EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
There are discussions that are happening at this time right now.
Yes, I noted that the minister stated that discussions are underway, but I would like to know what the GN position is with relation to this proposal. Are they in support of this proposed connection?
The project seems to be a good one, at least from an outside perspective and we do support this proposal, but we have severe financial restrictions.
We just don’t have the funds for this proposal and, as the minister indicated, it would be an extremely expensive project. We would be required to undertake long-term strategic planning if we were to be involved.
Yes, indeed, I understand the reasoning behind the reticence of the government due to the exorbitant cost and our fiscal restrictions at this time. However, we have to plan for our future and look forward, especially as we lurch towards devolution discussions.
We can’t be stuck in the mindset of “not seeing the forest for the trees” and can’t be small-minded when we’re discussing these issues. All matters that are related to transportation, petroleum resource development, and devolution are quite intricate and detailed. We have to keep that in mind when debating these issues.
The questions I had related to this matter are now complete, Mr. Chairman. I certainly hope that my last few comments are coming across.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier, (interpretation) do you understand that? (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
I also thank our colleague for those comments.
It is an important matter, especially for the Kivalliq region and its communities that are proponents of this proposal.
It has been mentioned by the mayors in the region and has been a regional initiative debated for a number of years.
As the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation indicated, discussions were underway.
It will take multiple discussions to move it towards the negotiation table and after everything is agreed to, they would have to put together a strategic plan.
However, at this point in time, our biggest obstacle is the lack of funding, albeit it forces us to work with different partners and governments to fulfill the dream.
If only the governments were to undertake this, it could only be done in conjunction with the other jurisdictions as a shared project.
I apologize in advance if I misunderstood the matter.
I don’t see the Nunavut government getting a lot of money to get this project going. I think you will only ever going to say that we don’t have enough money to start this project or other projects and I don’t see anything innovative that is coming about.
I’m not going to make another further comment on that.
I don’t believe you want the response to that.
We are on page B-9.
Regarding arctic sovereignty that Mr. Curley touched up on earlier, I thank him and I support him.
I’m not sure how much power we have in Nunavut. Of course, we are Canadians and arctic sovereignty is part of it.
Maybe we could have arctic policy in Nunavut and Canada.
With regard to the climate change in Nunavut, there are changes coming about and because of this change, it is obvious that the United States are starting to focus more and more into the arctic because of climate change.
There is resource development that they are working very hard on.
With globalization, they are keeping a close eye on the changes that are coming about.
They are also looking at the Northwest Passage that is going to be used more and more some time in the future.
As the people of Nunavut, if we are not vocal enough, (interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, if we’re reluctant to recognize that there is climate change as global warm-up, there will be more potential for shipping and darned big shipping companies to come up here and travel through the Arctic, mainly the Northwest Passage.
Should we be concerned as Canadian citizens and Nunavummiut?
Of course, we have to be concerned as a result.
(interpretation) We definitely have to be concerned about those issues that are coming about with global warming, climate change, and so on happening. There are going to be more and more ships coming around. (interpretation ends) We can no longer ignore the potential for other companies to come up here and use the north for their own resource development due to transforming of the climate change.
Perhaps one day, if we don’t do it, the US may want to start arctic national wildlife reviews.
I don’t know, but I’ll just throw it in there.
(interpretation) Again, there’s the European Union that is concerned about our polar bears. Again, Tagak Curley went to the international conference on polar bears. We can look at alliances with those countries regarding the High Arctic or the Nunavut area and the Northwest Passage.
If the Northwest Passage opens, we have to be concerned about the polar bears.
As Canadians and Nunavummiut, we are the ones who are most able to protect our wildlife.
We are conservationists of our wildlife; we are concerned about our wildlife with the changing climate and with arctic sovereignty. Because Nunavut is our country, we want to be the protectors of our land and we are most able.
Please help us if you are concerned about the polar bears. We can say that to the other countries. We have protocols, wildlife management regimes, and so on.
I just wanted to make that comment.  We can’t wait, we can’t do it ourselves, but I would like to tell Madam Premier to have discussions with her federal counterparts, not just wait for other people, but to set up a policy on arctic sovereignty.
We have to take the initiative and (interpretation ends) we can’t be reluctant. (interpretation) I would like that to be understood.
We are the ones who are most able to care for our wildlife.
I didn’t hear a question, and we all got that clear message.
