EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In the communities that I know of, they have equipment to make I.D. cards.
If there was no equipment in Sanikiluaq, I will look into it and let the member know. We will look into it.
This has to be done on an urgent case because Sanikiluaq has to travel outside of Nunavut to get to another community in Nunavut.
We have no other way of travelling into Nunavut communities except to travel outside of Nunavut first to get to the communities.
As the minister stated, he would look into this as an urgent case. If Sanikiluaq doesn’t have all the equipment, could this be resolved on an urgent case?
I thought all the communities had their I.D. equipment either in municipal or hamlet offices, or in the Motor Vehicles offices in the larger centres.
I already thought that they would have that equipment in the communities.
I will look into this after the session has been adjourned on where Sanikiluaq is and we will do this on an urgent basis.
Question 214 – 2(4): Status of Uranium Development in Nunavut (Barnabas)
Yesterday, the minister tabled a uranium development document.
It has been almost 20 years since we discussed this uranium development in Nunavut.
What is the status of it to date for Nunavut?
Yes, we have been dealing with uranium for over 20 years now, and we call it Nungusuittuq in the Keewatin region.
They discovered uranium mining in Saskatchewan and they take care of the habitat.
There’s a good economic development opportunity in that area, but I believe that it would be the same case in Nunavut if we happen to start uranium mining.
I believe it would be beneficial for Nunavummiut but the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement has been settled and we now have our Nunavut government.
With this, I could say that if we are going to take care of our land, if we are going to take care of the wildlife, and if this is going to be very good economic development for Nunavut, then we would like to see it in Nunavut.
Over the last several years we have not heard much about uranium exploration for mining in Nunavut.
There has been so much talk about diamonds, base materials, and gold.
Mr. Speaker, why is there a sudden interest in uranium?
In the past, one pound of uranium would cost $7, but it is well over $100 per pound now.
So the price has increased quite a bit for uranium.
Uranium mining is a very good economic opportunity for the mines, so that’s why the mining companies are looking for uranium.
There are over 30 nuclear reactors in the upcoming 15 years, especially down in the States.
Today there are 435 nuclear reactors in the world used for energy and nuclear energy, using uranium, is cleaner than fossil fuels.
We expect within 15 years that there will be more demand for uranium in the world.
For that reason, there is higher interest is mining uranium.
The Nunavut Planning Commission is going to be meeting in Baker Lake this week.
Will they be discussing the recommendations in the Keewatin region for land use planning? Also, the principles that the minister tabled; will they be used for all of Nunavut, or just the Keewatin region?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will follow the document that I tabled yesterday on uranium. The discussion will be beneficial for all of Nunavut, not just for the Keewatin region.
They are now looking for uranium in the Kitikmeot and near Arctic Bay.
There are other areas that have not been explored yet around Baker Lake within the last few years, but they expect to find more uranium around the Kitikmeot area and near Arctic Bay.
We know that uranium is much different than other minerals.
Is the mining of uranium regulated differently than other minerals?
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is responsible for protecting the health and safety of people and of the environment, and regulates uranium mining and all uses of nuclear materials.
This commission licenses all uranium projects in Canada, including uranium mining, milling, transportation, processing, usage, export, and disposal.
(interpretation) Also, we use that foundation to protect the land and Nunavummiut.
If they’re not going to be protecting the people on the land, then we will not be in support of uranium mining.
We have seen in Saskatchewan that they are protecting their land and habitat.
If this goes ahead in Nunavut, if we protect our wildlife, our land, and Nunavummiut, then we will strive to protect all.
Question 215 – 2(4): Government of Nunavut Involvement with IIBA (Arvaluk)
He knows in Pond Inlet that Baffinland is now planning the mining in Mary River, but we all know that the Nunavut Government is not too involved in the Inuit Impact Benefits Agreement, or IIBA.
We know that the Nunavut Government has signed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and they have the responsibility to protect it.
The Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement; are they involved with the development with IIBA, or not?
Yes, we have been informed and updated as to what has been happening with the mining exploration or any exploration, and we’ve been informed of whether or not the mining companies are working with the communities.
Can he tell me if the Nunavut Government agrees with the agreement, or if they consent to the agreement? If they agree with the IIBA, then you will sign the document only when you’re happy with it.
Minister responsible for Transportation and Economic Development, Minister Simailak.
In regard to his question, the mining companies and regional Inuit associations agree along with Baffinland. The Qikiqtani Inuit Association signed the IIBAs and now they’re negotiating on that.
