EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
To page 6. (interpretation ends) Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
Sport Nunavut. $620,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Total Sport Nunavut. $620,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): And at the bottom. (interpretation ends) Total Department. $620,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Turn to page 7. (interpretation ends) Education.
Not previously authorized. $46,000.
Not previously authorized. $46,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Total Curriculum and School Services. $46,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: School Operations.
Not previously authorized. $1,323,000. (interpretation ends) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Total School Operations.
Not previously authorized. $1,323,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
At the bottom. (interpretation ends) Total Department.
Not previously authorized. $1,368,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Turn to page 8. (interpretation ends) Health and Social Services.
Not previously authorized. $353,000.
I guess this is the $300,000 plus that that was in the press release that the department had indicated that they had approved from this current year. Here it talks about costs associated with partial implementation of the recommendations outlined in the evaluation exercise. I just wonder if the minister is aware of exactly what we got out of this $353,000.
Minister, I will leave it at your discretion to redirect that question if you wish.
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will refer that to the Minister of Health.
The $353,000 was to initiate the risks identified in the Accreditation Report immediately upon FMB approving. The report was distributed to FMB in December and we needed to identify the risks identified in that report immediately and acted on it with this funding.
This funding was to initiate the process of recruiting positions that were in most need as per the report.
I just wanted to clarify, I think the minister indicated that this funding was used to recruit physicians, was this recruitment cost, or is this the cost of having those physicians for that year?
How many physicians are we looking to get for $353,000?
Mr. Chairman, I did not say physicians, I said positions that were identified as being needed to address the risks identified in the accreditation report.
I listed those 26 positions and immediate ones that, and had shared that information with regular caucus members when I briefed the members on it and it lists positions that were identified to minimize the risks identified in the accreditation report.
It has been a long day and excuse me if I did not recognize you properly.
I heard physicians, I am glad the minister clarified it, positions not physicians.
It has been a long day.
This $353,000, just to identify those 26 positions, was that something that was contracted? Was a consultant hired for that $353,000 to identify those positions, or was that used to fill those positions, or was it used to advertise to get those positions filled?
Mr. Chairman, with the appropriate funding the department went and hired a number of casuals to start addressing the risks identified in the accreditation report. No contractors were hired.
All were mostly hired through casual and the next set of positions will be advertised through the normal competition process.
All these casuals that were hired, they were hired to fill brand new positions. Is that correct?
Mr. Chairman, with the increment of funding that was allocated to minimize the risk that was associated in the accreditation report, there were 26 positions identified as being required to address the concerns outlined in that report, so all those positions are new to the hospital to address the needs and the pressures that the hospital is under as identified in the accreditation report.
Did the accreditation report come with job descriptions and pay grades or how did they determine, all of a sudden, bang, you have 26 new positions? There is usually a process where you go through for classification and stuff like that in determining pay levels and things like that for those positions.
All of a sudden, poof, 26 positions according to the chart that says what they hire, and they hire someone casual to go in there to do what, what do they start them at, what do they pay them at, are they automatically in the collective agreement?
All those labour relation type things that need to be worked out, they do not just, poof, 26 positions like that go in there without any work going into it.
So I am just wondering, out of those 26 positions, if they are filled on a casual basis, how do they determine where those casuals would fit in to the grid system?
I wish it were as easy as going “poof.” The positions that were identified in the Accreditation Report, on the 26 positions in total, and the incremental funding that went to the hospital is for the 26.
The positions identified and listed, which I shared with Regular Caucus Members, listed positions for the most part that we needed to address immediately from January to March 31 were in positions like; additional translators, house keepers, custodians, and so on.
Those are the type of positions that were also identified in the Accreditation Report as being risks in the environment of the hospital. Cleanliness, as an example, was an issue that was raised.
There were 26 listed, but not all 26 were hired. We addressed the immediate needs of keeping the hospital clean, and the pressure on the current staff, the translators, and so on. I believe there were about eight or nine in the first three months that we were able to address with this incremental funding.
They will all be going through the process of recruitment, but for the most part, the positions that we filled immediately existed in the system already, so classification, job evaluation would have already had those job descriptions and so on.
For the most part, when we go through the casual hiring process, generally jobs don’t require job descriptions to go through that process, but to address the pressures placed on the hospital, we went through the route of filling the casuals first, and then we were going to do the work and advertising through that staffing process with Human Resources and so on.
I’m just wondering if the minister can indicate how long they anticipate keeping these as casual positions before they turn into indeterminate positions.
That work is underway.
