EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I am wondering if, in some of these compliance issues that have arisen in the audit, if there’s, in the opinion of the internal audit division of the department, that a bunch of it could be due to the significant turnover that most financial divisions within departments seem to have with employee turnover.
I guess that’s contributing the issue to some of these problems.
When we do compliance audits, there are a number of concerns, and one of them is turnovers, of course.
I don’t know if the minister misunderstood my question, but some of the things that were identified in the audits is that the opinion of the department or the internal audit division that there are a significant number of issues that are being identified as problems that are directly related to the high turnover of staff.
Maybe I misunderstood the minister, but my understanding of her response was that turnover was identified as one of the problems or that was looked at or identified in the audit.
So I am just asking for a clarification there.
What I said was turnover is a factor in some cases, but not all cases.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the other areas that it talks about is, in here it says that the status was complete, conduct forensic investigations and conflict of interest audits, and the minister had indicated that there was a fraud charge or a fraud incident for the charge or whatever that was being looked at, and I am not interested or don’t even hear what the details of that particular case are, but as a result of any of the investigations that the department has done, has there been any dismissals as a result of any of these investigations?
Yes, there has. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I am aware of one.
I can appreciate that when investigations are being done to an extent where a termination is a result that it would have to be something that is handled very delicately and very carefully.
I am just wondering if I could get an idea of how those, in general, those processes are followed.
How do they identify things that may need to be looked into, and how do they follow up on those to determine whether there was anything there or not?
In terms of conducting audits, we do random audits, we do audits on the request of departments, we also do audits on the basis of what we hear.
The process is there where internal audit division will conduct the audit, complete the investigation, complete the report.
That report goes to the department, the department reviews it, responds, and acts on those reports.
Our job here is to identify the situation and complete the audit to ensure that yes, whatever situation may be, if identified, and each department deputy is contacted and they are required respond to that report, and once that’s done, a copy of that goes to the comptroller general as well as the Auditor General of Canada.
When they are looking or determining the scope of the audits or the objectives of the audits, is that something that in some of the more severe cases would end up looking into a fraud or something like that that would lead to a termination?
Whatever department it is, are they involved in the development of what to look at or consulted with the deputy on the issue, and involved in developing what needs to be looked at in the investigation or is that something that’s arbitrarily done by the internal audit division?
The internal audit division conducts their audit, and once they have come to a conclusion, they provide their findings to the deputy minister of that particular department.
Once the issues are identified, the deputy head is notified immediately on the situation, and we continue to complete our audits, and provide that final report to the departments to respond to, and it’s up to each department then to deal with the individuals in question.
Our job here is to provide the audits and the information to the department.
As part of the audit, I guess, in that would it require the internal audit division just looking at information or doing interviews with the staff from the department that they are doing the investigation on?
It can involve interviews with staff, it can involve interviews from outside the department, it can involve interviews with agencies we contract with, depending on the issue, depending on the scope of the file.
So it varies each time.
In the case there it’s a government department, the staff that’s being interviewed other than the Department of Finance staff.
Would there be any direction given to any of the witnesses or the people that are interviewed not to discuss anything or talk to their supervisors regarding any of the interviews that took place?
In most cases, if she could maybe identify cases where they would be instructed not to.
In the cases where we suspect that there is some resistance, there will be those types of directions.
In any of the investigations and audits that have been done, has any of those types of directives not to talk to people within their own department been issued to the people?
I don’t know exactly how many or to who those types of directives would be given.
In one particular case that I am aware of, if they suspect that there is some resistance, members of staff are asked to keep the matter confidential.
It’s part of the process of conducting an audit, and to get all of the information necessary.
Sometimes, we have to give direction to keep the matter of the interview confidential so that we can continue to complete the audit with the cooperation of the department.
I guess I am a little worried if they are interviewing someone within the department and they are told not to talk to anyone in their department on it.
If we tie that into one of the things that was mentioned that in which they base their audits on is based on just what they hear.
It could be: I heard this.
So are you going to go off and do an investigation?
Anyone could be a target out there.
If someone doesn’t like somebody or someone got somebody upset, then they could start up a rumor or something like that.
So I am just wondering what mechanism do you have in place to be able to separate that so that you ensure that what you are looking at, there are valid things and not personal vendettas like someone may have started just against someone else.
The whole reason we do the audit is to determine that.
We determine whether it’s truthful or not.
We find the facts, we find the numbers, we find the backup materials, we find invoices, there’s a whole process.