I just want to reiterate a couple of comments here from my colleagues and my esteemed colleague, Mr. Ningark.
About three or four years ago, I made a brief statement as well in the House indicating that sovereignty in Canada, the north has a major role to play. Mr. Curley had also mentioned about the importance of our footprint in Canada as well as of our contributions.
Very briefly, I would like to thank Mr. Ningeongan as well for also addressing the issue of the Nunavut-Manitoba road.
About a year ago, the Manitoba legislature invited Nunavut’s Legislative Assembly members to formally recognize the Manitoba-Kivalliq relations that date back quite some time. Many have gone down south for medical purposes, education purposes, college, and training opportunities.
So there is a formal setting when Manitoba and the Inuit of Nunavut and the Kivalliq were invited to have a formal ceremony to acknowledge the relations.
Mr. Chairman, aside from that, there were informal discussions on the side with some legislators in Manitoba indicating that the Nunavut-Manitoba road would greatly benefit transportation and partnerships within and between Manitoba and Nunavut, but also to enhance what the Province of Manitoba and the Territory of Nunavut can do to contribute to Canada.
It would have major impacts in terms of transportation costs, reduction of transportation costs, and the ability for Nunavummiut to be able to drive down to Manitoba and also have access to the rest of Canada like the rest of any other Canadians.
The major impact that was also kept in partnership is the idea of the partnership of resources and transportation of goods. I think the federal government, the Province of Manitoba, and the Territory of Nunavut should look at this further.
I agree with Mr. Ningeongan as well the fact that we should actually plan on something like this in order to reduce the cost of living, in order for Nunavummiut to be able to have that same benefit and the rights and access to goods and services.
With that comment, I just wanted to ask for the record, Mr. Chairman.
It’s under B-9. As of today, what is the status of transboundary negotiations with First Nations groups in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba? How is the GN keeping residents in affected communities, such as Arviat, informed of the situation?
Before we get a response to that, I would like to remind everyone that we had already dealt with general comments, so if we can focus on the page-by-page review. We will start going forward.
You had an opportunity for general comments. That’s just a reminder. I would prefer that we just focus on the page-by page-review so that we can move forward.
With that out of the way, Premier Aariak.
With respect to the Manitoba-Nunavut road, the Department of Economic Development and Transportation was working on a (interpretation ends) business case. (interpretation) It was tabled last year in the House, with a draft plan, which I am sure the members have had a chance to peruse.
It outlines in the business case that it would cost approximately $1.3 billion for this project our colleague referred to.
With respect to the second question, I believe we had already responded to that earlier.
I just wanted to clarify that, for the record, I appreciate the response that was given.  Since we’re under the heading of B-9, it specifically states, “…provides leadership and coordination for the management and development of strategies, policies and initiatives related to federal, provincial and territorial relations.
It manages relationships with aboriginal, circumpolar, and international organizations,” which is why I had to make that statement in regard to the sovereignty aspect, the Manitoba-Nunavut road, as well as relations between Nunavut and other First Nations, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Thank you for the opportunity. It’s just a comment. Thank you.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I appreciate all the comments.
Mr. Chairman, (interpretation) I want to speak in Inuktitut, but in regard to some of the statements we heard, there seems to be an implication of the parliamentary rules. I will prefer to speak in English.
(interpretation ends) Although I appreciate any confidential agreements that are in place, whether it be with respect to labour agreements with the federal government or negotiating with any interest groups out there, I believe that all claims negotiations, yes, we all understand that they are confidential. I don’t think a confidential agreement should prevent parliamentarians or politicians from asking questions or the press to ask questions about negotiations. Otherwise, it would be much like a dictatorship trying to reach a deal with somebody.
My question to the Premier is this: does the confidential agreement in place with respect to my part of the region, my hunting area in south Kivalliq, prevent me from asking questions about the progress and the nature of the negotiations as a politician, as an MLA for the Kivalliq region?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. Premier Aariak.
Again I appreciate all the comments that have been made. We are listening. They are comments that are coming from the heart and they are very important.
Yes, anyone should have an opportunity to ask questions.
At times, if we don’t have the responses to your questions on hand or if they relate to issues under negotiations, then it falls under the umbrella of (interpretation ends) confidentiality. (interpretation) We don’t always have room to move when it is a confidentiality matter. That is why we can’t table the information. However, we are always open to questions and we welcome any and all questions.
My question, then, is with respect to the sub-agreement or the possible amendments to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement which, in good faith, I think Nunavutmiut signed off over 15 years ago.
