EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
There were no concerns about the housing for that position.
Earlier this year, certain departmental positions in Pond Inlet and other communities were going to be eliminated as a consequence of the government’s decision to turn over responsibility for CARS services to NAV CANADA and the private company, ATS Services.
My understanding was that the government would be identifying new positions for the impacted communities.
My question is: can the minister provide a clear update today on what her department has done to fill the position in Pond Inlet?
In Pond Inlet right now, there are eight staff members working and in my department, we feel that’s an adequate number of staff.
The fact is that we have to provide jobs in the communities and we are very well aware of that.
What we announced about that position, the aviation programs officer, right now, the employees there are working in that capacity and vacancies were created when the system was turned over. Some of them already resigned on their own and wanted to work somewhere else. Some were provided with new positions.
To date, the decentralized positions in Pond Inlet will not be filled.
I will bypass my final question and re-ask my first question because I didn’t get a response.
Your department previously stated that those two positions, because of the decision that you have made, were eliminated.
You said that after those positions were eliminated, you were going to look for other positions where those workers could go to.
You were also going to see what jobs could be created to replace those eliminated positions.
Have you done that now in regard to those two staff members? Have you created new positions for them?
Mr. Speaker, we did look at this very carefully. The department has no plans at this time to create another position to replace the position that is already meeting the decentralized commitments to Pond Inlet.
Question 099 – 4(3): Clean-up of Burnt School (Joanasie)
My question today is directed to the Minister of Community and Government Services.
Mr. Speaker, next week will mark the two-month anniversary of the Cape Dorset school fire.
To date, an enormous pile of destructed rubble remains at the site of the old Peter Pitseolak School.
I understand that there were some concerns of hazardous material and that tests were needed to ensure health and safety before clean-up commenced to protect the cleaners. I’m glad to have heard that the tests revealed no level of hazard.
I would like to ask the minister: has the department issued the contract to clean up the rubble at the Cape Dorset school so that the clean-up can be completed prior to winter?
After the school burned down in Cape Dorset, we have tried to follow the procedures after such an event.
We needed to find a place where we would dump the remains of the old school. It’s all garbage now.
It was explained to us that there is a place where the rubble can be taken, and I appreciate the hamlet council for being able to find a spot quite fast.
The education authority and the Department of Education, along with our staff, have been working with the people of Cape Dorset.
With regard to your question about the clean-up of the school, we have made the funds for the clean-up available as an RFP to contractors in Cape Dorset that are capable of doing such work.
The money that was identified for the purpose of the clean-up has not been estimated yet.
We haven’t given out the contract yet.
As the minister stated, they have identified a lot working with the Municipality of Cape Dorset, but the contract has not been awarded yet.
Perhaps the tender was higher than the actual cost.
What’s your department going to do, and when are you going to start cleaning up the remnants of the Peter Pitseolak School? It’s all broken and burnt, and people in the community see it every day.
When will the clean-up start?
On October 27, the hamlet council met with officials from the Department of Education and the Department of CGS in regard to cleaning up the remnants of the school.
Yes, we have no choice. We are now working with the company that can clean up the rubble so that they can be on budget.
The funding that was set aside through the Department of Community and Government Services is smaller than the actual bid.
It’s evident now that we will probably have to wait until next year for the clean-up because of this issue.
We will need to bring the equipment up that crushes steel. It would be very good to use that crusher and we will be able to use it next year. That crusher will be arriving next sealift and I know that it would be very useful for the community.
At this time, we’re discussing as to how we can deal with the cost of cleaning up that site in Cape Dorset.
Did I hear him correctly that the old school clean-up might have to be delayed until next year?
The destructed steel remains seen every day by the public in Cape Dorset and it reminds them every day of how it was burned down. That’s how it is; it reminds everybody.
Mr. Speaker, when does the department expect the clean-up to be completed by? Can you tell me when you expect the clean-up to be completed?
I identified a couple of things. Firstly, we are still discussing this matter with the potential contractor because their bid was higher than the actual budget for the clean-up.
The Department of Community and Government Services has already budgeted for this. It is still under consideration.
If the clean-up can’t go ahead this year, we will have to delay it until next year. If we’re going to be waiting until next year, we will be able to bring a crusher to the community so that they can crush the steel, which would help with the clean-up of rubble. I know that it would be very useful for the community.
We have not stopped working on that. We are still considering it and how we can clean up the rubble, but the budget has to be in line with the actual budgeted costs. We have not come to a decision on that.
We would like to deal with this as soon as possible within our department. We have not stopped working on it. Once we have come to an agreement with the contractor, we will be able to proceed with the clean-up.
