EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Those officers will improve our communication with communities and provide increased access to government services for Nunavummiut.
The other major increase of $297,000 is for the Devolution Division.
The funding will be used to create senior research analyst and communications coordinator positions.
Mr. Chairman, devolution is a priority for our government.
The process has been stalled for some time and we will continue in our pursuit to get the federal government to appoint a chief negotiator and approve a mandate.
In the meantime, my discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs have focused on beginning negotiations of a non-fiscal agreement in principle as soon as possible.
The other significant change to EIA’s budget for this year is the restoration of the Corporate Services Division within the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
With low capacity across the GN, we feel this will be the best way to ensure the effective administration of the department and solid information for management.
This is a cost-neutral change as it involves the move of four positions from Finance back to EIA.
I welcome your comments and look forward to answering your questions on the EIA business plan for 2011-14 and the main estimates for 2011-12.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, Premier, please introduce your witnesses.
To my left is Markus Weber, Deputy Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, and to my right is Letia Obed, (interpretation ends) Director of Aboriginal and Circumpolar Affairs. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Weber and Ms. Obed.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts have any opening comments? Mr. Schell.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the proposed 2011-12 main estimates and 2011-14 business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2011-12 operations and maintenance budget of $20,020,000 has increased by approximately 10.7 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2010-11 main estimates.
The number of positions in the department is increasing from 114.5 PYs in 2010-11 to 120.5 PYs in 2011-12.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2010-11 main estimates included $2.0 million in new funding for the creation of a new Government Liaison Office.
A total of 25.0 new PYs were allocated to the division.
The division’s proposed budget for 2011-12 is $3.88 million.
The division has been transferred to the department’s Intergovernmental Affairs Branch.
During the Premier’s appearance before the standing committee, members were informed that the department has lapsed most of its 2010-11 budget for the Government Liaison Office, but that efforts are underway to begin the process of filling the government liaison officer positions in communities.
Two of the office’s priorities for 2011-12 are to “contribute to government initiatives to address issues of gender inequality, homelessness and poverty reduction” and to “Draft legislation necessary for the establishment of a Child and Youth Representative which is relevant to Nunavut’s unique culture and changes anticipated to the child protection program.”
During the Premier’s appearance before the standing committee, members received confirmation that the government’s intention is that this position will be an independent one.
The standing committee also notes that the department’s proposed business plan indicates that “the Social Advocacy Office will provide on-going implementation support to the Department of Health and Social Services” with respect to the Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy.
In November of 2010, the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs awarded a contract to the Genesis Group in response to the department’s request for proposals to conduct a review of the government’s social safety net programs.
The standing committee also notes that the Department of Economic Development and Transportation has established an Anti-Poverty Secretariat.
Although the committee recognizes the occasional necessity of engaging external consultants for highly specialized or technical projects, it stresses the importance of ensuring that the subsequent development of core government policy in such fundamentally important areas as poverty reduction be led by individuals who will ultimately be accountable for its implementation and who live in the jurisdiction where its results will be measured.
The standing committee also stresses the importance of ensuring that the final reports and recommendations emerging from the work of consultants in such areas be tabled in the Legislative Assembly so that all members have the opportunity to review their work.
On January 14, 2011, the GN issued a request for proposals for a “Functional Review of Decentralization.”
The request for proposals for this review indicates that a final report is due by June 15, 2011.
The standing committee again emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the final reports and recommendations emerging from the work of consultants in such areas be tabled in the Legislative Assembly so that all members have the opportunity to review their work.
The standing committee also notes that both the recent Commissioner’s Address and the Budget Address announced that the government will undertake a review of its structure.
The Budget Address indicated that the review will consider “the number of departments and agencies, their mandates and organizational designs.”
Members support this initiative and note that a number of specific suggestions have been raised in the House and other forums concerning priority areas for review.
The standing committee notes the importance of the government resuming the practice of tabling an annual report in the Legislative Assembly on the administration of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
A recent annual report of the Integrity Commissioner suggested that “The value of lobbyist regulation, introduced by other jurisdictions, might be considered.”
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2011-12 budget for the Energy Secretariat is $690,000.