My question is: when the negotiations conclude with the Denesuline and the federal government and NTI, will there be a sub-amendment or amendment to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and, if that is so, could the minister maybe consider briefing the MLAs as to what the status of it may be in the future?
I have no information on the proposed amendment referred to by the member. Further, if any changes occurred and if we had any updates to provide, I would be quite pleased to make those announcements as they arose.
If an amendment is required to be made, Inuit will have to be kept abreast of that as our agreement speaks to overlapping hunting rights and they can’t be implicated in another agreement. Their hunting rights aren’t fettered in Nunavut, these Denesuline from Manitoba.
We also have shared hunting rights in the southern parts of Nunavut, yet Inuit don’t have the reciprocal rights within Manitoba as our aboriginal rights to hunt have been blocked.
Due to that reason, it would have to be a new matter related to their quest for resource control as they may try to gain ownership of some lands within Nunavut.
If that is the case, the Inuit of Kivalliq will need to be informed, as well as all MLAs whose constituencies may be affected.
Can the Premier consider that?
As per the member’s comments, if these issues will impact any Nunavummiut, particularly in the Kivalliq region, they have to be identified.
If there are any issues required to be identified, we can do that.
Wirth respect to that matter, I will stop there for now, as we will revisit it as progress is made in those discussions.
Unfortunately, the minister responsible isn’t present at the House, who we travelled with from Bangkok, Thailand, the Minister of Environment. I hear he is scheduled to arrive soon.
It became quite obvious, Mr. Chairman, that our government which is under this Premier’s leadership had very little information on polar bears or Inuit culture available based on the ignorance of other countries.
Also, the polar bear experts with previous federal government field experience and their reports are being used by the animal rights activists, with the names bandied about in the hallways whenever we would pass them. Due to this fact, it is clear that the Nunavut government’s message is inadequate and that another message has to be conveyed as the government’s message.
The person sitting besides you knows these facts and he was one of our strong advocates, as David was able to make a statement when the proposed amendment was tabled by the European Union.
There were only three of us Inuit allowed to speak to the matter for the GN. I was the first person to speak, followed by David speaking to the proposed amendment while I spoke to the US proposal. Immediately after our speeches, the NGO representative was allowed to speak.
Only four of us were allowed to state our positions, (interpretation ends) perhaps after 50 nations, maybe 40. (interpretation) It was only after these nations spoke that Terry Audla had his chance. He was amongst the last delegates to speak to the issue. He was second last.
What I am trying to convey here is the (interpretation ends) messaging. (interpretation) The world believes the polar bears can only live on the “ice.”
They have no idea polar bears use the land and water too. Therefore, the message that polar bears can only live on sea ice has taken root, which is why the climate change theorists ask, “Where will the polar bears live when the ice is gone?”
Perhaps when the Minister of Environment returns, you can discuss the issues. We definitely have to restart our official message, especially from an IQ perspective.
As Inuit, we have to get the international community to teach them Inuit traditional knowledge. We definitely have to thank the Canadian delegation for persevering during that meeting. It was obvious that Nunavut definitely has their work cut out for them.
First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Curley for going to that meeting in Bangkok; it was very useful.
Yesterday, Mr. Curley and I had a brief discussion outside of the House and we talked about very important issues.
It is very obvious that for the next three years, we will have to properly plan as a government on wildlife and polar bear management.
Once Mr. Arreak comes in at the end of this sitting, we will have to do a lot of work to prepare for what we are going to be doing on this issue in the future.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Madam Premier, I asked that question because they are not completed yet. At the CITES meeting, there are 178 nations and they have another six hours to go.
They anticipate that there might be another vote on polar bears.
Can the Premier and her deputy find out as soon as possible if they are going to have another vote? There are a lot of representatives from external affairs.
Could you ask them if they are having another vote? That would not be fair. There are a lot of animal rights activists out there.
I’m not going to say who is there. They are anticipating them to put it back on the table.
Friday is the last day of their meeting, but it is almost Thursday there now. I just received an email not too long ago.
Premier Aariak, I think Mr. Curley is asking if you could direct someone to look and see if they are anticipating another vote.
We do have Canadian representatives still there. The Canadian delegation is prepared and we are keeping our ears open on what is happening over there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. Intergovernmental Affairs.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $4,249,000.
We will then go back to B-3.
I hope you are on the same page in English. B-3.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $26,907,000.
