EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Minister.
As he stated, they’re becoming more supportive and I’m very pleased to hear that but the application of the Act, because of the application many people who would like to purchase rifles have to wait for a very long time.
They end up not even purchasing a rifle and they end up waiting for a long time, and they don’t get certification. They can’t purchase a rifle. As long as this legislation is used, can the Premier work with the federal government to ask an official to visit the communities to help the communities fill out gun registry forms.
Yes, I would like to see the deletion of this act, and that’s what we will be pushing for. Perhaps this coming fall they will deal with that.
I could probably ask for that, but they now want to delete or take away this act because we are not in support of it.
I used to tell them that we have the worst problems because the application forms have to be filled out and we have encountered many problems with that.
We pointed out many problems that we encounter and the federal government knows about all our problems with the gun registry or legislation.
Yes, I feel the same as you; that we should do away with the gun legislation. (interpretation ends) It’s like that commercial: if life were like that, we wouldn’t need gun license cards.
(interpretation) While this is being used, can you support the community harvesters because we need some kind of support for the hunters, the Nunavummiut.
Even though this is not applicable to Inuit, our justice system says that this does not apply to Inuit, and it will not apply to Inuit, but the way the procedure is that is where our stumbling block is. I’m sure we can try and fix the procedure. That’s how I could urge my colleagues.
As Inuit, we have rights. We have the right to harvest, even though we don’t have licenses, perhaps we can use beneficiary cards that gives us these rights instead.
We discussed this prior to the establishment of government, and the federal government did not want to hear about that, but the new government is much more in support of this.
With the support of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. we could probably do it.
I would like to thank the Premier, too.
Yes, even though we hear that this does not apply to Inuit, some other hunters have to go hunt for other individuals. When the hunters go out to purchase bullets, they are unable to purchase theirs because they do not have certification, and this is being used today.
Sometimes their rifles are confiscated because they do not have certification.
The Nunavummiut need support. Will you give us support on that?
This is very important to us and I have stated this to my counterparts and told them that we had a lot of problems with this Act, especially for the hunters who go out hunting for subsistence and because we do not have farms up here.
I agree with you, we need to do away with this Act and that is what we will be pressing for.
As long as this Act is being used, we will ask and look for ways on how the federal government can be more supportive of our needs.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Premier and Mr. Arreak.
Question 305 – 2(3): Review of Elders Service Agreement (Tootoo)
I think the words that the Premier was looking for is that we need to shoot down that Act. Hopefully, it has run out of ammunition.
Earlier in questioning, she had indicated that they are looking at reviewing all areas of service agreements with different organizations that are providing services for the Department of Health and Social Services.
I know and I mentioned earlier too that the Elders’ Society here in Iqaluit is running on a service agreement that is, I think it was first started up in 1997, and a lot of things have changed since then, if you just look at just utility costs alone over the last two years with the increases that we have seen in fuel.
The Minister of Energy eloquently pointed out earlier to my colleague Mr. Barnabas about those increases and the rising costs of energy in our addiction to fuel.
As a result of these increases, a non-profit Elders’ Society here in Iqaluit is operating at an over $20,000 deficit to provide the service for the Department of Health and Social Services.
Will the minister commit to looking at dealing with that shortfall as quickly as possible prior to a full scale review being done on all aspects of those service agreements to help alleviate this deficit that is being faced by the Elders’ Society.
The department is committed to evaluating all facilities because the sooner issues are faced by other facilities, not just here in Iqaluit. My primary concern is the quality of care that should be provided to the people that live in those facilities. That is first and foremost.
The other piece that we are looking at is to examine what services are required, what services are being provided whether is would be through us or through physiotherapy or through the hospital and so on.
That piece is crucial in determining what resources are required by that centre whether it would be the centres here or in Rankin or Cambridge.
So it is part of the overall review that we need to do to determine the concerns the member has raised.
Again, I know as the minister had indicated earlier, that’s part of an overall review.
I know in the past, when the elders of Iqaluit have run a deficit and that, in providing that service for the government for elders from all over the Baffin region that live there, the department in the past has been satisfied with the services that have been provided and covered off the deficit amount of the Elders’ Society, which is made up again, the nonprofit society of elders here in Iqaluit to provide those services.
Is it right; does the minister feel that it’s right that a nonprofit organization should carry the deficit for providing a service to the government for the Department of Health and Social Services?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated before, once we have sorted out the services that are being provided by the centre, and whether it’s in compliance with our contract. We need to sort that out.
