ship comes, the local companies usually are the ones who are hauling the freight, and so on.
If there is such a policy, I will table it in the House.
Mr. Curley, do you have additional questions?
I am very pleased and it’s not the only one.
I was asking if there was a policy in regard to this hauling from the land. The contracts are huge. Also, whether that’s supply, ship, and erect; if the property belongs to the government, the property is shipped from Montreal to Nunavut.
That’s totally up to the government.
It’s not up to the government as to which freighter that they will use, but if there was no policy, perhaps if the minister can commit to reviewing this to make sure that it benefits Nunavutmiut.
Could you commit to considering this?
If there was no policy, we will be able to work on a policy for when the supply is landed and hauled to the people who own them. If there was no policy, then we will look into it.
Do you have any further questions, Mr. Curley?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, yes.
Yes, we do need to deal with them because I know that we’re going to be using freight for a very long time.
What we’re talking about at this time is the cost is close to $40 million for freight and the material is worth over $20 million and they have to be hauled.
The reason why I alluded to that is because of what I noted last year could be one of your considerations.
I am sorry, but I have never taken it.
I was hoping that this does occur.
For that reason, I just wanted to make that comment in regard to freight hauling.
It’s very important to the local businesses. The comments I made were discussed during NAM meeting in Gjoa Haven. The community had received a dump truck.
There is a construction there in Repulse Bay, but I’m not going to mention it.
Maybe the minister could provide some assistance in regard to that. I would appreciate it if you can keep us updated on the position of your department in regard to this policy.
The private businesses in Nunavut, whether it’s a small or huge community, the private businesses run their business whether it’s for hauling or for carting, and I know that they face difficult situations and I feel for them.
We all try to work to support the local businesses because Nunavummiut depend on local businesses and we have to provide adequate support to the local businesses.
Your comments are taken and I will look into that if possible before the session is over, but if it’s impossible, I will be able to provide that information to you as soon as I am able to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to respond.
I still have names on my list. Mr. Ningark, I believe you have comments to make.
On H-3, Capital Planning, this issue is worldwide as well as in Canada and here in Nunavut as it relates to infrastructure development, which means jobs and jobs equal employment opportunities.
Mr. Chairman, this issue has been recognized within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms related to mobility. Whether it is in a province or a territory, if there aren’t enough employment opportunities available, they can prioritize hiring of their residents, even though the charter speaks to our right to mobility to search for employment. Even though it states that right, if a province or territory doesn’t have enough employment opportunities, their government can justify hiring their residents, which is a right of self-governance.
In thinking of this issue, I was informed recently that the funding was released; the construction project went ahead with employment opportunities opening up locally. Locals, indigenous to the community, approached the company with their resumés since the project has commenced and they are looking for a position.
The project, being financed by the GN, through the capital plan, was thought to have openings. However, the person’s resumé was ripped up and thrown into the garbage.
Additionally, in our communities, as per our governmental practices, people on income support are given job search forms, which ask the person if they are looking for employment. The person replies in the affirmative that they are looking for a job, but these contractors have no interest in local hires, so it seems our government is just throwing up barriers.
When a person is looking for employment and government funded contractors are sloughing off local job searchers, it is completely unacceptable and an injustice.
We have to remember that everyone has to start somewhere. With no income, many residents are below the poverty line.
It is as if we take their hope away. Although as a government, if we followed the Constitution, we should be providing assistance to our people.
As a government, we know that our people are experiencing this, that they are serious about getting employment, but through our poor selection of contracts through the capital planning process… . As MLAs, we approve these projects.
So in essence, we are approving the continual degradation of our people. We all know that Nunavummiut are amongst the poorest citizens of Canada, yet we don’t protect our people. Let us then provide assistance to our people who are looking for jobs, our fellow Inuit, since we have to ensure that we give them a start.
I have been informed that even when a local person attempts to hire out their vehicle for rent to these companies, they never rent as they are bringing in their vehicles via sealift. This is robbing the poor to pay the rich.
