EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I thank the Member for Tununiq for asking for clarification on this. I think it is because of misunderstandings with our dialects that we are thought to be providing answers.
In terms of the terminology for homelessness, the surveyors are calling 22 communities. The smaller communities are included.
I expect that they will be coming back with the results this summer. Various Inuit organizations and institutions will be surveyed.
This is the way I could answer it.
I’m not sure why she said no. It’s not the first time I have been told no, but I’m not sure why this time.
As we heard the homelessness study results and that they will be analyzed. In about four or five months, we’re having our fall meeting.
Is the minister trying to say that because the number is so high, they can’t even finish analyzing them in five months?
I thank the Member for Tununiq. He wants to know why I said no.
The summer is very short and I’m not sure if the analysis can be done by this fall. As a minister, I have to administer this properly. That’s why I said no.
Question 175 – 4(2): Public Housing for Baker Lake (Mikkungwak)
This year, March 2014, (interpretation ends) 30 units were allotted for Baker Lake.
Can the minister indicate if they will be delivered and constructed this summer?
I can tell him that yes, construction will start this summer for those units.
What type of units will these 30 units be? Will they be standalone units or will they be apartment units?
They are not standalone units.
They are combined units like five-plexes and ten-plexes.
I thank the minister again for his response.
Now I would like to understand... . They go by request for proposals when you do the contracts. Have you gone through that already?
Has that been completed?
In response to the member from Baker Lake’s question about the construction, yes the request for proposals went out last fall and there were a bunch of interested groups.
We have awarded the contract to the contractor.
I am glad that they will be able to proceed with construction this summer.
Let us proceed with the orders of the day.
Written questions. (interpretation ends) Item 8.
Reports of Standing Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters.
Tabled Document 031 – 4(2): Qulliq Energy Corporation Corporate Plan 2014-2018 (Okalik)
Tabled Document 032 – 4(2): 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 Annual Reports Pursuant to the Inuit Language Protection Act (Okalik)
I am pleased to table the Qulliq Energy Corporation’s Corporate Plan for 2014-18.
The other document I would like to table is the Minister of Languages 2010-11 and 2011-12 annual reports.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole on Bills and Other Matters, Bill 2 and Bill 3 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
In accordance with the authority provided to me by Motion 3-4(2), the Committee will stay in session until it reports itself out.
We will take a break for lunch and report back at 1:30. (interpretation) Thank you.
>>House recessed at 12:14 and resumed at 13:29
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Good afternoon, colleagues.
Good afternoon to our fellow Nunavummiut.
Welcome to your committee, all of the people watching the televised proceedings and listening to the radio broadcast. Welcome to your committee, our fellow Nunavummiut.
We wish to commence with the review of the main estimates of the Legislative Assembly, followed by the review of Bill 3, the supplementary capital appropriation.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with the main estimates for the Office of the Legislative Assembly?
Bill 02 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2014-2015 – Legislative Assembly – Consideration in Committee
Mr. Speaker Qulaut, as we are proceeding with our meeting, I would like to ask you, while you are in the witness table, would you like to have one or two of your officials at the witness table with you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Good afternoon and thank you.
Yes, I wish to have our officials and Clerk at the witness table, if you agree.
Do the committee members agree to allow his witnesses to the witness table?
You almost got denied, Mr. Speaker.
The Clerk of the House on my right is John Quirke (interpretation ends) and immediately to my left is the Director of Corporate Services, Mr. Mike Rafter.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Quirke and Mr. Rafter, welcome to the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you the opportunity to present your opening comments.
(interpretation ends) I am pleased to appear before you today to present the 2014-15 main estimates and 2014-17 business plan of the Office of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
The proposed 2014-15 operations and maintenance budget for the Office of the Legislative Assembly is $23,164,000.
Bill 22, which was passed by the Third Legislative Assembly in October 2011, implemented the recommendation of the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission.
As a consequence, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly has increased from 19 to 22.
The Legislative Assembly’s budget for the upcoming 2014-15 fiscal year reflects the $1,479,000 in new revenue that will be required to support the expanded Assembly.
The Legislative Assembly’s 2014-15 main estimates also reflect the new fiscal and human resources required for the operations of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth. A total of $1,570,000 has been allocated to this new independent office.
As members are aware, last year’s decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to grant mandatory carriage of our broadcasts on satellite direct-to-home service means that more Nunavut households are now able to view our legislature at work.
I would also like to take this opportunity to note that one of the projects that the Assembly is currently undertaking is to create a digital archive of our Assembly’s video recordings.