We need to know whether in fact they are meeting the contract requirements, or providing additional services outside that may be driving the cost.  We need to evaluate that, and once all that is sorted out, the quality of care, again, being the primary concern that we have, then we would be able to look at what resources are necessary for the centre.
We don’t know for sure at this point in time whether the costs and deficit incurred by the society is strictly as a result of the services that we’ve asked them to provide. That is a concern that we have.
We need to examine that the funding that we had put forward to these centres are being addressed to meet the services that we’ve asked for. So that’s an examination that we need to do.
At the same time, we need to look at the cost of electricity and so on as part of that evaluation, and look at the standards of quality of care and services also. So there is a big picture. It’s broader than just providing financial assistance for a deficit.
We need to examine if that deficit is a result of the services we asked the centre to provide.
Again, I go back to a comment that I made earlier that; in the past the department has been satisfied with that and covered off those additional costs borne by the Elders’ Society.
Is the minister now indicating that they are no longer satisfied with the information that has been provided to them for the services that are being provided by the Elders’ Society, and have they communicated that to the Elders’ Society?
My staff, since January have met with the centres formally and informally over 20 times to discuss various concerns of the elders’ group and the facility providers, and we’re trying to address and work together with the agencies in addressing the concerns.
I’m personally involved in getting the updates, and will go forward as the needs are identified. But right now, we need to examine not just the facility here. I’m more concerned about looking at all the facilities in Nunavut whether they are in Cambridge Bay, Rankin Inlet, Arviat, or here.
We need to look at it from the broader perspective and look at whether in fact the financial contribution we provide to the centre is adequate. So, I’m looking at it from that context, and I’m not saying one agency is more important than the other.
What I’m saying is the quality of services provided by the agencies and service providers is adequate and meets the standards that we’ve asked them to provide.
I would assume that in a review like this that they would be looking at any changes moving forward into services agreements to the future, and not making them retroactive for the past.
I think in any program or services delivery, it’s important to have a good look and review of it, but as for now, and as for what’s happened, this is going back to the last fiscal year, the society has incurred over I think a quarter of a million dollars in deficit.
I don’t think it’s fair that the government can pay a southern supplier and let them have a $200,000 credit down south, and here expect a non-profit organization in Nunavut, made up of elders, to carry the government for the tune of a quarter of a million dollars, until they figure out whether they’re happy with the services that are provided or not.
I am just wondering if the minister can commit to dealing with this deficit as quickly as possible. When can the Elders’ Society expect to have an answer? Whether it is this one or any other one, you would think that non-profit organizations need their money to survive.
When can they expect to have an answer from the minister on whether or not they will be covered off for that close to a quarter of a million dollars for the last fiscal year?
As I responded earlier the department is committed to looking at the overall service we ask the society to provide.
I want to look at what they are providing. I want to know if it’s meeting the quality of care services as expected.
I also want to ensure their deficit is a direct result of the services that we ask them to do. It could be a result of other activities that they’re engaged in. I need to examine that this is a public fund and we need to evaluate that.
I think it’s fair to give our staff the opportunity to meet with the organization and to look at that.
At the same time, the staff has worked very closely with the facility service providers to talk about the quality of care and the services, along with the financial pressure points that they’re under; it’s more than one piece.
Once I have that information I’ll be able to address it. As it is right now we’re looking at improvements across Nunavut and trying to address various challenges that are faced by service providers.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Aglukkaq.
To remind members that Question Period is now over. (interpretation) Going to the Orders of the Day. Item 7.
Written Question 019 – 2(3): Appeals Under the Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti (NNI) Policy (Curley)
I will direct my written question to the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation with respect to the NNI Appeals Policy.
As of June 1, 2006 who are the members of the Independent Contracting Appeals Board established under Section 18.1 of the NNI Policy?
Section 18.31 requires the Contracting Appeals Board to submit an annual report to the Government of Nunavut and to Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
The report is to include a summary of appeals heard and decisions rendered. The report is to be made available to the public. Since April 2000, how many annual reports have been prepared that have been submitted to the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated under Section 18.31 of the NNI Policy?
What were the contents of each annual report submitted to date under Section 18.31 of the NNI Policy?
When will the Contracting Appeals Board’s Annual Report submitted to date be tabled in the Legislative Assembly?