I think we all know that work is under way, but I asked if there is any idea how long it’ll take for that work to be complete. That’s what I was looking for. Does the minister have any indication as to how long?
There is a senior management team at the hospital that is reviewing and working on all the recommendations that are identified in the Accreditation Report.
The work is under way to start the initiation of that staffing process. First and foremost, we need to get past the session of approving the other piece of this funding.
The work is under way for that, remaining after April 1, to start hiring the positions through the advertisements and so on.
The other work of these positions has been; we’re going through the process of working with Human Resources, and advertising and so on. There have been some advertisements in the local paper.
So once those competitions run, and expire, then the screening takes place, the interview takes place, references, offers, and so on. It can take up to six to eight months and so on. And we’re going through the process of advertising and working with the system.
So to identify a specific date when those 26 positions will be filled I can’t say. But, I can say that the work has been initiated through the senior management at the hospital tasked with addressing the accreditation recommendations.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. I have no more names.
Not Previously Authorized. $353,000.
Total Treatment. $353,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $353,000.
Chairman: Turn the page, page 9.
Not previously authorized. $750,000.
Very quickly on this one; it indicates the $750,000 as a partial payment of the Harvesters Program.
I am just wondering if the minister can give us an idea of what the total cost of the program to the government is going to be for the year and whether another supplementary appropriation is coming forward for the balance, or is it something that been funded from within.
Hon. David Simailak: I will refer to the Minister of Environment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Fair enough.
This $750,000 that we are seeking your approval for I think there’s $150,000 that will be from the Department of Environment. The payments change every year and these might be enough for hunters and trappers who have lost their equipment, these are paid to them.
I have no more names on my list on page 9.
Total Program Development.
Chairman: To the bottom.
Operations and Maintenance. Directorate.
Can the minister clarify for us what the current deficit is in the Petroleum Products Stabilization Fund?
Hon. David Simailak: One second, please, Mr. Chairman.
We don’t have that information here, unless the minister responsible has that information.
Minister Brown, the member wants some clarification, if you have that information handy.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Could the member repeat the question, please?
Certainly; I asked the question on what the current deficit is in the Petroleum Products Stabilization Fund is.
I don’t appear to have that information with me on what the deficit might be.
Apparently you have to wait for part of the information, but please proceed with your questions.
It’s a little bit of detective work here. I’m not sure if my math is correct, but I looked at the deficit from the interim financial statements for March 31, 2005 was negative $2,391,000 so doing some calculations here, adding in the $5 million and working with the $5 million that we are supposed to have in the legislation. It looks more like the deficit is running at $8.8 million, but perhaps a little higher.
That’s a little bit higher than the government is allowed to let it go under the revolving fund. So I’m wondering if the minister could clarify that for us.
Minister Simailak. I’ve got the light here. (interpretation) I apologize. (interpretation ends) Did you want to say something on that question, Mr. Simailak?
Hon. David Simailak: Mr. Green can answer part of that he says.
Based on the financial information that we received from Petroleum Products, as of March 31, 2005, they had a deficit of approximately $2.4 million in the Stabilization Fund and they were forecasting a loss for this fiscal year in one of those deficiencies of about close to $9.8 million, which would have brought the Stabilization Fund to $12.2 million.
So at the end of the fiscal year, Petroleum Products stated that they couldn’t exceed $5 million.
So the $15 million would actually bring this back up into a positive balance of around $12.8 million or $12.9 million.
I thank Mr. Green. It’s very reassuring that I can get the answer back on the back of an envelope and figure this out and what he is saying and what I’ve asked is correct.
I’m wondering why, under Revolving Funds Act, it said it’s an appropriation required if the deficit in the Stabilization Fund is more than $5 million, but why wasn’t the appropriation requested earlier?
I will get Mr. Green to try to answer that.
Mr. Green, please proceed.
Mr. Green: To the best of my knowledge and from my interpretation of the Revolving Fund Act is that the $5 million limit cannot be exceeded at the end of the fiscal year, which will end March 31 and this is why the appropriation was requested so that it can’t allow the Stabilization Fund limit to remain over its limit at March 31, 2006.
It would certainly help, when they are preparing these supplementary appropriations that this kind of information that is provided to us in a more straightforward language.
My next question, Mr. Chairman, as we know that Petroleum Products Revolving Fund is supposed to break even and the Stabilization Fund is meant to protect us from fluctuations of the volatile world market. It’s very volatile in the last year; it’s probably even more so in the future.
