EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
(interpretation ends) On page 7 of The Makimaniq Plan, on C and D, you’re talking about affordable housing options and also multi-party inquiry. Can you explain what the multi-party inquiry and public dialogue will be? Where are you in this stage and how are you moving forward on that?
At this time, we are trying to keep our organizational partnerships in constant consultations with our communities and our partners.
With some of our round table discussions, we do have to come up with an agreement on how to tackle these issues that are facing us.
We intend to do that in a planned, methodical way in which everybody has agreed to in the plan.
General comments to the opening comments.
If there are none, we will now proceed to page K-4.
Economic Development and Transportation. Branch Summary. Corporate Management. $12,766,000.
Under Corporate Management, it states, (interpretation ends) “provides overall central leadership and direction,” amongst others, policy development, corporate, “communications and the Government of Nunavut-wide Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti (NNI) policy training.” (interpretation) I have a question on that so we all have a clear understanding.
I believe I have 10 minutes and I won’t go past that.
The Minister of Finance had announced that the NNI Policy would be reviewed and we need to know how long the review is going to take.
Do you now know how long it will take? I believe that was done. I believe you will review it again.
Can we get the information on the timeframe?
When we do reviews with our partners, we try to do them as quickly as possible.
At times, it’s difficult to come up with certain agreements and working with some of these policies can be difficult.
We do need Justice onside there to help us out with the legal points of issues that may arise.
Most of all, under the land claims Article 24, it’s very clear, so that’s our guideline.
Everything we try and do under that has to be in cooperation and agreement with our organizational partner, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
To try and put a timeline on that is very difficult, but as the member knows, we want to move forward on this. My colleagues have indicated their willingness to participate and come to a conclusion for this.
Of course, there has to be a working relationship between those entities. For further clarification, is the NNI Policy in compliance with Article 24?
If it’s in compliance with Article 24 and if there’s a public tender or an RFP or a sole source contract, or if there was a (interpretation ends) Nunavut-wide public tender (interpretation), not just an RFP, (interpretation ends) which is more binding, I think, the general public tender, (interpretation) I think it’s not only the business community that is not consistent with the policy.
It doesn’t seem to be applied consistently with the client departments either.
I can’t speak on behalf of procurement. The majority of the big contracts, public contracts, and RFPs do have to go through another department.
For the most part, the NNI Secretariat that’s within my department just acquired more assistance last fall, which we call an analyst accountant, to help us make sure that everything is in line with the NNI Policy.
I’m going to switch to English. By and large, I think the NNI Policy is not bad. It may need clean-up here and there, but it would before.
With the previous administration, there were no widespread inconsistencies applied by the contracting managers within the government.
In terms of the review that you’re now committed, could you explain to the committee why the review is necessary in your view?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I thank the committee member for that question.
As time goes by, in government, we do have to review our policies. Things change as time goes by. New initiatives come out from the public, the contractors, and companies that are out there.
So we do have to keep in line with what’s happening with the times. Things do change and we want to make sure that our policies are consistent and looked at in a way where the government can treat everyone fairly.
I always say that in complying with the provisions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Article 4 should not be the only one the government is complying with.
Everybody knows Article 4, that the Nunavut government shall be established.
We are the preachers of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. We’re not independent of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It’s all part and parcel.
Article 24 is one of those.
It’s very quite clear and specific. It obligates the government to establish procedures and policies. NNI is one of them.
Why is it that Article 24 and NNI appear to continually be resisted by some client departments in actually complying with the provisions of NNI?
Otherwise, there won’t be a review. Would you agree with that?
No, I don’t agree with that.
There is a department that does procurement on behalf of the whole government.
The reviews are not just for NNI; there are a number of policies that the government has to constantly review, as I mentioned before. Things change, times change, methodologies change, and we do have to keep up with the times.
NNI obligations, if they are established, Article 24 obligations are very clear.
It directs the government. It uses the word “direction.” It uses the word “shall” establish a number of procedures and policies.
I believe NNI is that document if it is related to Article 24. I still contend that there is still some resistance by some departments to actually make it binding on all major contracts.
Article 24 has to be followed according to its article and policies, and that. I do agree.
Yes, the land claims do have to be followed.
I’m not an expert in that, but for the most part, my initial disagreement was that I don’t know what the other departments are doing. That’s my disagreement, but I do agree that the land claims do have to be looked at with care and for the most part, abided by.
I appreciate your response because I think it’s clarifying a number of points, one being that Article 24 is a binding policy.
It is a special right. If you read Article 2, it immediately sanctions a whole agreement with constitutional provisions of Canada.
