EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Can the minister indicate if any of the carriers that are involved in the current contract approached the minister or her department and indicated whether they wanted to go with the extension or they wanted to go with an RFP?
I will look into that to see if the airlines approached the department or the government to do that. I, personally, was not involved or approached by any airline to extend the contract, so I will have to look in to whether that was the case or not.
As far as I know, I’m not aware of the discussions with my staff and the airlines requesting just that.
While the minister is looking into that, can she also look in to see if any of the current carriers and other contractors had any meetings with any ministers in relation to the medical travel contract?
I’ll ask my colleagues if any airlines have approached them and lobbied for the contract issues.
I’m not aware of any but I will ask and get back to the member.
Question 472 – 2(4): Upcoming Announcement of Airline Services for the Baffin Region (Tootoo)
My question is for the Minister responsible for Economic Development and Transportation and it relates to his response to Mr. Arvaluk’s question that he returned today.
Mr. Speaker, in his response on the second last paragraph, the minister indicated that they were encouraged by the announcement last summer by Canadian North that their service was being improved in the Kitikmeot region. It goes on to say that “we anticipate a similar announcement in the Qikiqtaaluk region soon.”
Can the minister elaborate?
He must know something there that we don’t, so can he elaborate on exactly what he means by that?
I do not have the information at the moment but the minister has been stating that the airline services have been promising to improve the services to the Qikiqtaaluk region, and that’s all I know about it.
Has the minister indicated that he has no knowledge whatsoever of what similar announcement that they’re talking about that he mentions in his response?
The only knowledge that I have at the moment is and I’m sure the member can recall the dinner that we had with Canadian North officials and the lady spoke for a few minutes on the services that they would be improving.
Mr. Speaker, my ears are not that great, so I didn’t really catch on to what she was saying, but I’m sure the member knows what was said at that meeting that night.
I question why the minister would even put that in his response if he didn’t have any knowledge of it as he had indicated he just heard it at a dinner and then to go ahead and stick it into a response, it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.
It sounds pretty clear to me that there is some information that is known by the government there and by the minister, so I ask him why they don’t want to share that information with us.
I think this all relates to the medical travel contract that the airlines have been awarded to and I’m not privy to that information.
I wasn’t asking about the medical travel contract.
The minister clearly states in his response that they’re anticipating a similar announcement for the Qikiqtaaluk region and he must have some knowledge of what that is - whether it related to medical travel contracts or not.
I’m just saying: why won’t he share that information with us?
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) That all relates to the medical travel contract that’s been awarded.
I am quite sure there will be improvements in the Qikiqtaaluk region when they’ve been awarded to that contract.
Question 473 – 2(4): Design Plans of the Health Centre in Repulse Bay (Mapsalak)
Mr. Speaker, when the Finance Minister gave his Budget Address, he had stated that the construction of the Repulse Bay Health Centre was moved forward.
Do I understand then that they already know what the design of the health centre will be?
The department is working with a company that’s been hired to design the three health facilities.
There has been consultation with the department in the program piece of it to design the building and modify the actual design to accommodate Repulse Bay, Taloyoak, and Arctic Bay.
I had asked a question about the designs of those health centres.
Would the nurses’ residence be in the same building where they currently have apartments over the health centre? Does the minister know if a residence will be attached to the centre?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) I agree with what the member is saying that it would good to have apartments above the new health centres in Repulse Bay, Taloyoak, and Arctic Bay.
It would be nice to have them on top of the health facility, so the second floor would be a home for the staff, because if there’s a blizzard and they are required to be at the health centres, then it would be better that way.
So with that in mind, we’re working on the designs of the health facilities.
We have to work with the Housing Corporation for the construction of the health centres because they are in charge of the funding.
The design stage hasn’t been completed yet, so we’re waiting for that information.
When will they know exactly what the design will be of the health centre or the residence? Can she tell me when they will know?
When I get that information from the Housing Corporation, I will provide it to the member as it is an urgent matter. We are trying to complete the construction of those three health centres and the design phase is slated to be completed this year.
As soon as I am informed of where they’re at with the process, I will let the member know. We would like to see the facilities with residence on the second floor for the staff.
Do I understand correctly that they will start constructing those three health centres this summer?
The plan is to try and initiate everything this summer. As for the announcement, we’re working very hard to try and meet the demand of trying to get three health centres up for this fall on the sealift.
Question 474 – 2(4): Identification of Carving Stone Sites (Peterson)
Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the last couple of weeks, a diversified economy would be very important for Nunavut. As we have seen with a mine closed, a lot of people go out of work, and we see that with a recent awarding of medical contracts, airlines are threatening to alter their routes or shut down certain routes, so it’s very critical that we have a diversified economy.
One of the sectors of our economy I think is overlooked is carving in the arts and crafts section. Mr. Speaker, in the minister’s business plan, there’s a reference to a Carving Stone Supply Action Plan that was released in 2007. One of the actions was identify new deposits of carving stone from quarries to provide carving stone for carvers.
In Cambridge Bay, we have a shortage of carving stone. In fact, it’s difficult to come by at all.
My question for the minister: can the minister tell me if his department has identified any quarries near Cambridge Bay that would be able to provide reasonable access to good quality carving stone for Cambridge Bay carvers?
The Carving Stone Supply Action Plan proposes to address challenges to experienced carvers such as finding quarry sites. We look forward to working with the carvers to identify sites, and hopefully, make a way to access these quarries.