So my question would be to the minister or Mr. Green: can they tell us how the Government of Nunavut will ensure that their Petroleum Products Revolving Fund breaks even in the future?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Minister Simailak.
For that, Mr. Green, please.
Chairman: Mr. Green.
Mr. Green: In order for the Petroleum Products funds to break even, there’s the funding in there had to come from probably one or two sources. In order for it to break even, if the cost of fuel continues to increase at its current levels, then it would mean that he then would have to increase the fuel prices, or if that were not an option, then the other alternative would have to be some sort of appropriation.
On page 10.
Not previously authorized. $15,000,000, agreed?
Total Directorate. $15,000,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Government Services.
Not previously authorized. $1,668,000.
Total Government Services.
Not previously authorized $1,668,000.
Not previously authorized. -$505,000.
Chairman: Total Capital Planning and Technical Services.
Page 10. $16,163,000.
Open the book to page 11.
Not previously authorized. $500,000.
In the 2006-07 business plan there was $165,000.
Is it different than under the not previously authorized?
Chairman: Minister Akesuk.  Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With these new moneys we had to ask for appropriation because we needed more money to demolish the buildings in Nanisivik.
I have a question. It is $500,000, but that building is pretty small, right?
Or are there a lot of little buildings?
How many buildings are we talking about here?
Please communicate through the Chair.
I am not exactly sure how many buildings they are, but it is more than one that we are working on.
If you do not know then how would you know that it is going to cost $500,000 and it might not even be the Nunavut Government’s building?
Are they residential housing or are they commercial or office buildings?
Some of them are commercial buildings, and some are government buildings, plus schools and other facilities that belong to the government, and there are also the buildings that belong to the mine.
I can find out the information that we have the usual facilities like the schools and so on that we are demolishing.
Total Economic Development.
Not previously authorized. $18,000.
Total Transportation.
Chairman: Down at the bottom.
Not previously authorized. $518,000.
Chairman: Turn to page 12.
Not previously authorized. $1,357,000.
Go to page 2 please. Schedule 1.
Appropriations. $22,144,000.
I’ll ask you to go to Bill 14 in your Legislation white binder. Bill 14 if you’re ready. Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act #3, 2005-06.
Chairman: Application 2.
Chairman: 3, Supplementary Appropriations.
Chairman: Schedule, supplementary amounts appropriated for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006.
Total Supplementary Appropriations. $22,144,000.
Chairman: Thank you. # 4, Purpose of Appropriation.
Chairman: 5, Lapse of Appropriation.
Chairman: 6, Accounting.
Chairman: 7, Commencement.
Chairman: Does the committee agree to Bill 14 as a whole?
Are you agreed Bill 14 is ready for third reading?
I would like to ask our Law Clerk to come up to the Clerk’s table.
Bill 05 – An Act to Amend the Conflict of Interest Act – Review in Committee
Bill 06 – An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act – Review in Committee
Chairman: Thank you, Law Clerk. (interpretation) I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has any opening comments.
I am pleased to speak about the proposed amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act and the Financial Administration Act introduced in this current Legislative Assembly.
The Government of Nunavut is responding to the recommendations of the Office of the Auditor General to ensure financial accountability and good practices of public agencies and to ensure that they will be accountable to Nunavummiut.
These amendments to the Conflict of Interest Act and the Financial Administration Act will enable the Government of Nunavut to make recommendations concerning the contracting procedures for public agencies, require all public agencies to submit budgets to the financial management board, and clarify that the Conflict of Interest Act applies to the boards of public agencies.
Chairman: Thank you. It has been a long day for the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the staff.
I would like to ask the Chairman if he has any opening comments.
Mr. Tootoo: It has been a long day and I do have opening comments. However, I think it is appropriate just to deal with the opening comments for one bill at a time.
So, if you agree then we will go ahead with my opening comments for Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Conflict of Interest Act.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo for clarifying that, yes, that is the process that we will follow, one at a time, and you may proceed with your comments, Mr. Tootoo.
We do not want to cut corners, even though we have a kind of rounded chamber. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability has reviewed Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Conflict of Interest Act, with the responsible minister and his officials.
The standing committee is in support of the principle of the bills, which is to clarify that the Conflict of Interest Act applies to public agencies as defined in the Financial Administration Act. These include such entities as Crown corporations and a number of boards that are established by statute.
The Government of Nunavut’s Crown Agency Council recommended this initiative in the recommendations contained in the Crown Agency Council’s first activities report, which was tabled in the House in November 29, 2005.
As members will recall, the Crown Agency Council was established in September of 2003.