Although the department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicated that the implementation plan for the Government of Nunavut’s Energy Strategy was to have been completed and approved before the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal year, it has not yet been tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
The standing committee looks forward to the government clarifying whether it will move forward on the potential initiatives that are included in its Energy Strategy, including “a five percent reduction target for government-related travel, the testing of hybrid vehicles, public transportation in Iqaluit, and graduated registration fees based on the size of vehicle engines.”
However, none of the GN’s 2011-14 departmental business plans make any reference to the Affordable Energy Fund.
On September 5, 2009, the governments of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon released a joint communiqué announcing the renewal of the Northern Cooperation Accord for a five-year term.
Members support the Premier in her efforts to effectively represent Nunavut’s priorities with respect to arctic sovereignty and pan-territorial initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, the Clyde River Protocol between the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated was signed in 1999. A new agreement was signed between the parties in early 2004.
The department’s 2010-13 business plan indicated that “Based on direction from the NTI board and the Government of Nunavut’s Tamapta, drafting is well underway for a new protocol for working together.
Members continue to look forward to this document being tabled in the Legislative Assembly and note that the department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan indicates that one of its priorities for the upcoming fiscal year is to “renew a GN-NTI protocol.”
The standing committee supports ongoing efforts on the part of the government to challenge the European Union ban on the import of seal products.
Last year, news media reports indicated that the Premier had opposed granting observer status to the European Union at meetings of the Arctic Council.
During the Premier’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members asked whether this strong and praiseworthy stance was still the official position of the government.
The Premier indicated to members that she had not indicated otherwise to date.
Members urge the Premier to remain firm in this matter.
The standing committee notes with approval the recent establishment of the GN’s Interdepartmental Nutrition North Canada Subsidy Monitoring Committee and encourages the Premier to update the Legislative Assembly on the status of its work at the spring sitting of the House.
Mr. Chairman, this month’s Budget Address stated that “A devolution agreement would bring us royalty payments on our natural resources, but it may be many years before we can bank that money.”
Although the department’s business plan indicates that one of its priorities for the 2011-12 fiscal year is to “Finalize a devolution Agreement in Principle (AIP) with the Government of Canada and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, pending the conclusion of negotiations,” members recognize that the federal government has not yet appointed a devolution negotiator and question how realistic this goal actually is.
Members also note that NTI’s ongoing lawsuit against the Government of Canada in relation to the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement further complicates devolution negotiations.
In 2009-2010, there were five positions in the department’s Devolution Branch.
An additional two positions were added in 2010-11. Two more positions are proposed to be added in 2011-12, which will increase the size of the branch to nine positions.
The department is projecting to add an additional three positions in 2012-13, bringing the total size of the branch to 12 positions.
The budget for the branch is proposed to be increased from $1,219,000 in 2010-11 to $1,516,000 in 2011-12.
It is projected to increase to $2,404,000 in the 2013-14 fiscal year, which represents an increase of almost 100 percent from its 2010-11 budget.
Given that formal devolution negotiations have not yet commenced, it is not immediately clear why this branch requires such significant increases in its budget and staffing at this time.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2011-12 main estimates and 2011-14 business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Before we go to the page-by-page review, are there any general questions on the opening comments?
I would like to ask Madam Premier if she can give us her definition of what devolution is.
I also thank the member for the question.
Devolution means to give more authority to Nunavut.
At the present time, the provinces have more authority over how they run their finances and programs.
We don’t have that kind of authority like the provinces.
Devolution would mean that we would have similar programs that provinces deliver and the resources our land that come from through royalties would be paid to the Nunavut government.
I want to refer to the amounts listed on page 2. It states that this line item will be funded to the tune of $297,000 for the Devolution Division.
Is this based on the premise that the federal government will be appointing a chief negotiator?
Furthermore, we hear the position of the government that the reason why this process is stalled is because the federal government has not appointed a chief negotiator.
Now, with respect to this $297,000 budget line item, is it not a little premature to fund this line item when the federal government has not even appointed their chief negotiator? Is our government basing this upon a future appointment of a chief negotiator for this process?
Is the appointment expected very soon?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the member for asking about this issue.
