EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would like the government to take all of these concerns into consideration when they are formulating a position on this matter. It is quite obvious that the communities will require some form of assistance to allow our people to eat these meats.
We are at an intersection here in the Baffin region. With the caribou in the far interior, it is getting harder and harder to find caribou close by. Therefore, if this situation deteriorates further, then we will have to take some action.
I just wanted to provide support with my comments.
Although I did not hear a question, Mr. Shewchuk, I’ll leave it to you to respond.
I think that’s a very good idea and it deserves being looked at.
I think we should look at it through our co-management partners with NTI and Inuit associations to see if we could assist in that regard in any way, including airline services too.
Question 445 – 3(2): Nunavut Housing Trust (Elliott)
My questions are directed to the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation, the Hon. Tagak Curley.
It seems like we need to do a shift here. It seems like the regular members have more information than he does on certain issues regarding the audit and the report of Deloitte and Touche.
It mentions a number of problems in the report about controls on ordering of materials.
These were not in place and contributed to some of the overspending.
It further mentioned that the corporation still may have trouble because of human resource capacity issues.
Does the minister feel that this issue has been taken care of confidently in terms of the ordering process?
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I think, in short, I say even with some qualifiers, that the answer is yes.
The materials that are heading to the communities all may have reached the communities already.
We don’t have any other public housing or any housing units that we’re currently ordering right now, whether it would be for next year or not.
So that question is really kind of difficult for me.
I have been careful in responding to some questions because there are some qualifiers for every question asked by the regular members in that because we don’t know what’s going on.
The minister just said he doesn’t know what’s going on. I was wondering if he could clarify in relation to what you do not know what’s going on.
Hon. Tagak Curley: Mr. Speaker, I’m just responding to his question.
You alluded to the fact that you guys may have more information over on the other side or not. No.
I mean we have the same information and we have the same report.
I hesitate in responding affirmatively, or this way, or that way. For instance, when we are comparing prices with the SIP units and stick units, we’re going to have to wait until the projects are completed [to see] whether or not the costs are the same or not.
Are we going to take, for instance, consideration of the manufacturing plan that was established down in Ottawa? They may be quicker, for instance, to erect in a community, but that doesn’t mean they are cheaper.
Thank you for that explanation; that sort of clarifies.
But I’m still a little concerned about the ordering process and how the Nunavut Housing Corporation will be purchasing materials.
As everyone is well aware, we don’t want any more overspending.
With the project that was as big as the Nunavut Housing Trust and the affordable housing, you can sort of see how some things are going to be missed and some things different sizes, a piece of copper pipe of certain size needs to be ordered at a different size.
Could the minister confirm… ? I had heard that in Hall Beach, they were receiving a five-plex with the SIP units and a single dwelling home.
All of the materials came on the sealift and unlike Arctic Bay, where we have piles in the ground, they put theirs on a space frame and the space frame did not come in with the house.
Again, to me, I can see little things not being ordered and you know, different things coming in and not coming in, you know, maybe screws and nails and things like that.
But when you’ve got the frame of a house not being in there, is that true that the space frame did not come in on sealift and it had to be flown in on a Herc?
I would have to confirm whether or not that is the case with respect to the specific community, but I think we all now understand fully that there were a number of weaknesses with the project management as well as cost control.
The report spent a lot of time mainly on the cost control difficulties and the fact that human resources capacities are all over Nunavut.
I’m using that expression because the directorate is here in this town, headquarters is in Arviat, and the finance people are all in Arviat.
Therefore, this creates a problem because the information technology that is currently provided is not able to adequately provide information to the directorate on time.
The server just isn’t able to provide that. Despite the fact that they do have the software able to do so, the technology can’t process it nor deliver it.
So we have a number of challenges with respect to all of these questions, but I will provide the member with respect to Hall Beach probably in more detail as soon as I get it.
In terms of the report that was presented to us and it’s on the website itself, will that information be shared with the Office of the Auditor General? I know she had some comments and concerns saying that they were concerned because the Nunavut Housing Corporation was audited. Has that information been passed on to them for evaluation?
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, personally I don’t know whether she received a copy, but she was in town about the same time as the report was made public.
My colleague, the Minister of Finance, may be able to provide more detail on that, but I’m sure that she is keenly following the whole events of this whole process.
Question 446 – 3(2): Baker Lake Municipal Landfill (Aupaluktuq)
I would like to direct my questions to the Minister of Environment, Hon. Daniel Shewchuk.