We don’t do internal audits on rumours.
There’s room for that where you have to rule out some of those, and this is why you interview people to come to a conclusion on a particular situation.
Internal audit does not shy away from completing its reports and findings if there is an issue.
We continue with the process until we are satisfied that things are okay, but if we feel that we need to continue with the audit we will until such time that we feel the matter is dealt with.
You ran out of time, Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): That’s okay, Mr. Chairman, because it has already been asked.
We are on page C-7.
I would like to thank the minister for indulging with my questions.
I am just trying to understand how the whole process works.
In the event of an investigation, I would imagine if the director or internal audit would be the head person, and I don’t know if it would be Mr. Vardy or Mr. Ready would be the head person, but that person reports on it, but at what point is yourself or the minister involved informed of any situation?
The person that would be responsible and in charge of internal audit is the Director of Internal Audit.
Most of the audits go to the comptroller general, who is Bob Vardy.
If there are serious situations that I should be aware, I am informed of it, but I don’t get involved in the actual audits per say.
I am notified if it’s a serious matter, and that’s the extent of my involvement.
Once you become aware of something that has been brought to your attention, that the comptroller general feels that this should come to your attention, is there a process in which you go and talk to the minister responsible for that department or does it go to Cabinet or where does that go from there?
Just to remind the members that we are on the main estimates of 2005/06.
Once I am notified of the nature of this, I do notify the appropriate minister or whoever needs to be informed.
I notify the Premier, and that’s the process we follow.
I understand that whole process now.
One of the objectives that is set out in your business plan for internal audit is to formulate and implement an annual audit plan.
I am just wondering if that’s something that’s done.
You mentioned there were 40 audits that were done this year, are you going to be targeting another 40 next year in different areas or what’s the status of that annual audit plan?
The annual audit plan is completed on an annual basis.
There’s an Internal Audit Committee where there are five deputy ministers that sit with that committee, and they finalize the internal audit plans each year.
Does that same group review the results of the audits for the whole year as well in trying to identify future areas to look at?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Yes, there are.
We are on Internal Audit Services.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $1,194,000, do you agree?
Chairman: C-8, Finance Branch Summary.
Financial Operations.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $11,750,000, do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): It was already agreed to, Mr. Tootoo.
According to the business plan on C-18, the budget application support, the budget for application support in the financial management system was increased from a little over $500,000 to $2.2 million in 2004/05 to $2,097,000 in 2005/06.
I am just wondering that there doesn’t seem to be any explanation of why this increase is there.
So my question is, I am just wondering why the budget for application support has increased so much since 2003/04.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I will get the deputy to respond.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Vardy.
The reason for an increased budget in application support is linked to a number of initiatives to strengthen financial management in the government.
One of the ways of improving financial management is to have better tools for financial managers to use.
We are trying to integrate our main financial management system, Freebalance, with all of the other financial systems that exist in government.
Freebalance interacts with, I think it’s around 30 other systems.
So we are trying to improve that interface.
Also, we are trying to develop our own compensations and benefits system, the P2K system that was referenced earlier, and before we were contracting our payroll function, we did do a lot of the input into Government of Nunavut, but the actual computer system is run by a contractor, ADP, and one of the problems with that system, there’s no good information or very little information coming forward on monitoring the numbers of employees and types of employees, it’s very weak on the Department of Human Resources management side.
So that’s a main reason for the increase in budget is strengthening our financial systems and developing a new compensations and benefits system.
I know Mr. Vardy recalls something I have raised in the past on numerous occasions is on the whole IT program spending, and my understanding from his answers, that’s what this spending is for, and that there was supposed to be a committee that was supposed to look at and keep the IT spending under control.
I am just wondering if this is part of the plan that came out of the work of that committee.
There was an IT, Information Technology/Information Management Committee that existed for the first five or six years of the Government of Nunavut.
That committee coordinated IT spending in government.
The system enhancements that I referred to on the payroll definitely was discussed in that committee and was one of the plans to improve our systems.
We have tried to control the amount of money that is spent for those purposes.
One of the changes that was made in last year’s budget was to move the responsibilities of information management from Finance to Community and Government Services.
So, with all of that, those responsibilities are under one roof right now; there’s no need for any other departmental committee, and in Finance, we have scrutinized the spending on Information Technology/Information Management, the same as every other expenditure in government.
We are on (interpretation ends) Financial Operations.
Page C-8.