It is quite important, especially as a government, to try to work towards self-sufficiency via devolution of powers as it would give this government more powers to provide more benefits to Nunavummiut.
Furthermore, we want to make this a priority and to lobby the federal government to appoint a chief negotiator.
As the Nunavut government, we have already appointed a chief negotiator for this process. Additionally, with respect to the whole devolution process, we are collaborating with our partner, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. They are very supportive of our efforts to start up this process and they have already appointed their negotiator for devolution talks.
Both this government and NTI are already prepared for the start-up of this process, but we are waiting for our third party. The federal government has yet to appoint a chief negotiator, and we continue to urge and lobby them to appoint a chief negotiator so that we can move this file forward.
At this time, we are making preparations so that we are ready with funds allocated and employees hired to look after this process. We are lobbying the federal government to appoint a chief negotiator, which could happen anytime, and we would want to be ready as soon as that appointment is made.
We don’t want to initiate our preparations at the time when the appointment is made, as it would take some time to get everything ready if we didn’t do some preparatory work.
Funding allocations take time to get approved and it has to be tied into the legislative approval process. We want to be ready to immediately start once the appointment is made.
With respect to my discussions with the federal government on this file, we will continue to lobby them to finalize their appointment.
My expectations are that the federal government will eventually hear our wishes to move forward, especially if they want to see Nunavut succeed.
If they wish Nunavut to be a successful partner in confederation, then our wishes to become a larger partner via this devolution file becomes very important. I will continue to work on our attempts to make devolution a priority for this government.
I also thank the Premier for her statement as we are asked to approve almost $300,000 for the Devolution Division.
You mentioned that you are in continuing dialogue with your federal counterparts and I imagine this includes the INAC department.
Do you have an approximate timeframe for the federal government to appoint a chief negotiator for the devolution process? Are we talking about less than five years that the federal government will be appointing their chief negotiator for devolutions talks?
We want to see them appoint a chief negotiator in less than five years, but this government is already prepared for this process to begin. However, the federal government is still dragging their feet on this issue simply by not appointing a chief negotiator.
We expect that by continual lobbying on our part, the federal government will make their appointment in less than five years. I can only have expectations at this point since there is no chief negotiator that can initiate the process.
I have held discussions with the INAC minister as well as the Prime Minister on this issue.
They have both given their initial approval to jumpstart this file by approving the budget item. Even prior to the start of negotiations, we are discussing ways on jumpstarting this file. Even though the federal government has not appointed a chief negotiator, we are looking at ways to initiate the process without the negotiations.
A checklist to jumpstart the process seems to be something they can commit to.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Premier. Mr. Ningark.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank Madam Premier for her response.
I would like to ask about this other issue. With respect to the GLO position, we are pleased that this position is being created as it creates a new position in the communities and we look forward to these positions being filled. What about the MLO positions?
I believe that most of the MLO positions will remain, but my question is this: do you already have identified office space for the GLO positions in the communities? We really want to get these GLO positions, but I wonder if it will be at the expense of the MLO positions.
Will you be replacing the MLO positions with these GLO positions or will they share offices?
That is another very pertinent question. Here in Nunavut, we have 25 communities that are eagerly expecting the establishment of these positions.
In the Qanukkanniq Report Card, it was identified as a very strong need that the communities wanted established, especially based on the past experiences of the people when this position used to be part of the government operations in the communities. Many people reminisced about the benefits of this position when it was previously maintained by the government.
Our expectations are that this position will provide a good service to our residents, communities, and indeed this government. At this time, we are working on the preparations for establishing these positions.
Our coordinator is extremely busy with the work. At this time, I have coined these positions in Inuktitut as “Tuqqaqtarviit,” which means grassroots positions. We will have to eventually come up with a proper Inuktitut term for the GLO position, but the director has already been hired and that person is extremely busy with all of the work required to get this process underway.
Furthermore, the job descriptions and the job advertisements have been completed. It will be structured in this manner: each community will have the GLO position, which is the main point of contact between the government and its residents.
We will also have three regional coordinators responsible for each region.
The Kitikmeot, Kivalliq, and Qikiqtaaluk regions will have these coordinator positions and we will have the headquarters based here in Iqaluit.