Mr. Speaker, during yesterday’s question period, I asked questions concerning the conditions of Baker Lake’s municipal landfill.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister will not be surprised by my first question.
Can the minister indicate when the Baker Lake landfill was last inspected by the Department of Environment and what were the results of the inspection?
I cannot indicate those dates when it was last inspected, and I believe it would not be inspected by the Department of Environment anyway.
The responsibility of licensing a landfill facility is under the jurisdiction of the Nunavut Water Board. Any licences that are issued are enforced by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. They are responsible for any enforcements or inspections done of these facilities.
However, if there is a need for a landfill to be inspected on an immediate basis, we would absolutely assist in that regard with our conservation officers or environmental protection officers in the regions.
I am glad to see that they absolutely can assist us with the concerns for Baker Lake and Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question in regard to the GN recently announcing in a news release that “The Department of Environment and the Department of Community and Government Services (CGS) are working together to examine Nunavut’s solid waste management practices as a whole.
When will this Nunavut-wide solid waste strategy be completed and when will it be tabled in the House?
I know our departments are working together and the lead is Community and Government Services on the solid waste strategy.
I cannot comment when it would be done or tabled in the House.
However, I would like to tell the member that the Department of Environment, in conjunction with the Municipal Training Organization, is in the process of developing a hazardous waste management course for all municipal landfill operators in the communities.
The hon. minister partially answered this, but I wanted to ask for the record. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. minister: how will the GN work with municipalities on this issue?
Again as I stated, we will provide training to municipalities in some respect.
Also, they are a very important and integral part in developing the strategy.
My question again is: how much will the strategy cost and how much of this is going to be used to pay consultants?
I cannot provide that information at this time, but when we find out that information, it will be provided.
Reply to Opening Address 003 – 3(2): Mr. Paul Okalik (Okalik)
On March 18 of last year, I had the honour of delivering the first reply to the opening address that was made at the beginning of the current Legislative Assembly.
A few will recall that I offered a number of reflections and cautionary observations on the direction that the government appeared to be taking in its first months.
Mr. Speaker, that was over a year and a half ago.
We have now reached the midpoint of the government’s life and it is appropriate that we can take the opportunity to measure its performance to date. This exercise will help all of us at our own determinations concerning what should be done in advance at the second half of our mandate.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, the cabinet issued a news release last month which included a one-page list of what had claimed to be its most significant accomplishment since taking office.
By doing so, the government has invited us to evaluate its process.
I will gladly accept this invitation, Mr. Speaker.
(interpretation ends) Let’s get started.
The first accomplishment on the list is described as the Whale Cove Community Hall.
I absolutely agree that it is excellent news that the good people of Whale Cove have an important new facility in their community.
I certainly remember with pride the day on which the previous government approved the initial funding for this capital project and I thank the government for recognizing this accomplishment.
Mr. Speaker, the second item on the list is the new driver’s licence and general identification card.
Again, I distinctly remember when the initial funding for this project was approved by the previous Legislative Assembly and I again thank the current government for reminding us of this fact.
Mr. Speaker, I must confess that reading this list of accomplishments was, in some ways, a pleasant trip on memory lane.
The new women’s correctional facility, the new community learning centre in Pond Inlet, the new Kivalliq Health Facility, the new Pangnirtung Health Centre, the new medical boarding home in Iqaluit, and the new continuing care facilities in Gjoa Haven and Igloolik are all excellent projects that were all conceived of and started during the time of the previous government and Legislative Assembly.
Again I thank the current government for reminding us of this very fact.
Mr. Speaker, I could also spend some time in reflecting on other work accomplished by the previous government that is acknowledged in this wonderful list that was produced by this current government.
For example, as a number of members who are present here today will recall, the passage of the Midwifery Profession Act by the Second Legislative Assembly was one of the key statutes that we brought forward.
I am pleased to see that this good work is continuing.
However, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing this list, I am forced to ask some questions.
I see that the current government is now claiming that its accomplishments include taking action against the European Union ban on the import of seal products. This claim would be laughable if it weren’t so insulting to our Inuit hunters.
Mr. Speaker, if this was actually the case, why did the Premier not speak and vote in favour of the motion that my colleague for South Baffin introduced in this House earlier?
Does taking strong action against the European Union include abandoning our friends and allies in Newfoundland and Labrador at meetings of the Council of the Federation where the issue of trade relations with the European community is on the table?
