EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Generally, if there’s a surplus in some of these organizations, yes, an invoice is sent from the Department of Finance to try and recover the amount from the organizations, or we make an arrangement to apply it to the following year’s contributions.
So depending on the situation, we’re trying to get our staff to be a bit more responsive and flexible in the way we deal with our clients.
One of the things, of course, is that we’re also asked to try and reduce the barriers to business development. So we’re trying to play a balancing act with the way we administer our programs.
I just want to confirm, from my understanding, Mr. Campbell had indicated that the regional offices monitor, administer, and assist these regional business centres, for example, if one of them says, “Okay, we’re going to change an amount in here,” that they would have to go, as required by the contribution agreement, to get permission to change something.
So if they wanted to change the category, or move money from one category to another, that approval would have to be sought through someone at the regional office in order to be able to do that.
Mr. Campbell can answer that.
Yes, ideally that’s a scenario that we would work towards but, as I said earlier, at the same we need to be flexible in allowing organizations to adjust their cash flow requirements and their financial requirements, depending on some of the initiatives that they do undertake.
So on the one hand we’re trying to be flexible in dealing with our clients. At the same time we are cognizant of being responsible and accountable to the finances of the public purse.
I can understand some flexibility needs to be there, but when you look at some cases as you go back like I went through the financial statements for KBDC that were just recently filed with legal registries, in one year there they show their legal fees at just about being half of the total contribution that they received from the department.
I would think that would be a significant change that they would require permission to be able to do that.
You know it is not like we are just giving you a blank cheque and just go do whatever you want with it.
You know that seems to be what has been happening down there and is that something that you know if they came to you and said, ‘we decided this year we are going to spend half of the money that you give us in legal fees.’
You know would that have been something that you would have thought twice about had you been given the opportunity to be asked about it?
I will get Mr. Campbell to answer that question.
As I said earlier ideally yes. That’s the scenario that I strongly encourage and direct our staff to go, is to closely monitor the contribution agreements that we do provide to the organizations
But, at the same time we are being asked to be reviewing our barriers to business processes and be more flexible in how we deal with organizations.
I appreciate the concerns that have been raised on this issue but we’ve felt as a department that the fluctuation of the last three or four financial statements that we have received from the organizations that the money has been used properly I guess as an organization.
The other clarification I should make is KBDC is a stand alone organization. We don’t really have the mandate to dictate how they allocate their budgets. One thing we can do as a government I guess if that is where we want to go is to cut off the funding and let them operate on their own and try and find funding.
But that is extreme. Right now as I said we are trying to encourage these organizations to look for other monies so other partners will be involved.
I am not suggesting cutting off the funding.
If you look at the BBDC here they are doing a wonderful job delivering their programs and services on behalf of the government.
And when you look at the KBDC you know with the issues that they have brought forward when you talk about looking after public funds and justifying on how it is spent.
When you know when you look at over a $100,000 being spent on legal fees you know for a much smaller loan when there were other opportunities there to try and resolve that and that was being ignored.
And, you know for having a mandate to dictate their budget, the timing of the contribution agreement that does show the break down, this is how their funding that they have received from the government is to be spent.
They put it on paper. They signed for it. The government has signed for it.
So we do have a mandate to make sure that money is spent properly. The other money that they get from somewhere else that is right; they are arms length. That is their prerogative on how they want to spend it.
But as far as when it comes down to public funds, you know they signed a contribution agreement that our government has signed with them.
And they have a responsibility, an onus and we also have an onus to make sure that those funds are spent accordingly. And also you know if there is a large variation in that, it stipulates right in the contribution agreement that they require approval in writing.
They have to request it in writing and permission has to be given in writing.
If you know if you want to just write a blank cheque then why do you even bother having a contribution agreement?
You know, I think it’s important, given our government’s fiscal position that the minister knows all too well, for us to say we want to do our best to manage our money properly but totally ignore or wash our hands if someone else is not doing that.
I think if they didn’t like that clause in the contribution agreement then they shouldn’t have signed it, but whether you like it or not, it’s there. From that perspective, for the $275,000, for that particular contribution you do have a mandate to monitor how that is spent.
And it is quite obvious, for whatever reason, that hasn’t happened. I would suggest that you still have, you had indicated in the House earlier that you’re renewing, you’re signing another contribution agreement with them and putting some stronger reporting requirements in there.