That concludes my opening remarks and comments, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank my colleagues for their support and I welcome their comments, suggestions, and questions. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you as well, Mr. Speaker.
If there is nothing, let us move on to page A-4.
Office of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Hickes.
I just have one question under this branch.
In the Speaker’s opening comments, he talks about the digital archive for the Assembly’s video recordings which I commend the Speaker for initiating that project.
One question that I have got a few times from members of the public is if they are every going to be looking at a live webcast of proceedings.
Yes we have agreed to that. If anybody would like to see the meetings afterward, they will be able to dig them out of the archives.
Is there an anticipated project to provide live webcast of our proceedings?
Hon. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): If it’s ok with you, I would like Mr. Quirke to respond to that.
To further add to the Speaker’s comments, that is the plan down the road.
Once we get this particular project completed, in our request for proposal, we asked how best to store the files, whether we are going to get a big server here in Nunavut or a big server down south.
One of the items we also asked is: how do we get across to an Internet streaming using the most up-to-date technologies?
The biggest strike against us right now is bandwidth, but we have not lost sight of that project. We might be able to do it first on the audio and then from there, onto the video streaming. It is on the radar screen.
It is just a question of time.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. (interpretation) We are on page A-4.
Branch Summary. Assembly Operations. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $8,000,000.
Turn to page A-6. I’m sorry.
A-5. Office of the Legislative Assembly. Branch Summary.
Expenditures on Behalf of Members. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $10,944,000. Do you agree?
I have noted and I realize the amount isn’t that significant, but the support for the Information and Privacy Commissioner of $85,000 in comparison to the Integrity Commissioner at $100,000, just from the volume and as the access to information and privacy protection has been talked about quite a bit during the proceedings, is that money sufficient to deal with the volume of ATIPP requests that are coming through that office?
I would anticipate the volume there would be a lot higher than the Integrity Commissioner.
For a proper and correct response, I would appreciate it if you will allow Mr. Quirke to respond.
Chairman: Mr. Clerk.  Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, both positions are contracted rates, so one position’s rate of remuneration is higher than the other.
Secondly, in terms of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the amount of money that’s available right now, I believe, is sufficient. A couple of years ago, I believe we increased it by about $30,000, but that is one position of an independent officer that we’re watching very closely.
We may be reaching the point and I could be wrong in terms of timetable, but if the municipalities are going to be subject to ATIPP, access to information, then I can see that they’re going to use the services of our privacy commissioner, and then we were probably heading towards a full-time position, which of course would mean a bump in resource requirements.
Mr. Hickes: Just a final comment, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the response.
Mr. Quirke has a great ability to read my mind, so I don’t have to ask my next question.
In the business plan on page 10, support to the Chief Electoral Office was $2,300,000 for 2013-14 and then it declined the following years.
Is there an answer to that when we have increased members at the Assembly?
With respect to the budget decrease of $1,350,000, I would like Mr. Rafter, who is on my left, to provide a proper and correct response.
Chairman: Mr. Rafter.
The rationale for the budget decrease for Elections Nunavut relates totally to the general election of last fall and the projects missed.
Can he elaborate more on, with the additional new members at the Assembly, why the substantial drop?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you for the question.
So that you can get a proper response, I would like to get Mr. Clerk to respond to that, please.
One of the significant reductions in Elections Nunavut was $1,350,000. That money was removed from the budget because it was given to us the previous year to run the general election. It takes over a million plus dollars.
We were given that money in that year to run the general election.
The general election is now over. That money has been removed from our base and when we get that money back plus more three years from now. The major drop was the removal of the general election funding.
I don’t have an actual question but we have various commissioners and I have noticed that it seems just one, the language commissioner, appointed to a four year term. And the other commissioners are appointed for a five-year term.
Can you consider or have you considered making the language commissioner a five-year term as well? Make them all five-year terms.
That’s a good question. I would like him to get the right response about the language commissioner’s term.
I would like Mr. Clerk to respond to that if you don’t mind.
Chairman: Mr. Clerk.
Perhaps it is best to explain that we have two categories of independent officers, if I can use that terminology.
The first category is the ones that are driven by legislation from the House. We have two independent officers that fall under those criteria; the chief electoral officer and the integrity commissioner.
Those independent officers are the result of the legislation, passed by the House through our management and services board. In that process we determined, the board determined, the term for each independent officer.
I believe for the chief electoral officer it is four years. I stand corrected but I think the integrity commissioner is close to seven years. I stand corrected on that.