Question 100 – 4(3): Dialysis Services for Nunavutmiut (Sammurtok, T)
I say “good day” to the people of Rankin Inlet and Chesterfield Inlet, as well as our fellow Nunavummiut. My question today is directed to the Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s Statement yesterday, I spoke about the need for dialysis services to be provided in Nunavut.
Currently, there are a number of Kivalliq residents who are living in Winnipeg to receive dialysis treatment because it is not available locally or in Rankin Inlet.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether his department tracks the number of Nunavut residents who must travel to the south and live there in order to receive dialysis treatment and how much this costs the government on an annual basis?
I heard a few questions, so I will respond to one of them.
According to my knowledge, there are two individuals from Nunavut who receive dialysis treatment and have to reside outside of the territory.
Obviously, this is an item I may have to return to at a later date. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, from time to time, dialysis patients travel home to see their family and sometimes their return to the south is delayed due to weather or other reasons that are out of their control.
Without dialysis treatment, their lives may be in danger.
Can the minister clarify what steps are taken to ensure that medical clients who require dialysis but are stuck in the north, where there are no dialysis machines, do not face unnecessary health risks?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I’m aware that from time to time, the patients are sent home for a weekend visit or a few days.
Every precaution is reviewed to make sure that the patient is not at risk. As well, we have to ensure that they will be properly supported if anything were to occur.
Those are precautions that are taken before any travel back home is approved because we don’t want to put the patient’s health at risk during those visits. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There are many compelling arguments for establishing dialysis treatment centres in our three regional health facilities.
Can the minister commit to looking into the costs of purchasing dialysis machines and the cost of training medical staff to run them and bring forward a business case to provide dialysis treatment in Nunavut?
(interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Minister of Health, Mr. Okalik.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) From what I understand, the people that deal with dialysis, the nurses and staff, have to have a certain amount of caseload for them to continue to practice.
Currently, there are two patients that require dialysis from the territory, so there’s not enough of a caseload for them to continue their practice if they were to relocate here to Nunavut.
It’s not just an issue of cost when we review these situations; it’s the matter of the patient as well those that support them in their efforts to live day to day with dialysis. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Member for Hudson Bay, Mr. Rumbolt.
Question 101 – 4(3): Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan (Rumbolt)
Earlier this year, the Legislative Assembly passed the Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan Act. This important legislation concerns pensions for employees of municipalities, housing organizations, and other entities.
A little over a month ago, on September 18, the Nunavut and Northwest Territories ministers responsible for this legislation signed a joint memorandum of agreement concerning the NEBS pension plan. This agreement was tabled in the Northwest Territories legislature earlier this month.
Why has our minister not yet tabled the agreement in our legislature?
I also thank the member for his question on this.
I don’t remember the exact date, but we will be able to table the agreement because we work at the same time with the Northwest Territories.
I would hope the minister would table that document as soon as he can.
In September of this year, new regulations under the Act were approved and published.
Can the minister indicate how his department is working with NEBS administrators and the Nunavut Association of Municipalities to ensure that all of our territory’s hamlets and LHOs are aware of their roles and responsibilities under the Act?
We work with all those entities.
We follow the rules and regulations, and they have been working on these.
Also, we work with other entities in regard to this.
As I stated earlier, I’ll be able to table the agreement not too long from now, but we’re working very closely with the organizations and NEBS administrators.
Can the minister confirm that all municipalities and LHOs in Nunavut have been informed of this new legislation and have been informed that they must follow these regulations in their communities?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): As I stated, we are working together and I’ll check into my colleague’s concern.
Yes, I want the regulations to be followed too and that they be aware of what decisions will be made on this important item because we all need to know this information and I’ll keep that in mind.
Question 102 – 4(3): Income Assistance Review (Hickes)
I would like to continue with the line of questioning that I had with the Minister of Family Services yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, in one of the minister’s responses, she stated that they are still at the review stage and looking at the cost of living and if they would have to increase the income assistance programs by $20 million.
I would like to get some clarification on how that $20 million figure was ascertained.
If the review is still ongoing, how did they come about that figure?
Hon. Jeannie Ugyuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, member asking about the review of social assistance. How we came about… .
Speaker: Excuse me, we’re having technical problems.
The review is part of the Income Support Program. Poverty reduction has provided funding on the review of food security. We all know that in Nunavut, the cost of food and how expensive it is, to use as an example, the cost of living, we’re not up to par with the cost of living.
The Department of Family Services is working on how much is spent on day-to-day expenses.
That’s how I quoted the figure yesterday.