This position has already been filled and the person is working to complete the procedural paperwork, including the job descriptions.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): The Chairman stated that we should wait until we get to the page-by-page review to ask detailed questions with respect to the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, so I’ll wait until then, Mr. Chairman.
That was just a comment. He will ask questions during the detailed review. Madam Premier.
He sort of asked this question.
The RFPs will go out this week and the RFPs will go to the smaller communities first concerning the office spaces.
Also, for office equipment, such as furniture and computers, all of these resources are being sent to the communities as they become available.
You mentioned something about MLOs, or municipal liaison officers, Mr. Ningark. I would like to say that I am very grateful to the hamlet councils in the communities.
They have wholeheartedly supported our process and they have even worked with the government to set aside an office space for the GLOs. The previous offices of the MLOs will be set aside to be used for the GLOs.
Every single community will have a specific job description according to their needs.
When we go to the page-by-page review, we will have more questions.
B-4. Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Directorate. $3,553,000.
I would like to ask the Premier: who picks the deputy ministers for the departments?
We have a (interpretation ends) Senior Personnel Secretariat (interpretation) comprising of the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human Resources, and the Government House Leader.
Who decides which deputy minister goes to which portfolio?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): The (interpretation ends) Senior Personnel Secretariat (interpretation) discusses amongst each other and decides.
Has the Premier or the secretariat or whoever decides on the deputy minister ever discussed with the minister when he received the deputy minister if that particular deputy minister is compatible for the portfolio?
Have they ever discussed it with the minister if he was happy with it?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Supplement to my comment earlier, the deputy ministers who are appointed to their positions… .
(interpretation ends) The ultimate decision is by the Premier, but I prefer working with the Senior Personnel Secretariat, and we discuss the suitability and so on with the Senior Personnel Secretariat. (interpretation) Thank you.
I don’t know. The reason I’m saying that is I think it would be of great help if the Premier would discuss it with the minister.
If there’s an issue with it, why should the minister work with the deputy minister who is not suitable for that department?
I have never been told or complained to about a minister not being happy with their deputy minister.
The only thing that I have heard complaints about is the deputy minister not happy with their staff, but I have never had complaints from ministers.
I just had some questions in regard to the social advocate’s office. I believe there are supposed to be four positions filled for that office. I’m wondering if all positions are filled at this time.
The three PYs are in place and the fourth is on as a casual.
I believe one of the mandates of the social advocate’s office is to work towards setting up the independent child and youth representative.
I’m just wondering if you could explain in terms of a timeline and how you see that rolling out in terms of when you see the policy set up and the independent body actually established.
If I can backtrack a bit to part of Mr. Schell’s question, I stated it was four positions, but it’s just three and the third one is casual, just to amend my response.
With respect to the independent child and youth representative in the question posed by Mr. Elliott, we are still working on the issues related to this office. As I stated previously, the Social Advocacy Office would be in place by 2014 and this is still following our timeline. The position that we stated would be filled by 2013 is still ongoing according to our plans.
Again I had a little confusion in terms of the way it was explained.
So there are three people working in the office, which is fine, and that was another question.
Specifically with child and youth representative, in Tamapta and the Budget Address, it was talking about an independent child and youth representative away from the department.
When do you foresee that established?
It’s going to be the same year, 2013.
I have no more names on my list. We’re on B-4. $3,553,000.
We’re now on B-5. Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. Statistical Services. $814,000.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. Policy and Communications. $2,929,000.
I just have some questions about the functional review that’s happening within the department. There will be an implementation of it, I think, in May. In your department’s business plan on page 20, I believe it’s the first bullet, it says, “Coordinate the implementation of improvements in response to the functional review of decentralized offices.”
The first question would be: has that review been completed?
Again, there is no sense in asking how the implementation is going if it hasn’t been completed. Has that been completed?
With respect to this issue, we have identified the successful candidate for this position and they will be working on the preparations for initiating this process. We expect to have it completed by June 2011 or some time this spring.
So then again, the implementation for this would not start probably until September of 2011.
With respect to these issues that need to be studied, once the issues have been detailed out, we will be able to start identifying the timeframe, the action items that need to be completed, and other requirements. We expect the action plan will be nearing completion by this fall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.