For each fiscal year from 2000-01 to 2006-07 to date:
How many appeals have been directed to GN Contracting Authorities under section 18.11 of the NNI Policy?
What were the circumstances of each appeal made under Section 18.11 of the NNI Policy?  How many appeals have been satisfactorily dispensed with under Section 18.11 of the NNI Policy?
What were the circumstances in each case?
How many appeals have been made to the Contracting Appeals Board under Section 18.12 of the NNI Policy? What were the circumstances in each case?
How many appeals have been dismissed without hearing under Section 18.14 of the NNI Policy? What were the circumstances in each case?
How many appeals have been heard within the time limit set out under Section 18.17 of the NNI Policy? What were the circumstances in each case?
How many appeals have been dismissed under Section 18.21(a) of the NNI Policy? What were the circumstances in each case?
Broken down by category of remedial action as set out in sections 18.21(b)(i) to 18.21(b)(vi) of the NNI Policy, how many appeals have been allowed by the Contracting Appeals Board? What were the circumstances in each case?
In each case where the Contracting Authority does not accept the recommendations of the Contracting Appeals Board, it is required by Section 18.26 of the NNI Policy to issue reasons for its decision. In each case since April 1, 2000, where a Contracting Authority did not accept the recommendations of the Contracting Appeals Board, what were its reasons?
Written Questions. We will just wait for a little while.
Petition 004 – 2(3): Social Housing for Kugluktuk (Evyagotailak)
Mr. Speaker, I have 455 petitions for the housing needs in Kugluktuk, and the petition states that: the applicants for social housing have been on the waiting list for a number of years, there are families that are residing with other families in one social housing unit, they are in desperate need for their own space and whereas the community is in full support for others.
Kugluktukmiut wish to express to the government under the ten-year program that social housing for Kugluktuk should be moved up to year 2006-07.
Continue with Item 10.
Committee Report 002 – 2(3): Report on the Review of the 2004-05 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut (Mapsalak)
Mr. Mapsalak: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting the Report of the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit review of the 2004-05 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut.
As members will recall, the Languages Commissioner appeared before the standing committee on April 6, 2006 to present his first annual report since being appointed to the office on February 25, 2005.
The committee’s hearing was open to the public and media to observe.
Our report provides a summary of the standing committee’s concerns that were raised during Mr. Kusugak’s appearance, and identified some of the committee’s expectations for his office.
Mr. Speaker, if a member of the public feels that Government of Nunavut has violated his or her language rights, he or she may launch a formal complaint with the Languages Commissioner.
The committee was surprised to learn that the office did not receive any formal complaints from the public in 2004-05 regarding the Government of Nunavut.
This could be interpreted to mean that the government is doing a good job and that Nunavummiut are satisfied with the current service being provided in their official languages, or; it could mean that Nunavummiut are not aware of their rights.
The committee did note that the office continues to receive language related complaints about hamlet services throughout the territory. The office tried to resolve each situation when possible, since it is not able to formally investigate these complaints.
The  committee also noted that the office received a number of inquiries from various levels of government, academic institutions and from the general public.
Mr. Speaker, the committee noted the office developed two documents on the languages issue in 2004-05.
The Languages Authorities Discussion Paper and the research report title: Preserving Inuit Dialects in Nunavut. The standing committee discussed these documents with the Languages Commissioner and understands that the creation of a new language authority is a component of the government’s ongoing development of the new Official Languages Act and the new Inuktitut Language Protection Act.
The standing committee also discussed the status of these two initiatives with the Languages Commissioner. The committee noted that the office participated in the Languages Legislation Steering Committee and looks forward to introducing these bills in the House.
When the government introduces these two bills, it should also table a comprehensive record of its consultation.
Mr. Speaker, the year 2020 is approaching us quickly. This is the year in which the government proposed to have Inuktitut as a working language.
The committee would like to see benchmarks developed to help the government evaluate progress, and working towards this goal.
The committee urges the Office of the Languages Commissioner to work closely with the government in achieving this goal.
Mr. Speaker, the committee noted that the Languages Commissioner has an extensive travel schedule of plans for 2006-07.
The community did question some of these plans and sought concerns that the travel will result in tangible benefits to the office.
The committee expects the languages commissioner’s next annual report to account fully for the office’s travel and detail its actual results.
Mr. Speaker, the status of Inuinnaqtun has been an ongoing concern and this committee is fortunate to have an Inuinnaqtun speaking member on it. I understand that the Kitikmeot residents share this concern.