We were not involved with the negotiations.
We all know that the Qikiqtani Inuit Association are currently negotiating the Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreement and the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation is really owned by the association. Qikiqtaaluk Corporation has a one-year contract with Baffinland.
Baffinland is currently thinking about working with the Kitikmeot Inuit Association.
At the current time, the Pond Inlet residents don’t have a representative who would work for the benefit of the people of Pond Inlet.
For Example, QIA is currently using Qikiqtaaluk Corporation to do work for them but there is no representative for Pond Inlet, Hall Beach, or the other companies.
With the Land Claims Signatories, when is the Nunavut Government going to start getting involved with the IIBA negotiations.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) Minister responsible for Economic Development and Transportation, Minister Simailak.
I’m sure that the hamlets have the responsibility and the ability to have meetings with the mining company, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, and the other entities.  The Pond Inlet residents are fully involved through the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, and they are owners of Qikiqtaaluk Corporation.
With those avenues, the people of Pond Inlet can be fully involved if they should wish to do so.
I’m sure that the communities in each of the regions can participate because they have the voice through their organizations.
We all know that it’s all set up like that but the actually implementation is not being used.
Can the minister tell me if he could look into the process and see if it is actually put into practice during those negotiations?
In regard to the mining companies and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association; it’s all outlined in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
They have to follow through with it and if they’re not following through with the agreement, then it’s up to the people of Pond Inlet to notify them and to make sure that they’re following through with the process.
I am sure that there’s going to be ongoing negotiations with services and potential contracts in the future.
Question 216 – 2(4): Meet with Nunavut Employees Union Members (Tootoo)
My question is for the Minister responsible for Finance and it’s in relation to Tabled Document 86 – 2(4). To clarify for my colleague from Iqaluit West that it’s a petition, not the letter that I’m asking the minister about.
Mr. Speaker, I think it’s in regard to that Tabled Document; it’s very clear that the majority of the affected employees of the Department of Health and Social Services felt strongly enough that they were told one thing and we were told something else here in the House, to put their names on a petition stating that.
It seems really clear that there seems to be some kind of miscommunication somewhere in the process.
My question to the minister is: would he commit to meeting with these individuals and listening to their concerns, explaining to them and clarifying any miscommunications that may have happened, and apologize to them for any concerns that they have as a result of that miscommunication?
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation and Finance, Mr. Simailak.
At that time when we made that announcement, we initiated that because the departments wanted to do so.
The department was the one that gave us that direction to see if we could move those staff to another department.
I could talk to the deputy minister to see if there is a need to have a meeting with the affected staff.
I could direct my deputy to do so.
I would think that the minister wouldn’t have to check with his deputy minister to find out if there’s a need due to the simple fact that the majority of those individuals, who signed a petition, raising their concerns would be evidence enough that there was some miscommunication out there.
Now, these individuals are under the Minister of Finance’s responsibility.
Would he commit to meeting with them, listening to their concerns, clarifying for them, and apologizing for any miscommunication that resulted in any confusion that they may have?
We made sure that the proper information was given, but I could make sure that we have an informative meeting.
If we were at fault, then we will do something to correct the situation.
Given this government’s continued message to its employees that it values them, again, I ask the minister if he would commit to meeting with these individuals and conveying to them the facts of what happened, and listening to their concerns so that he hears first hand himself what they’ve been told, and not second or third hand; make sure that they feel that they’ve been listened to and just to help put this to rest, I don’t think this kind of miscommunication is healthy for anybody.
But I think it would go a long ways to those individuals, if the minister would take the time to sit down and meet with them and listen to what they have to say, and sort it out personally. Would the minister commit to doing that?
We would definitely like to welcome the affected employees to the department, as I’m sure it’s going to be a great benefit, not just to the Nunavut Government but also to the people of Nunavut as a whole.
I’m sure that they will enjoy their work when they start working with other finance people and just focus on one duty, and so on.
So I give them full support and I welcome them.
So I will direct my deputy to have a meeting with the staff and I will get feedback from my deputy after the conclusion of that meeting with the staff.
I think when I asked last week on how or who informed these individuals, the minister indicated that it was the two deputies from the department.
So I don’t know if that’s where the miscommunication came from or not.
Also, I think that will show the sincerity of this government towards the value of its employees.
I’m not questioning the move, or the benefits, or the negative impact that may have. That’s the government’s prerogative to do that.
But it’s quite obvious that there was miscommunication somewhere along the long.
As the minister indicated last week the deputies were involved.