In November 2013, the Caledon Institute of Social Policy submitted a report that was engaged by the Nunavut Anti-Poverty Secretariat with an emphasis on reforming Nunavut’s income security system, one of the principle objectives of Nunavut’s Poverty Reduction Strategy.
Mr. Speaker, there were a number of recommendations that were made in this report, one of them being a basic income program.
Is this part of the review that’s ongoing with the Social Assistance Program review with the Department of Family Services?
The Income Support Program for those who receive income support is being fully reviewed.
Even some people who are working need assistance.
When people receive income support, we include the federal government programs.
This is receiving a full review and we go back and forth with the Department of Finance. We are trying out different things on how income support recipients are affected in Nunavut.
I’m sure the minister is aware that there was a recent report completed in our neighbouring territory to the west speaking of a living wage in which it was stated that a single person needed to make $19.91 an hour and a single parent almost $26 an hour to sustain themselves in a comfortable manner. I think it’s fair to say that the cost of living here in Nunavut is higher than that territory’s.
In the minister’s review, is it taking similar living expense parameters into consideration during this review?
Yes, we are affected by the cost of living and housing. We are including the cost of food and what expenses affect us on the side.
Department of Family Services officials are working on how we can be provided assistance.
That’s how I can answer the question.
Question 103 – 4(3): Funding Increase for Hunters and Trappers Organizations (Mikkungwak)
This morning, the minister made a statement about the recognition of the park in Kugluktuk.
The minister knows that there are two rivers in Baker Lake.
In his letter, he stated that he worked with the hamlet and the hunters and trappers organization.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Environment a question last year to see if the funding for HTO offices would be increased for their operations. I asked that question last year.
Has this been worked on to date?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for asking that question.
The Harvester Support Program provides assistance to hunters and organizations and this is an ongoing program.
The report has been completed and my staff has been working on it.
The funding that is provided to the HTOs and those organizations is also part of the review.
That’s where we stand right now.
In regard to his question, it has already been completed. The hunters and trappers organizations need more funding, but with our planning for implementation being done, we are letting the hunters and trappers organizations review that and a decision will be made.
I don’t think I was understood, so I’ll ask in English, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) The hunters and trappers organization, my question was, I understand the minister indicates there have been increments in some areas.
My question here is: has the O&M budget for the hunters and trappers organizations across the territory increased?
Oh, Mr. Speaker.
An Hon. Member (interpretation): Don’t make mistakes.
Concerning the review, as I stated, yes, it’s our goal.
Yes, I’m very glad to hear it’s being worked on.
That being case, will it be completed before the next fiscal year?
Speaker (interpretation): Minister of Environment, Mr. Mike.
In some parts, we need correct information.
As I stated earlier, it’s being reviewed at the moment by the hunters and trappers organization. The decision has been reviewed.
Question 104 – 4(3): Western Hudson Bay Polar Bear Quota (Savikataaq)
Earlier this week, on three different occasions on his replies to Mr. Shooyook, he talked about that he works with co-management and he can’t make the decisions on his own. Yesterday, in his member’s statement about the Southampton caribou, he’s working with the local HTO there and co-management to increase the total allowable harvest for caribou and animals.
He seems to have different standards when it comes to the western Hudson Bay polar bears.
The HTO in Arviat has asked for an increase and the RWO went to the NWMB hearing and asked for an increase. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board’s recommendation to the minister was for an increase of 14 polar bears for western Hudson Bay. That population is hunted by Arviat, Whale Cove, and Rankin Inlet.
When the TAH was higher, Baker Lake and Chesterfield Inlet used to also hunt from it, but now the TAH is too low and they don’t.
I asked the minister when he was going to make a decision and he has not informed me, but I have found out through the Gazette that he has authorized an increase of four.
NWMB’s recommendation was 14 and the minister has agreed to four.
It’s within his right. He has the final say. I just want to know why he did not go with the recommendation of NWMB.
There are many wildlife management zones in Nunavut for caribou on Baffin Island and on Southampton Island and Kugluktuk.
There are also many management zones for polar bears. As I stated before, I am working on polar bear management in the regions.
I informed the member that I was carefully considering the western Hudson Bay polar bear quota and responded last week saying that the management regime went forward through hearings.
I also stated that there are many things that had to be considered and that the western Hudson Bay polar bear regime is different than those of South Baffin.
The regions have different purposes and following that, it’s part of my consideration.
The minister stated that there are many different reasons why he makes his decisions. He has to study it.
He stated that the western Hudson Bay population is different than other polar bear populations and he had to think about it.
He takes the advice from co-management, he said.