The committee received correspondence from the Mayor of Cambridge Bay on July 25, 2005 suggesting to the government that the Office of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut expand with a permanent deputy position to be located in the Kitikmeot to represent the Inuinnaqtun speaking region. The standing committee believes that this suggestion merits careful consideration in the development of the new Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, the committee appreciates the office’s efforts to develop an annual newsletter that outlines its language initiatives and activities. The standing committee encourages the Languages Commissioner to communicate with all settlements and societies including the elders and youth and other age groups in the communities when developing any new initiatives and resources.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee has noted the recent court ruling in the Northwest Territories concerning the adequacy of French services offered by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
This could have implications for Nunavut. The standing committee urges the government to review its French language services.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee was pleased that the Languages Commissioner provided detailed budget information in his report in commencing for his transparency and accountabilities.
That concludes the standing committee’s report.
At this time I would like to move that the report of the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit be received and adopted by the House.
There is a motion that the report of the standing committee received and adopted.
The motion is in order pursuant to Rule 91.
Committee Report 003 – 2(3): Report on the Review of the 2005 Report of the Auditor General to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut (Tootoo)
As Chair of the Standing Committee of Government Operations and Accountability, I am very pleased to present the much-anticipated committee’s review of the 2005 Report of the Auditor General to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Standing Committee. The Co-Chair Mr. Keith Peterson, Mr. David Alagalak, Mr. Levi Barnabas, and Mr. Tagak Curley.
We worked exceptionally well together during our hearings that were held earlier this year.
Under the Nunavut Act, the Auditor General of Canada audits the accounts and financial transactions of the Government of Nunavut in order to express an opinion on the government’s consolidated financial statements.
The Auditor General also audits the financial statements of the Government of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon Government.
The Auditor General prepares an annual report to the Legislative Assembly in which management issues that arise during the course of the annual audit are brought to the attention of Member of the Legislative Assembly’s and the public.
The Government of Nunavut is provided with an opportunity to make management responses to the Auditor General’s observations and recommendations. The most recent report was tabled in the House on February 21, 2006.
In late April of this year, the standing committee held three days of hearings to review the Auditor General’s most recent report.
These hearings were open to the public and media  to observe, and broadcast on local cable television and FM radio.
In addition to providing and presenting her report, committee members were able to pose questions to senior GN officials on their management responses to the Auditor General’s recommendations.
Inuktitut and English transcripts of the hearings have been posted on the website of the Legislative Assembly.
This report, and the government’s response to it, will also be posted on the Legislative Assembly website.
A number of themes dominated the committee’s hearings and deliberations. During the Auditor General’s appearance, the committee again undertook a productive exchange with her on a number of issues related to the financial management practices and capacity of the GN. The committee noted with concern her observations regarding the need to significantly improve the timelines of the production and tabling of the government’s financial statements, Crown agency annual reports, and other related documents.
Other important issues raised by the Auditor General included her office’s identification of “numerous cases of non-compliance with Nunavut’s financial laws, including seeking the Legislative Assembly’s approval to spend money after it had already been spent,” the lack of clarity regarding the government’s debt position and the government’s structural and capacity challenges.
Mr. Speaker, the report that your standing committee is tabling today contains a total of 15 formal recommendations.
In some cases, the recommendations deal with new matters. In other cases, they build upon past issues addressed by the standing committee.
The standing committee recognizes that there have been improvements in Nunavut’s financial management practices since April 1, 1999.
In a number of cases, these improvements have come about as a result of the government implementing recommendations made by the standing committee and the Auditor General.
Examples of where the GN has earned praise for its transparency include the tabling of annual departmental business plans in the Legislative Assembly; the tabling of quarterly government-wide employment statistics; the tabling of annual reports on contracting and leasing activities; the tabling of annual reports on grants and contributions expenditures; the tabling of Ministerial Letters of Expectation to Crown agencies; and the inclusion of detailed information on prior years’ actual expenditures in the GN’s annual main estimates.
This year’s report of the standing committee contains a number of important recommendations for further improvements in this area.
Other issues addressed in our report include the structure and location of the government’s accounting operations, training for Beneficiaries to become accounting professionals and the work of the Crown Agency Council. With respect to the issue of the GN’s financial structures, the committee is of the view that the GN should proceed in this area in a manner that is both sensible in relation to the need for effective systems and processes and sensitive to the concerns of communities.