So, again, I ask the minister: will he, not his deputy, commit to meeting with those individuals and discussing their concerns with them and conveying, and make sure that everybody is getting the same message?
I’m sure that that will go a long ways in making them feel comfortable with this transition. So will the minister personally commit to doing that?
As I stated earlier, I would like to welcome the staff, myself personally, when they’re going to be moving to the Department of Finance.
It’s going to be a benefit to the people of Nunavut and I’m very pleased with that decision.
If there was a miscommunication of that first meeting, I will look to see what the problem is and I will direct my deputy to do so.
If there is a need for me to have a meeting with the staff, then I would do so.
I will look into the issue, but I would like to reiterate that I do welcome those employees to our department.
If there is any, then I am willing to have a meeting with the staff.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like unanimous consent to go back to Item 5.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. The member would like to return to Item 5.
I would like to recognize some individuals in the Gallery.
From the Francophone Association, who has made huge contributions, I would like to recognize and welcome Dominique Beauchesne.
Tabled Document 095 – 2(4): Nunavut Representative on Board of Directors and Payment Agents - Letter from the President and CEO of NorthwesTel [dup. tabling of 31 – 2(4)] (Arvaluk)
I wish to table today the official response to my letter of earlier this year to NorthwesTel.
I am pleased that NorthwesTel has responded positively to my efforts to achieve the reinstatement of payment agent services in Pond Inlet and for the appointment of a Nunavut resident to the company’s board of directors.
Tabled Document 096 – 2(4): Letter from Ikaluktutiak District Education Authority to Minister of Education re: Co-Principal Model – Kullik Ilihakvik, Cambridge Bay (Peterson)
I wish to table a letter from the Cambridge Bay District Education Authority, dated May 11, 2007, addressed to the Minister of Education concerning the Co-principal Model - Kullik Ilihakvik Elementary School in Cambridge Bay.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. (interpretation ends) Can we have the documents brought forth to the table, please.
Tabled Document 097 – 2(4): Fire Marshall 2006 Annual Report (Brown)
I’m happy to table a document from the Chief Fire Marshall’s Annual Report.
Can you bring the document to the table officers.
Tabled Document 098 – 2(4): Language Legislation Community Consultations Summaries (Tapardjuk)
I would like to table the summaries of the Language Legislation Community Consultations Committee.
They conducted extensive consultations with Inuit about their views on the legislative process that began in 2000 to date.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the communities and organizations and individuals that came forward to express their concerns over the two language bills.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Minister. (interpretation ends) May I have the document brought forward to the table, please.
Tabled Document 099 – 2(4): Grants and Contributions Policy – Department of Health & Social Services (Aglukkaq)
I wish to table the Grants and Contributions Policy for the department of Health and Social Services.
Can you bring the documents up to the table officers.
Tabled Document 100 – 2(4): Workers’ Advisor Office Northwest Territories & Nunavut 2006 Annual Report (Netser)
Tabled Document 101 – 2(4): Workers’ Compensation Board of the Northwest Territories & Nunavut - 2007 Corporate Plan: transition in progress (Netser)
I wish to table the following documents: Workers Advisor 2006 Annual Report and the Workers’ Compensation Corporate Plan for 2007.
Tabled Document 102 – 2(4): Photo of Grandson’s Kindergarten Graduation 2007 (Curley)
I would like to table today a very important event in Rankin Inlet regarding the recent graduation of the kindergarten class.
Our beloved grandson, Ray Anguti Natsiq, who was one of them, graduated with the same aspirations as you and he also gave his regards.
He will be going to grade one next year.
Motion 016 – 2(4): Extended Adjournment – Notice (Peterson)
I give notice that on Thursday, June 7, 2007, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that notwithstanding Rule 4, that when the House concludes its present sitting in Iqaluit, it shall be adjourned until Tuesday, October 23, 2007.
Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I ask that my motion be dealt with today.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. (interpretation) Item 16.
I’m sorry, my apologies, I went ahead of myself.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to proceed with his motion.
Motion 016 – 2(4): Extended Adjournment (Peterson)
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that notwithstanding Rule 4, that when the House concludes its present sitting here in Iqaluit, it shall be adjourned until October 23, 2007.
AND FURTHER, that at any time prior to October, 23, 2007, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and the Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
(interpretation ends) Item 16.
Motions. (interpretation) Item 17.
Bill 06 – Official Languages Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Member for Baker Lake, that Bill 6, Official Languages Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 6 has had its first reading.