Turn to page C-9. (interpretation ends) Finance Branch Summary.
Centrally Administered Funds. (interpretation ends) That’s together with C-10. (interpretation ends) Total Operations and Maintenance. $28,391,000, Mr. Peterson.
A question for the minister: does the minister’s department look after funds for medical transportation, advances, dental premiums, workers’ compensation for crown agencies?
For Nunavut Arctic College, we do.
When you do that for them, how do you recoup the funds that you pay on their behalf?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you. I am going to get Bob to respond to that.
In the Government of Nunavut, we don’t charge back departments and crowns for any amounts that are paid for centrally including workers’ compensation or the dental premiums.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Vardy.
Why would you administer for the Nunavut Arctic College and not for the other crown agencies?
With Nunavut Arctic College, they are part of the Department of Education budget.
For example, with Qulliq Energy Corporation, they have their own revenue generating system, so they are separate.
So, that’s the difference.
On that same topic under employee benefits, it’s identified on page C-21 in their business plan.
It has the amount going from just right around $7 million to almost $10.6 million.
I am just wondering what accounts for those increases.
I need to get him to repeat the page number again.
Mr. Tootoo: Under the C-21.
Chairman: Bingo.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Chairman, my page under C-21 of the business plan is the priorities for 2005/06.
I don’t know if I have the same page.
I don’t have that page number.
It’s on the top of the page on mine, it has the priorities for 2005/06, too, and then it has seven dots under the centrally administered funds, which is the section we are under and it’s employee benefits section there.
Under the employee benefits section, we have Workers’ Compensation Board premiums medical travel, and a lot of those increases is the result of more staff as well as any new increases, and more usage.
Does the department keep track of those benefits by category that they have down there, and take a look at those and see that there’s a trend in increases in leave and termination or medical travel or whatever it is?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Yes, we do.
Would they be willing to provide that listing and the breakdown to the members?
Those increases are dental premiums, $158,000, Workers’ Compensation Board premium rates with the increases is $1,103,000, the total of that is $1,261,000.
Increases to employee medical travel, $2,540,000, then the overall increase total is $3,501,000, which explains the difference between the ten and the seven.
For the medical travel, is that for travel within the territory or outside the territory, and $2.5 million is a big increase.
I understand that that was what the increase was or that was not the total amount.
Is that because more people are getting sick or those prices are going up or what’s the case here?
The first question is it north and south medical travel, it’s a combination of both.
In terms of are there more sick people, I don’t know that, but the usage of that particular program has increased by $2,540,000.
We receive the invoices through the Department of Health, and we pay it through this fund.
Is there an analysis done to look at whether that proportion is increased in the usage, which equates into $2.5 million, roughly equals the proportion of the increased staff because that’s what it was, it was $2.5 million less for 100 staff less staff last year, and as a result of 100 more staff, you got $2.5 million more usage.
Is their analysis done like that?
We don’t have the information where we have the proportion between the number of employees and program, it’s a combination of more usage, but at the same time, it’s also an increase in costs of airfares.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) C-9.
Centrally Administered Funds.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $28,391,000, do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Turn to page (interpretation ends) C-11.
Liquor Management.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $518,000, do you agree?
I would just like to ask the minister a question.
I asked this in Oral Questions a couple weeks ago, it seems like a couple months ago now.
In Cambridge Bay, to apply for an import license, you have to submit your application to Kugluktuk.
I read in the media the other day that Kugluktuk has given up the contract to issue import licenses, and are saying that people would have to apply to Rankin Inlet now.
I wonder if the minister could give me an update for my constituents as to what the plans are for the Kitikmeot to apply for import licenses after March 31.
The member is correct; Kugluktuk will no longer be issuing permits starting March 31.
The impact of communities, from what I understand, the division in Rankin Inlet have contacted the communities affected by that, and at the present time, arrangements have been made that the permits will be purchased out of Rankin Inlet, but we are also looking at ways of providing that service in the communities like Cambridge Bay and Taloyoak as well as Kugluktuk for the Kitikmeot Region.
We are looking at trying to put those systems in place to address the member’s concern in the New Year.
In my comments yesterday, I mentioned that we are concerned that the process might be too complicated for the folks in the Kitikmeot.
I am hoping you can streamline it and make it easier for people to acquire the necessary legal licenses.
I mentioned in my comments yesterday and in the past, that we have bootleggers that are out there willing to sell people bottles of booze for $200 to $300 each because some people are finding it too unwieldy to go through the paperwork, to find fax machines, and locate people that they have to contact to get the proper application.