The other category is the ones that come to us by way of government legislation like the privacy commissioner and the languages commissioner. They set the term limits of the independent officer.
If there is a desire to move towards a standard term for the majority of the officers, that is something we would bring to the board’s attention, keeping in mind that for the language commissioner that term was established by the government so we would have to work with the government to see if they would accept such a friendly amendment.
The comment made by the member, I have taken it into account and made a note of it. We will certainly look at that and put it on the agenda for MSB when we meet again in the fall.
Any other questions on that subject?
I have one other question.
Under the business plan, page 8, (interpretation ends) meet all statutory tabling requirements for annual reports required under the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act and other statutes under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly. (interpretation) I have a question on that.
Since the Legislative Assembly increased their members, as well as the ministers, what legislation is affected?
With respect to who is affected by this, Mr. Clerk will respond to the question, if you don’t mind, Mr. Chairman?
If I understand the question correctly, the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act requires the speaker to table various reports in the House.
One of them is the indemnity report, which includes not only the members indemnities, but also how they spent their constituency budgets. That report would be impacted because now we’ve gone from 19 members to 22 members.
And, what else is also filed under that legislation is; the members’ attendance sheets. You’ll recall that the Speaker tabled those documents last week.
So, that’s where the increased members or impact those reports because they will be slightly bigger because there is three new members and there is more money available because there is three new constituency budgets established.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Going back.
A-6. Office of the Legislative Assembly. Branch Summary.
Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly. Total Operations and Maintenance. To be voted. $4,220,000.
Going back to page A-3. Department Summary.
Office of the Legislative Assembly. Detail of Expenditures. Total Operations and Maintenance.
To be voted. $23,164,000.
Does the committee agree that the Office of the Legislative Assembly is completed?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, (interpretation) we are done.
Do you have any closing remarks, Mr. Speaker?
We know now that we will be operating again next year and I thank all the members and I would to also thank the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their good work.
I thank them, especially the interpreters for doing a good job, as well as the members.
I thank you, all of you.
Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can assist the Speaker and his officials.
Continuing on from your binder, Bill 2. I believe we can immediately deal with it, so please refer to it and I think everyone has a copy of it.
I think you found it and you now have it in front of you.
Let me first apologize that since I don’t have an Inuktitut copy, I will be reading it in English.
We can now proceed. Bill 2, (interpretation ends) Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2014-2015.
Chairman (interpretation): Turn to page 2. (interpretation ends) Schedule. Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015.
Vote 1: Operations and Maintenance. Total Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation) I think it’s way too much.
(interpretation ends) $1,382,989,000.
Total Appropriation. $1,382,989,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
We will go back to page 1.
Are we agreed to Bill 2 as a whole?
Does the committee agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 2 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Before we go to the next item, we will take a five-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 13:58 and resumed at 14:09
As the Chair, I have the authority.
I am very pleased to recognize two individuals, my daughter Nancy Enook-Ootoovak and my grandchild-to-be in her belly, and my daughter-in-law, my son’s wife, Sheila.
As we commence with our review of Bill 3, I would like to ask Minister Peterson if he has any officials that he would like to appear at the witness table.
Bill 03 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2014-2015 – Consideration in Committee
I would like to bring one witness. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. Does the committee agree to bring in the witness?
My witness is Deputy Minister Chris D’Arcy of the Department of Finance.
Welcome to the House, Mr. D’Arcy.
As we proceed, (interpretation ends) hon. minister, (interpretation) if you have any opening comments, I now give you the floor.
I am pleased to present Bill 3, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2014-2015.
Bill 3 is a supplementary appropriation for 2014-15 capital totalling $149,503,000. This appropriation addresses carryovers from the 2013-14 fiscal year to the 2014 fiscal year.
There are two types of capital carryovers in Bill 3.
Regardless of type, all of the projects have been approved in previous capital plans and have funds appropriated to them.
The first type is approved capital projects where there’s a financial or contractual commitment to continue the project into the next fiscal year. We have been calling these projects FAM compliant.
Mr. Chairman, approval of these carryovers is technical in nature.
These projects are ongoing and Bill 3 ensures their continuation.
The second type of projects that we have not been able to start in previous years are the non-FAM compliant projects.
Mr. Chairman, the object of this set of carryovers is to immediately include these projects in this year’s capital plan.
If this is not done, the funding will lapse and the projects will either be dropped or possibly included in a future capital plan.