You said that minutes don’t exist, motions don’t exist, well how do you know that they are doing things properly?
We don’t know and that’s why those reporting requirements are there. In the unlikely event, and hopefully it never does happen because we never want to get into that, where an issue arises, you have got to be able to have something to back up the decisions that were made.
In this particular case there is absolutely nothing. I think that’s totally unacceptable. It’s appalling that they got away with it.
I don’t know how they can get away with that.
Hopefully you can move forward and learn from this, that you can put measures and steps in place so that gaps or black holes like that don’t happen in the reporting process so that if next time someone comes to any one of us with a concern and we can go to you about it and you’re going to be able to yes, here’s why, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.
Now, there’s nothing.
That certainly doesn’t look very well at all; doesn’t look very good. Now, whether there are good reasons or not, I don’t know but, you know what, we’ll never know. We just have to take someone’s word for it, and that’s not how it should be.
I seriously ask the minister to look at, particularly in a case like this where there have been ongoing problems and it’s not new. Something has been going on, they just filed for the last three years, they just filed with legal registries, which they hadn’t.
Little things like that.
If it was Joe Blow from some other place and they were trying to get funding for that then I am sure the departmental officials would have been all over him. You have got to get this, we need your accounting, we need the backup, and we need all the information before year-end. Not to just ignore it.
Why should they be treated any different than anyone else?
I really strongly urge the minister to take, in this particular case, until they can prove that they have cleaned up their act, that they put a lot stronger reporting mechanisms in place so that embarrassments like this don’t happen again.
Just before I recognize Mr. Minister, I would like to recognize Mr. Evyagotailak.
I will at this time ring the bell.
I agree with my colleague, as I say. It has become abundantly clear in this sitting and the last sitting that there are problems. At the same time there is other good work being done by Keewatin Business Development Centre and the others.
Unfortunately, this is an area that they made mistakes on. I am sure they are learning from it, just as my department is. We will be more vigilant in the future to make sure that the contribution agreements there are followed and adhered to.
We will continue doing that as we deal with these organizations. We will make sure that they’re followed.
As I said, sure, this is a problem area; one that needs to be cleaned up very quickly and it will be cleaned up very quickly. In fact I directed my staff not to sign the next contribution agreement with these organizations until I am satisfied with the contents of those.
So we are cleaning things up. We as a department made some mistakes ourselves. We’ve learned from that.
I am sure that over the last few years things have not been done exactly the way they should have been done, but that’s in the past.
My goal is to look forward and learn from past mistakes and move on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome the minister and his officials to the question period part of Committee of the Whole.
I wanted to follow up on the business development centres on page K-9.
Just for clarification are these commonly known as, referred to in the past, as community futures organizations? Can the minister clarify?
Hon. David Simailak: That is correct. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for that clarification.
The last, I don’t know how many years, four or five years, there hasn’t been a futures’ organization in the Kitikmeot. I understand that there is an organization that is interested in taking on the Community Futures operation in the Kitikmeot.
I am wondering if the minister could provide me with an update on what the status is of the negotiations to have a Community Futures operation for the region with that organization.
Just on the Community Futures organized program. That’s a program that Industry Canada provides in southern Canada. This funding is not available for business development centers in Nunavut.
Community Futures programming that is from Industry Canada. We are proposing to include that issue of Community Futures Programs in an economic development agreement with Canada that we are working on.
We have negotiated an agreement with the Kitikmeot Economic Development Commission to re-establish a business development centre in that region. That organization is expected to open on April 1.
Just for clarification again. Could you provide the amount of money that the Kitikmeot Community Futures or business development centre receives for their core operations?
We are proposing $155,000 for April 1.
I see these organizations will provide loans under $125,000.
I understand that there may be a link to the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation, and that these organizations approve loans but the funds will be accessed through the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation.
Is that the correct flow of funding?
Yes, that is correct. Business Development Centres are eligible to borrow up to $1 million each from the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation for small business loans.
Thank you, Minister for that information.
I look forward to the re-establishment of the Community Futures in the Kitikmeot.
I’m sure there will be a line up there. I’m not sure right on April 1, that’s a Sunday.
They may have some people on Sunday, you never know.
The Nunavut Tourism on the same page, the core funding of $2,175,000; that figure hasn’t gone up in the last few years.
Is there a reason why it’s remained at the same level year after year?