As members will recall, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which has been fighting vocally and visibly on behalf of its sealers, has refused to endorse the comprehensive economic and trade agreement negotiations process with the European community until its concerns are addressed.
However, instead of joining with the province, our government took the easy path, simply for the sake of a smiling photo opportunity.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it appears clear to me that this current government’s definition of taking action is to cut a cheque for someone else to fight our battles.
Perhaps there is fear that if we speak up on behalf of Nunavummiut, we will stop being invited to nice receptions and ceremonies.
However, Mr. Speaker, I know from experience that you actually earn more respect if you speak vocally from a position of principle.
This is a lesson that appears to have not been learned by the current government.
Mr. Speaker, I also see that the current government is taking credit for the Eeyou Istchee Land Claims Agreement.
This one made me wonder. If this government is so committed to respecting land claims obligations, why did it flagrantly ignore the concerns of the Inuit of the High Arctic and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association in relation to federal attempts to conduct seismic tests in our waters?
Why did the Qikiqtani Inuit Association have to go to court in order to obtain an injunction to stop this testing?
Why did our government not stand with the Inuit on this very important matter?
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to explaining some of these government actions, it makes you question why they made those decisions.
And we fail to get answers to these very important questions of the day.
Maybe someone on the other side of the Chamber can explain to us why this so-called list of accomplishments conveniently neglects to mention that the government has been found by the courts to be acting in bad faith in its negotiations with our hard-working teachers here in Nunavut.
Maybe someone can explain to us why there is no mention of the government’s record on Inuit employment and why there is no celebration of these figures.
Come to think of it, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is there is nothing we need to celebrate.
The recent hearings that took place in this Chamber on this issue of capacity of our public service are a troubling one for me, Mr. Speaker.
I was astounded at the inability of the lead government witness to provide coherent answers to some very basic and simple questions and I was shocked at the fact that the government’s own legal arguments, all of which are on the public record, revealing that it is now trying to pass the blame for its own shortcomings onto the federal government.
Although my colleagues and I tried to get answers on this point, we discovered that a gag order had been issued and imposed by the current government.
Mr. Speaker, on April 1 of last year the opening address for our current session was delivered in this House.
I would be remiss if my reply to this opening address did not take the time to reflect on the extent to which its promises and commitments have been fulfilled.
I reread this quote and document earlier today and one of the first things that caught my eye and attention was the reference to the Akitsiraq Law School. As members will recall, this was one of the programs established by the previous government to provide Inuit with the education and training to succeed in today’s complex world.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we are moving backwards, as is evidenced by this government’s refusal to fund a second program to enable up to 25 Inuit to earn their law degrees, despite the fact that it is only being asked to invest less than a million dollars per year, a figure that doesn’t even come close to 1 percent of this government’s annual budget.
Mr. Speaker, I find such decisions to be inexplicable and disheartening. Although the government’s plan to create approximately 25 utterly redundant government liaison officer positions will require millions of dollars in ongoing annual expenditures, it rejects the opportunity to make a real investment for our future.
Mr. Speaker, here’s the choice: do we add 25 unnecessary positions to the bureaucracy or do we invest in 25 new Inuit professionals?
I know what choice I would make, Mr. Speaker. The government’s choice, however, saddens me.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on the subject of government liaison officers, I must admit that one of the real successes of this government has been to provide strong and unwavering support for the consulting industry.
As we have seen in recent months, consultants have benefited tremendously from the current administration.
Although the government has only recently gotten around to advertising for the director of the government liaison officer office, I do note that a nice contract was provided to a consulting firm to do some kind of work in relation to the project.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to describe such routine functions of government as being visionary accomplishments worthy of our continued confidence.
I see no inspiration in this document, only gaps.
Many of my colleagues have raised important issues and ideas.
So where is the independent child advocate about whom a number of my colleagues have spoken eloquently on many occasions? Where is the progress on devolution? Where are the Nunavut-based substance abuse programs and services?
Where is the action on suicide prevention? I could go on, Mr. Speaker.
I conclude my observation that the time for celebration on accomplishments has long passed.
It is now incumbent upon us to decide whether the government is being led along the right path in a decisive manner that reflects the aspirations and needs of Nunavummiut.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and my colleagues for allowing me this opportunity to share my beliefs and expectations.
Qujannamiik, Merci, Koanaqqutit, Uqaqtittijii.