The standing committee views this initiative as part of a package of measures to address accountability issues that have been raised by the Auditor General in her reports to the Legislative Assembly.
These reports are subsequently referred to this Standing Committee for detailed review and hearings at which the government always anticipates eagerly attending.
Bill 5 was introduced during the fall of 2005 sitting of the Legislative Assembly and subsequent to which introduction the standing committee formally wrote to the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut in order to solicit his views on the initiative.
The Integrity Commissioner did not make any recommendations for specific amendments to the bill. At the appropriate time, I will table the standing committee’s exchange of correspondence with the Integrity Commissioner, which will more likely be in June.
The standing committee also issued a public call for submissions on the bill.
During the standing committee’s scrutiny of the bill, members noted that the recent annual reports of the Integrity Commissioner contained language with respect to the issue of conflict of interest rules and guidelines as they apply to senior GN officials. As the House is aware, the statutorily required five-year review of the Integrity Act is to take place this year, the Act having been originally introduced and passed during the spring 2001 sitting of the Legislative Assembly. I would anticipate that any recommendations arising from this review will be considered by all members.
Members sought clarification from the minister on the issue of how members of
Boards of Directors of Crown corporations and other public agencies will be familiarized with the provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act. The committee was advised that the Crown Agency Council will play a major role in this process.
That concludes my opening comments. The standing committee recommends passage of the bill.
Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Conflict of Interest Act.
Chairman: Thank you. Do we agree to Bill 5 as a whole?
Do you agree that Bill 5 is ready for third reading?
Then we move on to Bill 6. Mr. Tootoo, if he has his comments to Bill 6. Mr. Tootoo.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Please proceed.
The Standing Committee of Government Operations and Accountability has reviewed Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act with the responsible minister and his officials.
The standing committee is in support of the principle of the bill, which will enable the government to make regulations concerning contracting by public agencies. These include such entities as Crown corporations. The bill will also require public agencies to submit their operating and capital budgets to the Financial Management Board for approval.
Recognizing that the Workers’ Compensation Board is shared between Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, a modified approval process is provided for in the bill.
This initiative was recommended by the Government of Nunavut’s Crown Agency Council. The recommendation is contained in the Crown Agency Council’s first activities report, as I mentioned earlier, which was tabled in the House on November 29, 2005.
As members will recall, the Crown Agency Council was established, as I indicated earlier, in September 2003. The standing committee views this initiative as part of a package of measures to address accountability and Crown governance issues, thank you Mr. Premier, that have been raised again by the Auditor General in her reports to the Legislative Assembly.
These reports are subsequently referred to our committee for review.
Bill 6 was introduced during the fall 2005 sitting of the Legislative Assembly. Subsequent to its introduction, the standing committee issued, again as we try to do on all bills, a public call for submissions to get public input.
During the standing committee’s scrutiny of the bill, members sought clarification from the minister with respect to whether or not Crown corporations and other public agencies are presently adhering to the Government of Nunavut’s existing contracting rules and procedures.
The standing committee has been given to understand that Crown agencies have generally been in compliance. The committee was advised that the Crown Agency Council has been active in working with Crowns in this area.
The standing committee raised questions from a governance perspective with respect to what the appropriate role is of the members of a Crown Agency’s Board of Directors in reviewing and approving their organization’s budget if ultimate approval is to formally rest with the Financial Management Board.
The standing committee has been given to understand that the bill formalizes approval processes that are presently in place.
The standing committee recognizes that the ultimate accountability for public funds provided to Crown agencies must rest with elected officials.
Nonetheless, Boards of Directors of Crown agencies have an important role to play in ensuring sound financial management practices occur in their organizations.
The standing committee also recognizes that, by their nature, some public agencies are intended to operate on a day-to-day basis at arms-length from government.
The standing committee would wish to take this opportunity to reiterate its views that the business or corporate plans of Crown agencies should be tabled in the House in a timely fashion on an annual basis, similar to the business plans and budgets of GN departments.
The standing committee notes that while the bill will amend the Financial Administration Act to enable the government to regulate the contracting procedures of public agencies, it is not entirely clear if the government will amend the existing Government Contract Regulations made under the Act to simply provide that they apply to them in the same way that they currently apply to departments, or develop new regulations to apply specifically to public agencies.
The committee understands that the Crown Agency Council will be reviewing this issue. The present regulations provide detailed rules concerning tenders, proposal calls and other contracting procedures.
The committee concurs that it is important for clear rules to apply to public agencies.