Do we agree that we have concluded the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you very much and thank you for your questions.
They do help us a lot as people of Nunavut and gives us challenges and planning for the future because Nunavut is growing. Thank you very much for your questions.
I would also like to thank the Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs staff for their hard work. I’m especially thankful to Mr. Vandermeulen and Mr. Akeeagok for being here.
Since we have concluded EIA and before we move to the Department of Family Services, we will take a 20-minute break.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out. At this time, we will take a 20-minute break while we plan for the next department.
>>Committee recessed at 15:02 and resumed at 15:27
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, my colleagues. I would now like to call the committee meeting to order.
We will begin our review of the Department of Family Services. I would like to ask Minister Peterson to go to the witness table to make his opening remarks.
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Family Services – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to discuss the 2013-14 main estimates and business plan for the Department of Family Services.
The new Department of Family Services organizational design brings together many elements of the social safety net to better enable seamless delivery of support to Nunavummiut.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Family Services will provide a range of programs and services to support self-reliance in an environment focused on providing protection to our most vulnerable.
The various programs and services begin with a foundation of assistance to provide necessities to those who cannot provide for themselves while promoting self-reliance by providing access to an integrated system of supports for career training, post-secondary education, and trades.
The Poverty Reduction Secretariat, the homelessness file, and the Family Violence Strategy will also be incorporated.
These initiatives will help link programs and services currently operating independently.
We will continue to involve communities in decision-making about their future in order to assist individuals and families to improve health and well-being while gaining the skills to be self-sufficient.
This collaborative approach is essential to the success of the Department of Family Services.
In the coming months, consultations will continue with all affected departments to identify areas where it will be important to have formal agreements in place to specify how organizations will work together to complete the transition.
The new department must create a vision for integrated programs and services that will balance the government’s regulatory obligations and its supportive functions in an effective and efficient way.
That work will benefit from the consultative initiatives that have already been completed, such as the social services review and various anti-poverty initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, in order to have the department operational on April 1, we have put forward a budget of $112.9 million for the 2013-14 fiscal year, which includes 174.6 position years.
This budget reflects:
An increase of $1.7 million to address the budget shortfall from 2011-12 in the Social Assistance Program;
An internal reallocation from FANS to establish the adult learning and training supports funding program; and
An increase to the residential care budget of $2,049,000.
Of course, the final details of the budget will be subject to approval by the legislature in this sitting.
There are great expectations for the new department, but I do not expect major changes immediately.
As with any new organization, there will be setbacks, but the time spent effectively planning for a future with integrated and supportive programs and services will be well worth it.
The Department of Family Services looks forward to building a strong team of professionals and continuing work that has been done by our colleagues over the years.
I am eager to work with the committee and my colleagues to improve services for those most vulnerable, building capacity, and enhancing education and skills training opportunities in our territory.
Before we proceed, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
To my right is Sandy Teiman, Acting Deputy Minister for the Department of Family Services.
To my left is David Kolot from Corporate Services for the Department of Family Services.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Members of the Standing Committee on Social Wellness have reviewed the 2013-14 main estimates and business plan of the Department of Family Services.
The 2013-14 operations and maintenance budget for the Department of Family Services is approximately $113 million and represents the combined budgets of a number of divisions which were formerly based within other departments and have been transferred to the newly created department.
The Department of Family Services begins its mandate on April 1, 2013.
The standing committee has expressed some concern regarding the transition of service delivery to one department from several others and encourages the minister in his efforts to ensure that no clients or personnel ‘fall through the cracks.’
Members encourage Department of Family Services’ officials to work closely with their counterparts in the departments of Education, Health, Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Economic Development and Transportation, Human Resources, and the Nunavut Housing Corporation in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee recognizes that the overall intent of creating the new Department of Family Services is to provide an integrated system which will deliver programs and services in support of the social safety net concept.
Not only will it provide protection for the most vulnerable in our society, but it is also intended to focus on promoting self-reliance and improving standards of living.
As with any new initiative, some setbacks in implementing this revised approach to service delivery are to be expected.
However, given that the department will be responsible for several very sensitive and critical service areas, such as child welfare, poverty reduction, income assistance, and career development, to name a few, members stress the need to closely monitor progress in all areas from the outset.
Effective communications with the public will also be key to a successful transition.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee strongly encourages the minister and his officials to coordinate service delivery and the transition of the various aspects of service delivery between all departments.