Bill 07 – Inuit Language Protection Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Member for Iqaluit East, that Bill 7, Inuit Language Protection Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 7 has had its first reading.
Item 17. (interpretation ends) First Reading of Bills. (interpretation) Minister Brown.
Bill 12 – Emergency Measures Act – First Reading
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I move, seconded by Honorable Member for Amittuq, that Bill12, Emergency Measures Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 12 has had its first reading.
Bill 11 and Tabled Document 49 – 2 (4) with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
>>House adjourned at 15:28 and Committee resumed at 15:55
In Committee of the Whole we have the following items to deal with: Bill 11, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2007-2008, and Tabled Document 49 – 2(4): An Energy Strategy for Nunavut.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 11 and supporting documents, followed by the review of the Tabled Document 49 – 2(4).
Are we in agreement to proceed with Bill 11?
Minister Simailak, do have you witnesses that you would like to bring to the table? Minister Simailak.
Chairman: Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please assist the minister and his officials.
For the record, minister, please introduce your witnesses. Minister Simailak.
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) On my left is Peter Ma, and Mr. Green is on my right.
I am happy to have people from the Kivalliq region in the Gallery: David Uluyuk and Wilf Wilkinson, who are here to attend the proceedings. We are happy to receive them.
(interpretation ends) Before we proceed I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have ten minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
We were on page 8. Bill 11, Supplementary Operations and Maintenance Bill.
I just wondered that the minister mentioned that they had been tracking, not only as he had indicated yesterday, that $8 million increase over seven years, but also an increase in the number of people that are on Income Support Program.
I am just wondering if the minister has the numbers for the last three years and if they have any projections of what they’re expecting over the next few years.
At any given time, we have about 48.3 percent of all Nunavummiut, that’s all residents of Nunavut, who are eligible for income support, who are on income support at some time during the year.
We expect to have for this year upcoming to have over 316 additional applicants or income support clients and the program expenditures are estimated to be around $29 million.
So when we look at it since 1999, which is a good example, in 1999 the total budget for income support was $21 million. For 2007-08 we anticipate it will be $29.6 million; an increase of $8.6 million. But we have to include in that the 15 percent increase that we have put into the Income Support Program of the previous two budgets of ten percent and five percent respectively.
I thank the minister for giving us that information that he gave us yesterday.
I was wondering if he has the information of the total number of people that are participants in the program. Is that something that they track as well?
If he doesn’t have that information with him, would he commit to providing that to the Members of this House: by the year, how many total numbers of participants were involved in the program, and also, what their projections are, if they have the number of participants - not dollars on budgeted amounts, or percentages - but actual number of participants in the program?
I do have some of the numbers that the member has requested; I should be able to give those here in numbers.
The average monthly income support caseload or household numbers on income support; would the member like them broken down by a three-year rolling amount, or would he just want them for the projection for 2007-08, or would he actually like the actuals.
As an example, I can say that the number of individual caseloads on income support in 2005-05 was 13,830. In 2005-06, which was the latest numbers that we have, was 12,392.
So that was a decrease.
The total social assistance payments, or income support payments for 2004-05 were $23.9 million, for 2006-07, it was a little over $28 million, and as we talked about earlier, which we’re projecting to be about $30 million for 2007-08.
The number of individuals receiving different types of programs, I can also provide that, and I can also give the number of families. So there are quite a few different categories under the Income Support Program.
I guess for the two numbers he gave for the 2004-05 of 13,830 the total number of participants and for 2005-06 it was 12,392 participants. I assume that’s the total number of participants in the program.
What I would like to see is the total number of participants that they’re having for the 2006-07 year and what their projections are past that as well.
Just to bring some clarity, again, under the Income Support Program, as the member knows, we have a range of programs, which include, when we say, caseloads.
So as an example, one of the Income Support Programs that we have is the Daycare User Subsidy Program, which is under the Income Support Program.
So maybe if I went through some of them and gave you the numbers, and then the member can come back and tell me if all the information that he has received is the correct information. If not, then I would be able to give some more information and maybe that would be the fastest way of doing it.
Those two numbers that the minister gave me as to the total number of participants in the program, that’s what I am looking for: in 2003-04 year and the 2006-07 year, and what your projections are for years past that. That’s what I am looking for.
Hopefully, that clarifies it to the minister.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Minister Picco.
So for the sake of information, I will average out the number.
The number of individuals and that is individuals included the total number of caseload, meaning the total of Income Support Program, for 2005-06 is 12,300. Again, that’s an approximate. The number of individuals included in the caseload in 2004-05 it was 13,800.