Article 24 should be our teeth, but it is far too weak in terms of implementation, although it has strong wording.
Perhaps the members as well as this government don’t respect this article enough to implement the measures meant to help our people. We need to enforce this and push for it. Mr. Curley spoke to this issue that we need to implement the provisions and enforce them.
I just wanted to comment on this matter while we are debating the capital plan details.
(interpretation ends) Infrastructure development; jobs.
Jobs for whom?
(interpretation) It is probably not jobs for Nunavummiut. We need to place our priority on Nunavummiut, who actually live in our territory and call it home.
I didn’t really hear any questions regarding capital planning. I would prefer that the members raise questions. However, if you want to comment, that is fine.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have a question when we get to page H-4 and I think we’re still on page H-3, if I’m not mistaken. Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. For your information, H-3 and H-4 are related items.
Mr. Curley, I believe, is itching to ask a question, so I would like to recognize him first. If you want to raise your question on H-4, I will allow you to do so since the pages are related.
I would like to add this as a supplementary to the previous questions with respect to the procurement policies which apply to the Department of CG&S, as they are responsible for all departmental requests. These policies are quite stringent and onerous.
I have heard in the past that many vehicles have been purchased for the GN departments, all departments actually, for their usage. All the departments, agencies, and Crown corporations have their own vehicles.
When vehicles are purchased, they set out an RFP to make these purchases which are then bid upon by various companies. Does the government choose the cheapest bid or does the government follow its procurement policy, with allowances for local bidders even if it isn’t the cheapest? Is this something the government can review when vehicles are being purchased through the RFP?
If that is the case, if the RFP is going to go through the NNI Policy… .
I was informed by a businessman whom I was chatting with that the NNI Policy is no longer applicable for certain bids. If the government were to follow the NNI Policy, this company would qualify and is a registered Inuit company.
However, a bidder with no employees, consisting of only a phone number based in Ottawa, is able to bid for vehicles since they can purchase the vehicles cheaper in the south.
This business owner has vehicles just sitting there, with no rentals, and is quite concerned. They can’t hire any more people in Nunavut due to these types of decisions. This business is in Nunavut.
So I believe we need to clarify our procurement policies following our legal obligations, and I am not just referring to the NNI Policy.
The person who made the complaint informed me that the winning bidder wasn’t even an Inuit firm. However, since their business is a large corporation, they won while this local business that hires local people did not.
Local people prefer to work for this company because it treats them right.
What I’m trying to state here is that we need to clearly define our policies. The purchase of vehicles is just procurement of the assets, while the servicing of the GN vehicles is undertaken by local companies. Can the minister provide further details with respect to vehicle procurement as well as what kind of policies apply to this process?
I want people to understand that we have procurement policies. It’s all set out and defined properly. If they set out tenders, we provide all the policy information and we provide all the policies to the proponents or whoever wants to make a proposal to RFPs.
As an individual person, for non-companies, they don’t really understand the process, such as selling their services through the GN. They’re not just policies.
They follow the legislation that is set and it’s all clearly defined.
I just want everyone to understand that there is procurement laws that we need to abide by.
With regard to the process for purchasing vehicles, I’ll have Mr. Green respond through you, (interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Green, would you like to make a supplementary response?
The current practices for buying GN owned vehicles are through our procurement department at CGS. They do follow the NNI guidelines when we issue the RFP to purchase GN vehicles.
I’m not sure what your exact question is, but we do follow the strict guidelines through NNI.
The NNI Policy is currently being under review to look at some ways to strengthen it to make sure that the beneficiaries get as much as the business they can from the contracts that we award both for purchasing vehicles and the other goods and services.
I appreciate it. I know it sounds complex, but in some ways, I think it is not all that complex to make the policy clear, whether it be procurement.
That’s a preference policy. Regardless of what they are or who they are, whether it be NTI, GN, or a Crown corporation, guidelines, our preference policy should support local businesses somehow.