The research team that does polar bear research for the minister is the same researchers that research in western Hudson Bay or North Baffin and South Baffin or anywhere. It’s the same people.
NWMB are the same people who take that data and make recommendations to the minister.
The minister still did not answer me.
Why did he not go with the recommendation from NWMB?
Regarding the issue of wildlife, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, under Article 5, where NWMB is the co-manager along with the Nunavut government, the minister has the discretion to either deny or accept a recommendation or otherwise make another decision. That’s where I used my power as minister.
The minister is stating exactly what I have stated.
NWMB makes a recommendation to the minister. Article 5 of the land claims is very clear too.
Yes, the minister can accept it, reject it, or put in his own number. This is going to be my third attempt.
Why did the minister not go with the recommendation of NWMB? There has to be a reason.
Did he flip a coin?
Was he in a bad mood? Why did he not go with the recommendation from NWMB?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) It’s not like heads I win, tails you lose. That’s not the case here. Heads I win, tails you lose, but that’s not the case here, okay?
(interpretation) However, what I can say about this review of the polar bear study in western Hudson Bay is that the trend was a stable population that experienced a sudden decrease and it was unfortunate that it resulted in the drastic slashing of the quota.
The number of tags was set at what hunters considered a reasonable number of tags, but with the sudden decrease in population, it led to the unfortunate decision to slash the quota.
That is the history of what happened in the polar bear management of the western Hudson Bay zone.
Another matter related to that is the planned study is set to proceed next year.
I had to deliberate on whether to approve this study. I also had to keep in mind the fact that the study was scheduled for next year, which is quite close.
With respect to the western Hudson Bay polar bear population, if we want to manage it properly, we can’t just make impulsive decisions so that the quota doesn’t experience drastic ups and downs. That is what we would like to see.
Although recommendations are submitted to my attention, due to some of the reasons I have raised here, I didn’t arrive at that decision as alleged.
The discretionary powers of the minister under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are to accept, reject, or vary recommendations.
Question 105 – 4(3): Ship Refuelling in Nunavut (Keyootak)
Mr. Speaker, my colleague was asking questions about the fishing vessel that is operated in North Baffin.
Mr. Speaker, I understood the response, but I would like to ask additional questions.
The fishing vessel couldn’t be fuelled up in Qikiqtarjuaq.
Mr. Speaker, there is a research ship that has been conducting studies around the same area.
The research ship could fuel up in Qikiqtarjuaq.
Why is it that the Kiviuq couldn’t fuel up in Qikiqtarjuaq when the government research ship could?
It depends on the length of the vessel, which is regulated.
Depending on the size of the vessel, there are rules and regulations that apply to each of them.
That’s why the research ship could fuel up there and not the Kiviuq.
The government research ship landed in Qikiqtarjuaq and it was fuelled up. It broke some of the anchors of the local boats.
The research vessel went through and landed and broke a lot of anchors of the privately owned boats.
The chairman of the Baffin Fisheries Coalition had his own boat damaged and the anchor was broken.
Can the minister find out whether it was legal for the research ship to fuel up in Qikiqtarjuaq?
I also thank my colleague for bringing that up. This is the first time I hear of the incident and I’ll make sure we look into it.
As I indicated earlier, it’s the size of the vessels and there are certain regulations that apply to them. People who are involved in those types of ventures know quite well about the regulations.
I didn’t know about this incident. I’ll make sure I look into it and make sure that the regulations were used, Mr. Speaker.
The minister stated earlier that the regulations are applied depending on the size of the vessel. There are also privately owned boats that bring drums of fuel to the boat and fuel it up, which is more dangerous, either to dock the boat or to bring the fuel to the ship.
I first started working with fisheries about 25 years ago and the same rules still apply.
There are the regulations or legislation that is applied to DFO and to the Coast Guard. It has been 25 years that I have been in this business and it’s still applied today.
The communities have to develop and the fishing industry has to grow in Nunavut.
It’s not illegal to transport barrels of fuel to a ship to refuel it. That’s what we have been doing in Pangnirtung and it follows regulations.
I don’t think it’s a safety issue, but it does create problems for the communities.
Even though Pangnirtung has a port now, you can still transport barrels of fuel to a ship to refuel it.
I will look into this again and look at the different methods of refuelling ships, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 025 – 4(3): Letters of Expectation 2015 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 026 – 4(3): Responses to Letters of Expectation 2015 (Peterson)
I am pleased to table Letters of Expectation for 2015 and the Responses to the Letters of Expectation for 2015.
Tabled Document 027 – 4(3): Executive Summary of the Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy Evaluation Report (Okalik)