It’s just that aren’t providing additional funding to them than that amount.
As I mentioned earlier, we contribute the SEED money and they look for money elsewhere to do the rest of what they want to do, but we do provide them with that amount $2.175 million annually.
I wonder if the minister would have this information available; do you know how many jobs are created in Nunavut that are directly attributable to the tourism industry?
No we don’t have that information here presently but I can get it.
I would like to see those kinds of figures.
It would be interesting to know what the direct linkage is to jobs through tourism.
I wonder if the minister has information available on what the tourism contribution is to the economy of Nunavut in terms of overall revenues brought into the Territory.
In the amount of around $30 million a year has been bandied about and I believe that’s pretty close to the right number; around roughly $30 million a year.
I wonder if the minister could tell us if he expects the tourism revenues to increase over the next couple of years. That seems like a number … the number I heard a few years ago was $50 million, that’s what $30 million to $50 million?
It would be nice to know that the investments that we’re putting into the tourism industry … I believe that Nunavut Tourism has done a lot of good work in tourism, but perhaps if we gave them some more funding they could generate more tourism revenues to come into the territory. More tourists are going to mean more employment opportunities in the communities.
I believe quite a few jobs can be created in the communities in Nunavut that would be related to tourism as opposed to, say, not every community can have a mine next door.
It’s probably only four or five communities that can have mines. We have sports hunts, bird watching, naturalist tours and mountain climbing; those sorts of things. If we did more promotion perhaps we would have more tourism revenues.
I wonder if the minister can comment if the government should look at putting more money into Nunavut tourism to help them with their operations.
The number that has been thrown around is about $30 million here, it’s probably conservative. I personally would like to think it’s more than that and it will grow.
We, as a department now have a formalized memorandum of understanding with Nunavut Tourism where we collaborate on issues like market development, product development, and investment attraction.
There’s a visitor exit survey that has been completed and we are just going to keep working with Nunavut Tourism so that we can keep growing that industry, the travel and tourism industry.
We are also working on doing revisions to the Travel and Tourism Act in the near future. We are continuing to work very closely with Nunavut Tourism and will continue to do so to develop this market even more for Nunavut and for Nunavummiut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chair on Page K-12 at the top there’s a reference to the Nunavut Economic Forum.
The department provides $50,000 to the Nunavut Economic Forum to support the coordination of the implementation of the Nunavut Economic Development Strategy.
I believe that strategy came out in 2005, there were quite a number of priorities to undertake then and there are some more priorities to review in 2008.
I’m wondering if the minister could provide some information on the status of the Nunavut Economic Development Strategy.
We are now in 2007 so we are two years past the time it was implemented and we’re coming up on the year that the second set of priorities will have to be reviewed.
I wonder if the minister could update us on the progress of Nunavut Economic Development Strategy.
I do know that the Nunavut Economic Forum is currently reviewing social programs as a barrier to business in Nunavut. They are also looking at the non-profit portion of the strategic investments program and also looking at personal taxation in Nunavut.
I know that they are looking at those, currently reviewing those areas.
But Mr. Suvega is in a better position to answer more directly that question.
Mr. Suvega (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The department continues to identify opportunities and introduce programs and started to expand the Nunavut Economic Development Strategy.
Things that have arisen out of the strategy are things like the Mining Strategy, Fishing Strategy, and now, we’re working on the Travel and Tourism Act.
In terms of providing an update, we can provide an interim one for you at a later date. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Suvega.
I think it would be good to get an update because in 2005 there was quite a few priorities identified. I know there is more than just Department of Economic Development and Transportation involved, there are federal government departments, and there are other Government of Nunavut departments, other organizations.
So it’s not just your department that’s responsible for ensuring that those priorities are worked on but the other organizations as well.
It would be good to know what the progress is on strategies from 2005, where they are in 2007 and then what the plans are to address the 2008 priorities. I think that would be useful information for all the members of the Legislative Assembly.
With that I’ll ask a question on permitting and regulatory regimes in Nunavut. The other day I asked the minister about something in the Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy, that you were going to undertake a review of all the regulatory permitting regimes in Nunavut and then once it was complete then you are going to facilitate a workshop involving all the regulatory groups and organizations in Nunavut, including the Government of Canada.
I wonder if you update us on what your plans are for the balance of 2007 to complete that overview and facilitate the workshop.
Mr. Campbell will update the member on that.