Yes, it’s a competitive process, but they always have a waiver that says, “Lowest price not necessarily awarded the contract.”
There’s always a waiver in that to allow the government to consider evaluations and whatnot.
What I’m trying to say is this: there are businesses that have been shorthanded because of the way in which so many Inuit owned companies have been going on.
They may be reviewed by the federal group or bureaucracy.
I don’t know what it is. I don’t know how effective it is.
What I’m trying to say is that when you’re actually the procurement manager or procurement policy official, there has to be, I think, responsibility and obligation to ensure whatever is being considered is legal and proper.
I know that in the NNI process, getting registration has not always been proper and legal in my mind.
There are some southern companies, non-Inuit companies that have literally, indeed there is more than one story on it, that has given under the table thousands of dollars to individuals and say, “Will you become my partner?” So the agreement is, yes, shake hands.
It becomes an Inuit firm.
If you don’t see it through the balance sheet as to what shares are going or what proportion of benefits are going to the Inuit owned partner, it’s done under the table. I would say that these should be made illegal and there should be an investigation, I believe, warranted that are not looked into by government agencies.
Yes, we should have to prove and say that there is evidence, but unless there is a process crafted to use how it should be properly set up so that the managers can have a clear idea, they will likely never be investigated.
I think there are enough questionable companies that are out there that really should be handed over to some agency that can investigate or establish a proper commission to look into it.
Is that something that the government could consider or would you need some other evidence to do it to proceed in that fashion?
Right now, there are so many Inuit owned and non-Inuit [owned] companies in Nunavut that are really having a difficult time because the rules are not all that clear.
I don’t know who is responsible for clarifying the rules, but I think many of the government departments probably all fit into that category somehow.
So I know my question is quite large, but what I’m trying to say is that I think we need to look deeper in order to get our rules clarified.
We’re on capital planning. Would you like to comment on that, Minister Kusugak?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Unfortunately, I’m not the minister responsible for the NNI Policy.
I believe the appropriate department would be Economic Development.
All we do is follow the policy. Our department just follows the NNI Policy and I believe that’s under review at this time.
As for deciding who is a beneficiary company and who qualifies for NNI preference, from what I understand and spite me if I’m wrong, that is NTI. As for deciding, it’s not for our procurement department to say, “This is not an Inuit owned company” or “This is an Inuit owned company.”
Our procurement [department] doesn’t do that.
Our procurement department just follows the policies, guidelines, and all the proper contracting procedures in order to let the contracts and tenders, and so forth. Our department just strictly follows guidelines, laws, and policies.
As for the NNI Policy, how it should be rewritten, or who fits in the NNI Policy, our department doesn’t deal with that.
I hope I’m clear on that.
Yes, I appreciate that.
What I did indicate was I think most of the departments have certain rules in applying and actually evaluating what really is the… .
You know, we can go back and look at some of the actual evidence of work, including the NNI appeal that recommended a certain government contract was given to a questionable company and the process that was used was not correctly applied.
The NNI appeals board recommended that the contract should be cancelled and not be given. That had to do with the medevac contract, I believe, in the Kitikmeot.
The rules may have been followed, which the minister indicated is all you do, but the NNI appeals board recommended that it wasn’t properly done based on these principles, clear-cut and dry.
The government said, “We’re not obligated to follow it,” but that doesn’t mean the NNI appeals board was wrong.
So what I’m saying to you, Mr. Chairman, is I think the government has to have a procedure that is clearly defined, transparent, and clear so that we don’t get into those kinds of things again.
I believe it was the Department of CG&S or the cabinet that ultimately did not agree with the appeal recommendation.
Would you like to make a comment, Minister Kusugak?
I don’t want to get into that debate; I believe we’ve had that discussion before. I cannot talk about what was discussed in the cabinet as per that or any other discussions we had in cabinet, but I appreciate Mr. Curley’s comments.
Mr. Ningeongan, I believe you have a question under H-3 and H-4. The two pages are related.