It binds it, and then it says that if there is any following later, if there are any inconsistencies with federal and territorial laws and the agreement, there is a provision that says that this land claims agreement shall prevail.
So it establishes a certain right, a modern day right, an aboriginal right, we can call it the Inuit right, through Article 24.
Having said that, how is that policy made clear to the whole apparatus in the government? Who signs off a direction and says, “This is now part of the law and it must be followed,” or is it just sort of a loose kind of policy that says if they find it, they can apply it? And I’m going on the extreme, but is there actually a directive issued to the department, a process?
With a policy like that, it usually has to be approved by the cabinet and we have been constantly reviewing and trying to improve our policies since we got on as a government.
Again, I’ve got to say that it’s constantly ongoing.
Things have got to be improved, things have got to become more efficient, and we aim to do that as a government. Things do change.
The ways businesses are conducted, run, and done do change and we have to change accordingly, but at the end of the day, for policies, cabinet has that final decision.
I understand that, but I think it’s a joint approval required because DIOs have to be consulted, according to Article 24.3.4, that they must be consulted with. If there are any attempts to change provisions, they must also be consulted. That means they likely have to approve provisions that you’re going to be making changes to.
Okay, having said that, I want to deal with a bit of an Inuit firm status.
I believe sometimes that there is a bit of confusion of Inuit firm status.
Inuit firm status is only quite very simple. It has a very clearly worded guideline from Article 24, and it just gives a company an Inuit firm status, nothing else.
It doesn’t give them a designation that they’re now qualified to run an airline.
That’s the responsibility of the contracted manager.
Would you agree sometimes that there is confusion, just by having mere Inuit status, that Inuit are now qualified to run a major service, a performance, an experience, including values?
In short, it’s called a merit system.
Will you make it clear that an Inuit firm status from NTI is just designating them an Inuit status, not qualifying them to operate a major system?
That sometimes, I think, should be addressed through the requirement aspects of the public tender.
Am I right or am I confused?
‘Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley.
Again, I’m not a land claims expert.
Previously I indicated that the cabinet has the final say in approving policies.
If it involves another organization, yes, of course, we look for the agreement to finalize some policies, especially NNI.
Now, I’m not an expert in land claims agreements. I’m also not an expert in the Inuit firm status.
We don’t deal with that in our department. NNI, though procurement, deals with that.
I’ll give you an example of some of the things that may have happened in the NWT when there was affirmative action, a thing that was going on for hiring First Nations and aboriginal people. It automatically didn’t mean that you had to hire aboriginal people.
You had to hire qualified aboriginal people, but this is just beside the point.
We don’t have the authority to determine who is who; NTI does that for Inuit owned companies.
It just confirms to me that there is a bit of confusion about this.
Affirming a business company and giving them Inuit status is the sole responsibility of NTI. That’s their business.
Article 24 is not a complex document. It’s a simply worded document.
What we have in front of us with Article 24 is really a good piece of document because it provides Inuit businesses throughout the 25 communities a status to participate in building and competing for contracts. It’s a good thing.
Unlike Inuvialuit and unlike Mackenzie, the policy is better because it provides communities from Grise Fiord to Sanikiluaq the exact same opportunity to bid on contracts. It’s the government’s responsibility to make that happen.
So I’m looking forward that there will not only be training for the procurement officials but all officials in the departments, including even us, that we be given a real briefing on exactly how NNI is applied. Would that be possible?
I believe that a well-trained employee is more productive than an untrained one. If there is going a review, everybody should be taking that and training, especially on NNI and Article 24.
If there are some misunderstandings about that, I’m sure this government is willing to sit down and look at it, and make sure everybody understands from the get-go.
It’s not written here, but I believe we’re on page K-4, (interpretation ends) Corporate Management. (interpretation) In the 2008-09 business plan, you talked about banking at the community level. You stated that this was going to be looked at for smaller communities.
In the 2012-15 business plan, it doesn’t mention that again.
I’m concerned about the Link cards that are used through the retail outlets that are very costly.
In 2008-09, I thought there was going to be a review done and now it seems to have been dropped. Maybe the minister could tell us if that review will go forward.
Yes, there was a review done on banking and there was certainly found to be a number of problems that needed to be dealt with. There was no simple solution found.
The most encouraging thing that we can say in terms of banking today is, thanks to Atuqtuarvik and their investment in the First Nations Bank, we have an aboriginal owned bank now with one branch in Iqaluit and they have announced their intention to open two more branches within Nunavut in the near future.