Tabled Document 204 – 3(2): Letter of Instruction to the Commissioner of Nunavut (Aariak)
As promised during the spring sitting, I am pleased to table the Letter of Instruction for the Commissioner, (interpretation ends) Hon. Edna Elias. (interpretation) The document is now available and so I am tabling it.
Tabled Document 205 – 3(2): The Genesis of NHC Cost Overruns – A Personal Analysis (Elliott)
I wish to table a document which was emailed to MLAs from a former manager of design and development employed with the Nunavut Housing Corporation in Arviat. Mr. Speaker, this document sheds some inside information into the problems with the Nunavut Housing Trust.
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills. 16.
Motions. 17.
I seek the consent of this House to waive Rule 62(1) so that Bill 42, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2, can be read for the first time today.
The minister is seeking consent to waive Rule 62(1) so that Bill 42 can be read today for the first time.
Bill 42 – Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2 – First Reading
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 42, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2, be read for the first time.
First Reading of Bills. Hon. Keith Peterson.
I seek the consent of this House to waive Rule 62(1) so that Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011, can be read for the first time today.
The minister is seeking consent to waive Rule 62(1) so that Bill 43 can be read today for the first time. Do members agree?
Mr. Minister, please proceed.
Bill 43 – Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011 – First Reading
I thank colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
I seek the consent of this House to waive Rule 62(1) so that Bill 42, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2, can be read for the second time today.
The minister is seeking consent to waive Rule 62(1) so that Bill 42 can be read today for the second time.
Bill 42 – Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2 – Second Reading
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 42, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the forgiveness of debts in accordance with section 25 of the Financial Administration Act.
The motion is carried and Bill 42 has been referred to the committee on legislation.
I seek the consent of this House to waive Rule 62(1) so that Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011, can be read for the second time today.
The minister is seeking consent to waive Rule 62(1) so that Bill 43 can be read today for the second time.
Bill 43 – Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the write-off of assets in accordance to the sections 24 and 82 of the Financial Administration Act.
The motion is carried and Bill 43 has been referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Bill 38 with Mr. Okalik in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:26 and Committee resumed at 16:05
We have quorum and we can start the Committee of the Whole.
We will start with opening comments.
We would like to continue with Bill 38 and start with the review of the Department of Health and Social Services, followed by the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
We will deal with Bill 38 and the capital estimates for the fiscal year 2011-12.
What is the wish of the committee? Do you agree that we have Department of Health and Social Services appear before the committee?
Bill 38 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012 – Health and Social Services – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): They have all agreed.
Minister Curley, you can now begin with your opening comments.
I am pleased to take this opportunity today to present the 2011-12 Capital Estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services.
This year, the Department of Health and Social Services is requesting a capital budget for 2011-12 of $34.9 million.
Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to say that the first year of the construction costs for the replacement of the Repulse Bay Health Centre in the amount of $15.6 million are included in the proposed 2011-12 capital plan.
The department will be working with the Department of Community and Government Services to issue the tender documents in early January 2011 and expects to award a construction contract in early April 2011.
While the Department of Health and Social Services remains committed to replacing the health centres in Taloyoak, Arctic Bay, and Cape Dorset since the health centres are aging, other competing priorities within the Government of Nunavut makes it a challenge for us to start construction on these important projects in the same fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, in 2010-11, as part of the government’s fiscal action plan to address the shortfall in the Nunavut Housing Trust program, the department agreed last spring to temporarily return carry-forward budgets of $2.5 million and $6.0 million from the Qikiqtani General Hospital furniture, fixtures and equipment and renovation budgets.
These funds are now being replenished in the department’s 2011-12 capital estimates.
The department remains committed to improving health services in Nunavut.
As such, we are requesting $9.4 million in the 2011-12 capital budget in order to upgrade the old Baffin Regional Hospital to optimize clinical space and accommodate support functions in conjunction with the new Qikiqtani General Hospital here in Iqaluit.
My department will upgrade the old hospital to offer many of the essential clinical services that were not transferred to the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
As a department, we ensure that medical equipment, mobile equipment, and furniture meet minimal standards – reducing the risk to patients and staff and keeping up with changes in program delivery and increases in demand for services.
In order to meet these standards, we are requesting $700,000 for minor projects to be used to replace failing or out-of-date medical and dental equipment and vehicles.
Replacing equipment and vehicles that have a history of frequent and high repair costs will result in some savings.