There are a total of 125 projects in the carryover request. This is 20 fewer than last year. The total capital carryovers are broken down as follows:
$434,000 in two projects for the Office of the Legislative Assembly for improvements;
$73,000 for the Department of Finance for renovations to the offices in Cambridge Bay;
$3,577,000 in seven projects for the Department of Finance in support of Nunavut Arctic College operations and it includes the Kitikmeot Mine Training Centre student residence phase, three community learning centres in Iqaluit, Whale Cove, and Grise Fiord, and the Rankin Inlet Trades School and heavy equipment operator simulator;
$7,759,000 in three projects for the Department of Justice, covering some minor capital, the Iqaluit Overcrowding Relief Structure, and the Rankin Inlet Healing Facility;
$2,600,000 for the Department of Family Services for the renovation of the old courthouse in Iqaluit;
$9,209,000 in 19 projects for the Department of Education, which includes repairs and renovation to several schools;
$35,481,000 in eight projects for the Department of Health, which includes the repair, renovation or replacement of several health centres, including the Baffin Regional Hospital, as well as medical diagnostic equipment;
$3,884,000 in ten projects for the Department of Environment covering wildlife office replacement and renovations, and territorial park development;
$68,140,000 in fifty-six projects for the Department of Community and Government Services covering a wide range of municipal and community infrastructure projects; and
$18,346,000 in eighteen projects for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation covering a number of airport improvement projects, the Kivalliq Regional Visitors Centre, and small craft harbor planning.
Let’s move on. I am sure everyone has copies. Page 4.
Office of the Legislative Assembly Capital.
Total Assembly Operations. $347,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Go to the bottom.
And, at the bottom. Total Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly. Total Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly. $87,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $434,000.
Not Previously Authorized. Comptrollership. Total Comptrollership. $73,000.
Centrally Administered Funds. Total Centrally Administered Funds. $3,577,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $3,650,000.
Turn the page. Page 6. Family Services.
Capital. Not Previously Authorized. Total Corporate Management. $2,600,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Page 7. Justice. Capital.
Directorate. Total Directorate. $255,000.
Corrections. Total Corrections. $7,504,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $7,759,000.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) What is the current status of the Baker Lake middle school project? (interpretation) That is my first question.
All the information that we have would be same as the members have in the capital project carryover substantiation sheets, but I do believe that $34,000 is for the new middle school and that is a multi-year project and I believe it’s for planning.
What is the reason for the $34,000 carryover?
This project is a multi-year project, so the project is ongoing and I believe they’re going to just carry the money over and then pay the ArcTel Engineering project management fees this year to complete that project.
Will there be any delays in the design and planning phase for the Baker Lake middle school project in 2014-15?
Mr. Chairman, we have no knowledge if there could be a delay or not.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, hon. minister. (interpretation) Let us remember that if we’re going to be questions in there, please ask questions that pertain to the page.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Thank you for that reminder.
In 2014-15, for the design and planning in Baker Lake, will this project go ahead the way it is set up?
As I indicated in my previous answer, it’s very difficult.
Based on the information we have, if you read the substantiation sheet, it’s a class estimate “D.” We would prefer it to be a class “B” or a class “A” estimate.
As the project planning proceeds, we will get a more refined estimate and at that point, we will be in a better position to determine whether we will see it on the schedule.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister. (interpretation) We are on page 8.
Any questions on the details?
Mr. Mikkungwak. Did you put up your hand again?
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Yes, if it is going to become different and we hope that this will continue and we want the students to keep going to school, so I would like to be updated regularly.
Chairman (interpretation): I think you were just making a statement.
I have a couple of questions on page 8 in regards to the high school in Repulse Bay and the high school in Sanikiluaq. If memory serves me correct, after the high school was completed in Sanikiluaq, they wanted to use the common design for the high school in Repulse Bay and looking at the substantiation sheets, the buildings are exactly the same square footage except that the school in Sanikiluaq cost $23 million to build and the school in Repulse Bay is going to cost $36 million to build.
Can the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Education explain why it’s costing $13 million more to use a common design?
Mr. Chairman, we can’t comment on why the information would say that it is the same design. It is not the same design or size.
The Sanikiluaq high school is approximately 2,600 square metres and had a total project budget of approximately $23 million.
By comparison, the Repulse Bay high school is approximately 3,400 square metres and the total project budget of approximately $31 million.
They are not the same size and the budget is higher due to increased costs. These costs are tender timing, inflation factor, labour market, shipping costs.
It’s a different project altogether.
According to the substantiation sheets, both buildings are the exact same size, at 2600 square meters.