As they look into this, I believe they’re also giving serious consideration as to how they can expand their service out to other communities.
I’m not aware of the details of exactly how they will do that, but I do find that this is the right direction towards a solution.
As they move forward, there will probably be some consultations with the Co-operative system and the Northern Store system to see if, in their expansion, there can be some integrated methods of working within those buildings in the communities. I think that is hope for the future.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Deputy Minister Long.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you. If you can keep us abreast on this information, it would be ideal. The 2011-14 business plan mentions the Co-operative Associations Act and Credit Unions Act.
For 2011-14, you said that once the credit union legislation has been amended, it’s going to be very beneficial to Inuit as far as banking services are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, can you tell me what the status of that is?
Is it being studied or what?
Can the committee member point out the page number in the business plan?
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): What I’m asking about is not in there. It used to be in the 2011-14 business plan.
I was wondering why it’s not included in the business plan now. It’s no longer in the business plan.
In the 2011-14, it states that changes to the Co-operative Associations Act and Credit Unions Act are warranted.
You wanted to make an amendment on that and that is why I’m asking for an update and why it’s not included in the current business plan.
Have you resolved that situation?
We have a number of legislative issues that we have to deal with.
I guess our only reason for not proceeding with the cooperative changes in both the Credit Union Act and the Co-op Act is not a lack of desire to do it but rather a lack of internal capacity to get the work done.
It has come to my attention again recently that there are reasons why we should be proceeding with that. So in spite of the fact it is not in the business plan, we will be taking some steps forward in the next fiscal year to begin that process.
This is not a question, but it’s more of a comment.
This amendment is something that these organizations really want as many co-operatives would be able to run a credit union program.
Co-operatives are owned by members.
I will continue to ask questions on that initiative and its implementation.
The legislation governing the cooperatives as well as credit unions is very important to the member co-operatives. This is primarily a comment at this point.
I will want to hear any updates pertaining to progress being made on this file, as this issue is felt by many of the Co-operatives.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tapardjuk. (interpretation ends) Did you want to comment, Minister Taptuna?
Along the lines of questioning as my colleague, Mr. Tapardjuk, the people of Baker Lake, the Kivalliq, and Nunavut are aware that NBCC, under the Atuqtuarvik Corporation, had created a partnership with First Nations TD Bank. I’m aware that these talks have been going on for several years now in regard to the anticipation of economic development in the region and contributions to Nunavut.
I just wanted to reiterate that smaller communities, such as Baker Lake, would very much like to continue to contribute to Nunavut’s economic growth stimulation.
With that, it is just basically well known that people in smaller communities who are contributing to Nunavut with economic development, such as Baker Lake, want banking services and not have to resort to banking services in other communities.
I don’t think the problems would be there.
I want to state politely, if I may, that banks wouldn’t have any problems accepting people’s money and to invest into their services.
With that, I was glad to see earlier in the sitting that the minister had tabled the NBCC activity reports. As a spinoff of that, I wanted to ask the minister.
In the 2012-15 business plan, it indicates that of the priorities for 2012-13 is to, and I quote, “Initiate the preparation of a renewed Nunavut Economic Development Strategy for 2013-2023.”
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask if the minister or his officials can elaborate on providing more detail on the status of this initiative and when they expect to complete the strategy.
The existing Nunavut Economic Development Strategy was developed approximately 10 years ago and it is at the end of its life.
So we will, along with NTI and the federal government, and with participation from many other organizations interested in economic development, begin the process of developing a new strategy.
We expect to launch into the earlier stages of that development in the next fiscal year and have it complete and ready for presentation to this House and to the NTI board of directors within two years.
For the benefit of my colleagues and the viewers, the economic development strategy that I referred to in the business plan is on page 183, bullet 6.
However, with that, I just wanted to read on page 182 of the business plan for your priorities, it states that “The Nunavut Business Development Corporation is a territorial corporation that delivers programs and services that provide sustainable economic development and employment opportunities in Nunavut’s communities.”
The last sentence, I find, is what the deputy minister and the official had just indicated is “The corporation works closely with the government, communities and community groups to stimulate local economies and develop self-sustaining, locally-controlled enterprises.”
I’m glad that the department and the officials are able to identify that. I would like to advise the department that I would be pursuing further questions in regard to banking services for smaller communities, as I had done earlier in the House.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask as well for the record if the Minister of ED&T or his officials: what changes would you like to see in the new economic development strategy?
Perhaps to inform me and educated the committee as well, the question is: what changes would you like to see in the new economic development strategy?