I am hoping that the minister’s department recognizes that we have some difficulties in our region with that process, and we need to work to overcome some of the red tape.
I recognize the member’s concerns and I share the same concerns he does.
We are working towards trying establish a better process for issuing permits now that we have the full responsibility within the Nunavut territory to manage the warehouse as well as the board activities.
So we are looking into that, and we are looking at our options as to who in the communities or what agencies can provide that service on our behalf, but that’s still in the works, and we are trying to address that.
My staff in Rankin Inlet have been directed to come up with trying to address those types of concerns.
Mr. Peterson. Okay.
I wanted to ask the minister; there were about 40 applicants about shipper/receiver.
Under shipper/receiver, it states in the business plan, under C-22 (interpretation ends) objective to promote compliance with liquor control legislation and regulation. (interpretation) You also want to cooperate (interpretation ends) with the user groups. (interpretation) How will that promotion be done?
Will that be contracted or by PR group?
Exactly how are they going to promote compliance?
I have stated in my budget address that I would be working with the Liquor Management Board with their input to improving education type initiatives or promotion of the legislations, and I am going to be meeting with the board this month here in Iqaluit to discuss those in more detail.
But at the same time, the education parts of it will involve not only the Department of Finance, but agencies in the communities as well.
We are looking at doing that work internally, we are not looking at contracting that service out.
Yeah, it would be good if the public knows about this because there doesn’t seem to be a strategy in regards to substance abuse.
I know you are not responsible.
But we, as the public, would place more towards the government if there was a better liquor-related legislation.
Maybe, if it was contracted out, then people would understand better because if the Liquor Management Board was contracted out, and as long as the budget is approved.
So I would like to ask, the regulations, I think they are good, and there should be improvements to have more control over the bootlegging.
I wonder if the minister can tell us if she will be working on this because we don’t have records of alcohol-related offences, if we can come up with a tracking system.
My other question: do you know how much the bootleggers are fined?
I agree with the member’s concerns on that.
I have stated in the past that I would be looking at trying to address some of those issues to this in partnership with Justice, as well as Health, and are up to these.
The way we track now is before, I had mentioned as well, that any purchase outside the territory, we had no knowledge of that data.
With the operations now in Nunavut, we will be able to track the number of sales to particular individuals in what particular community as well.
So the other thing that we are also looking to work with is that there’s the Alcohol Education Committees at the community level for their advise and suggestions on how to address some of those challenges.
So, that work has been initiated through the staff in Rankin Inlet.
I hope I answered all of your questions.
Mr. Curley: Yes, I would appreciate it if maybe at some point that the minister will actually implement and promote, actually show some initiatives in that regard instead of containing a PR item, which probably will not be used or has not been used, it’s got to be implemented.
This promotion is for making the public aware of the consequences of alcohol as well as the illegal sale of alcohol really needs to get out to the public.
My second part of my earlier question was: what are the consequences and fines for first offence of selling illegally an alcohol without license?
I will commit to providing a plan to address the concerns that he has raised related to the whole education part of this divisions and concerns that have been raised around bootlegging, but anyway, to come up with a plan to share with the members.
In terms of fines for people that are bootlegging, I don’t have the information or answer to that question.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, my point is that I think if all of us were aware of exactly what the first and second offence is related to the illegal sale of alcohol, I think the public would be under a lot more, at least aware that is.
Many communities probably don’t understand that it’s illegal to sell alcohol in dry communities, and that kind of stuff.
So I think even the Cabinet Ministers don’t know that, so that’s amazing.
My second question is that I just want to make a point of I think a clarification in one of the Minister’s Statements.
The minister stated at one point that, earlier in this Session, that there has been a liquor warehouse built in Rankin Inlet.
I just wanted to clarify that because the government or no one actually built a facility for alcohol in the first place.
The government did acquire a facility from the private sector to facilitate that, but the Minister’s Statement at one point indicated that a generic liquor warehouse has been built in Rankin Inlet for that purpose.
I think that it’s important that the government is leasing, perhaps with a long-term lease without public tender a liquor warehousing facility.
First, I would like to respond to the comments he made.
I am aware of the Cabinet Member that it’s illegal to sell alcohol in dry communities.
I come from a dry community.
What I don’t know is what the fine is.
It depends on the number of times the person has been charged for bootlegging.
So it varies by person.