I guess the answer is yes, we will work with the industry to try and identify some of the barriers to mining development. The other thing I should point out is the federal government just announced $155 million of monies that are available to review this. I think the program was going to be doing a review anyway in that area.
We will be following up with that announcement and see how we can tap into those resources and to try do a thorough review for Nunavut to participate in that process.
I thank Mr. Campbell for that information.
I’ve read the media monitor on it and I think the federal minister said that the goal is to reduce red tape and bureaucracy by 50 percent; 50 percent is quite a significant number.
But it sends a strong message to everybody that maybe permitting and regulatory regimes are too arduous and cumbersome for organizations to go through when the federal minister has to make that kind of statement.
I commend the minister and our minister for putting that action item in his Mining Strategy because it sends a strong message to the mining industry in Nunavut that the government is committed to reducing the red tape.
In all the years I have been around in the Kitikmeot since the mining companies have been trying to start up mines I have heard nothing but complaints about the long delays in getting permits.
The costly amounts that they have to incur are discouraging people from investing in our territory. If we want to develop our economy we should be encouraging people because there are other places in the world that mining companies could go. They won’t have to necessarily come to Nunavut if we are going to make it unattractive for them to invest up here.
So I support the minister and I look forward to his department completing that review and then holding that workshop that they’ve outlined in their strategy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is not a question. That is more of a comment.
I thank the member for that support.
We will be hopefully getting that review as quickly as possible and then holding the workshop on permitting and regulations as soon as we can.
As a matter of fact there is a Nunavut Mining Symposium coming up next month here in Iqaluit.
I know that the most of, if not all of, the industry that is working in Nunavut presently will be there.
In fact I would encourage them to set up their own Nunavut Chamber of Mines, rather than staying with the Northwest Territories and sitting with a joint one with Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines. I would encourage them to set up our own Nunavut Chamber of Mines here in Nunavut.
In fact, I’d like to present that challenge to the industry. I think it is time for that to happen. I think Nunavut is ready for that and I think the industry is ready for that.
And I encourage them to set up their own chamber here in Nunavut.
Just a very quick question.
I was not clear on the minister’s answer to Mr. Alagalak’s question on K-8 on the Fur Pricing Program.
As far as I know, it says right here residents of Nunavut must hold a valid Nunavut General Hunting License. I suppose it’s for trapping as well.
We never had a General Hunting License since the Land Claims Agreement.
I would like to ask the minister if he would change that, or at least add that residents of Nunavut, who qualify under, for example, as my colleague suggested, under Article 5, or holds a valid land claims enrolment card; one of the two, because we don’t have any General Hunting License, or Trapping License.
We will clarify that wording for the next time. What it is trying to say I guess, with my answer to Mr. Alagalak’s question earlier on. Yes, this includes beneficiaries and also includes non-Inuit who hold a General Hunting License or a Trapping License.
Questions on Economic Development?
I have a clarification that is also needed on K-16, right in the middle of it. There was an allowance of $2.5 million for last year and for previous years as well.
Could the minister explain how this program has changed in view of the fact that there is a zero amount now for 2007-08? What new programs are available for the initiatives that were formerly funded under this program?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation) Are you saying on the business plan or the main estimates, or K-16?
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I’ll correct it. It’s actually on K-13 on the main estimates.
This line item is now included in the Community Capacity Building Program, which is on K-16. We changed it from the Community Initiative Program and changed it to the Community Capacity Building Program, which is on K-16, which is the former, Community Initiatives Program, and the Community Economic Development Officers Program.
We combined those two into what is now the Community Capacity Building Program, which is on K-16.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for explaining the change.
Could the minister, obviously this CIP program had a number of economic objectives, one of which is to promote the development of youth and a stable diversified economy.
Are these objectives transferred to that program or are they just really in there for the O&M of municipalities, which in my view, should not be competing with the private sector.
All of those that are listed under the old Community Initiatives Program are all transferred over to the Community Capacity Building Program.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The program remains the same, and is transferred to communities. Does that mean they are transferred to every community on the same amount or per capita basis?
With this new program now it includes that every hamlet receives $190,000 towards hiring their Community Economic Development Officer and also the rest of the money is used for things like, allocated partnership funding to municipalities for things like to facilitating and strengthening community economic development through partnerships with municipal governments, to support communities in the development of community economic development plans and so on, and so on. So all of that is still in this program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.