When we developed the original economic development strategy approximately 10 years ago, the economic situation was very different in Nunavut. We did recognize that there were four pillars of economic development that would be our priorities.
Within those were mining, fisheries, cultural industries, and tourism. Since 10 years ago, there have been significant differences, improvements, and progress made in mining and in the fisheries. There were also changes and progress being made in tourism and cultural industries.
The new strategy does not have to move off in new directions. It is more a process of updating itself to the current situation we’re in and how we can move forward over the next 10 years based on that.
It’s not a question but a comment, if I may. I would like to inform the committee members and our witnesses here that Nunavut tourism is a very major attraction that appeals to everybody in the world.
I had mentioned in the House before that there are great economic spinoffs that we benefit from, such as our wildlife tourists, and I believe that we have such a unique territory that we can expand on this and enhance on it by supporting of Nunavut tourism.
I just wanted to thank the minister for pointing out the four issues, obviously, in terms of what would attract and strategize in the 10-year plan, as he has indicated mining, fishing, cultural, and tourism. I very much appreciate the economic development department.
I just would like to see more support and promotional support for Nunavut tourism. I would like to pursue that in detail in another setting. Just a comment.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Aupaluktuq. (interpretation ends) I think that was just a comment, unless the minister wants to make a comment on that. (interpretation) Thank you.
We are on page K-4.
The questions I was going to pose were already asked by my colleagues.
I’ll just ask the minister to elaborate a little bit more on the Nunavut Economic Development Strategy as they’re moving forward to renewing this one.
Can he elaborate a little bit more on the possible changes towards the strategy that they’re hoping to achieve?
He did mention that he has been discussing this with a lot of the stakeholders.
If the minister can explain: if they’re moving towards discussing this with stakeholders, are they expecting to just have discussions or are they also going to work towards having major meetings with stakeholders?
Just so it’s clearly understood, the organizations leading the new strategy will be the GN, led by the economic development department, CanNor, and NTI. We will be making the financial investment in whatever is required to move this forward.
The last time, we had 22 other organizations that basically signed on to the strategy and were full participants in approving it and developing it.
So it will be a working group approach over a period of two years with as much participation as we can get from all those organizations.
Ms. Ell: Thank you, Itsivautaaq. (interpretation) I would like to move on to another question about soapstone quarrying.
There have been assessments and a strategy on that.
Have you worked to identify possible soapstone quarries?
The soapstone quarrying evaluation program has been ongoing.
Of course, we do work with other communities that are assisting us.
There are a number of communities we evaluated last year and this is to identify new sources of carving soapstone.
There are 50 sites that were evaluated within reach of 11 communities. We’re very much involved and we’re very much appreciating the fact that we’re doing this for the artists who are out there.
Within the next two years, we’re going to be evaluating more deposits in another region of the Kitikmeot and Kivalliq. Although there has already been a lot of work done in the Kivalliq, especially around Coral Harbour, Repulse Bay, and in the Baffin, Pangnirtung, Hall Beach, Cape Dorset, and Kimmirut, we’re going to continue this for another two years.
I have no more names on my list for this page.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $12,766,000.
Turn to page K-5.
Economic Development. Mr. Tapardjuk.
On page 188 in your business plan, one of your priorities for 2012-13 is to “Complete negotiations on a Development Partnership Agreement for Hope Bay/Doris (Newmont). Continue negotiations with Baffinland for the Mary River project.”
I would like an update on that because I have a concern. I’m not too sure if the Mary River project will be delayed.
What is the status of the Nunavut government’s negotiations?
I want an update on that.
I thank the committee member for that question.
The negotiations are preliminary; they’re ongoing.
The member is well aware that a development partnership agreement is finalized when the company is going to go into production or construction or, in actual fact, get a project certificate, meaning that they’re going ahead into production. That’s when the final DPA is signed, with agreements from both sides.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Minister.
I just want clarification. Are you saying that they’re now starting or ready to start negotiations? Please clarify that.
Are the negotiations ongoing or are they stalled right now?
At this time, the negotiations aren’t happening. They’re still quite a ways to get through the end of project certification for that. We’re aware of that.
Both sides already understand the majority of the things that are going to be in a development partnership agreement.
For the most part, a development partnership agreement will be finalized once a project certificate is issued to the proponent.
Mr. Chairman, although the company has scaled back on the project, they recently withdrew an application to install heavy duty equipment in there, in what they call a pre-development phase.
They did pull out that application and for the most part, the activity happening there is scaled back down.
I believe that they’re going to be spending at least $20 million at the site, compared to the $500 million that they had proposed within their application.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. It’s now obvious that this will go ahead.