Mr. Speaker, identifying quarries in the Kitikmeot has been an ongoing issue for 20 to 25 years since the Government of the Northwest Territories days. In fact, the government at that time accessed money through the Economic Development Agreement to identify quarries.
I was relieved when I had saw the action plan, I interpreted that to mean that they would get out there and find the quarries, and they mentioned it was completed in 2007. So, I hope the minister and his officials are listening and they can table some information later this week with that information.
Mr. Speaker, my next question for the minister: can the minister tell the House how the carving stone will be transported from identified quarries in that area of Cambridge Bay and distributed to the carvers in Cambridge Bay when it’s brought in?
We have a database which lists the well-known deposits in all of the communities and the department is committed to supporting the implementation of the Carving Stone Supply Action Plan, whether it would be in Cambridge Bay or across Nunavut.
I am hopeful that we get some action and quick. Carvers in my community are having to access carving stone from suppliers in Edmonton and the carving stone often come from sources as far away as Brazil and other remote locations not in Nunavut, and that affects the quality of their carvings.
Mr. Speaker, carvers in my community have also been lobbying for a carving facility that’s properly designed, with benches and exhaust fans to remove harmful dust and where they can carve year round, even in the worst weather; it has been minus 60 degrees Celsius in the last couple months.
My question for the minister: can the minister tell the House if his department has considered the design and delivery, or construction of carving sheds or buildings in Nunavut communities where carvers can work?
That is a good question and I will have to follow-up with the department to see what kind of plans that we have in terms of supplying the carving sheds, but we don’t have anything at the moment.
Again, Mr. Speaker, that’s not something that’s new. In the Government of the Northwest Territories days, under the Economic Development Agreement, there was funding available to help carvers get small carver sheds they could attach outside their houses and work out of the hazards of the winter, and they had exhaust fans and all sorts of things like that. So it was a worthy project then and I think it’s worthy now and it benefits carvers.
Mr. Speaker, also, carvers require specialized tools and equipment to help them with their trade, and most of these tools and equipment are expensive and they’re difficult to acquire locally; they have to order them from specialized stores in the south.
My question for the minister: can the minister tell the House what programs and services his department offers to carvers to assist them to acquire their specialized carving tools and equipment?
We have the Small Business Support Program and also the Strategic Investment Program where carvers can apply for funds to purchase carving tools.
Question 475 – 2(4): Announcement to Nunavummiut Regarding Fuel Stabilization Rider (Curley)
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy. I couldn’t really understand his responses when I had previously asked him some questions, so I would like an adequate response.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the increasing price of fuel today is becoming frightening, as the minister is probably aware.
For that reason, I had asked the minister with respect to that, and to date, he hasn’t informed the Nunavummiut. I don’t know why.
The Fuel Stabilization Rider was approved by Cabinet in 2007, but to date, the rider is at 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
I wonder when the minister will inform Nunavummiut on this.
I have answered several questions from the member on this and I think we have been quite clear, and indeed, have stated that in the House several times that information has been put out there.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, there is a rider in place, it went through the check and balances of the URRC, it was a decrease from 6.55 cents to 6.40 cents, as I stated, and that was stated out to the public and it has been made public. So I would like to thank the member for facilitating that information to the public.
Thank you, Mr. Curley and thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to remind you to address your questions through the chair.
Mr. Speaker, we don’t want to play games with the Nunavut public because that is too serious. The energy prices are no longer affordable for many of our household residents; people who own homes.
Mr. Speaker, this is neither a luxury nor a privilege when we are imposed with the fuel charges that are not being made public. I understand the minister did make it public up to the end of October 31, 2007 because that was then the rate was decreased prior to that date, but he also, on the same page, requested from his colleagues that this extension continue on to October 31, 2008.
He has not made that part public. Why, Mr. Speaker?
I believe we have and I take it very serious. The government has done several things on the cost of fuel; we have increased the Senior Fuel Subsidy, Mr. Speaker; we actually didn’t put up some of the rates for fuel last year, and indeed, we kept the rate down for home heating fuel because of the issues the member is talking about and we actually went in and subsidized that.
And, Mr. Speaker, the process with the FSR, which I’ve explained here in the House several times, is that the Power Corporation, after purchasing their fuel, they come forward and say, “This is what our expenses are.” So they don’t increase the rates, they put a rider on them. In this case, it’s called a Fuel Stabilization Rider, or the FSR.
Before they can do that, they have to come to the minister, that occurs, and then I send the application on to the URRC, which reviews it, it then publishes that amount, what’s being asked for in the papers and so on, they sent submissions and information packages out to the chamber of commerce as this is business and so on, and then they make a decision.
Then when that decision comes back, it is then announced and we have discussed that in the House.
So as the member has indicated, and for the record, I will say that the FSR is in place of 6.40 cents a kilowatt-hour; it is in place until October 31, 2008; it is a reduction from what we had in place of 6.55 cents and it’s below what we had in 2006, which was 7.87 cents.
So, Mr. Speaker, it has gone down.
The Power Corporation can’t arbitrarily go and put a rider in place; there has to be objective balance. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that clarifies it.
If the checks and balances, as stated by the minister, are so fair, I wonder why they are not taking place.
What’s taking place is that the FSR has now been approved by the Cabinet.
It’s in monthly bills right now; that has been passed on to the consumers as of November 1, 2007. Sure, we understand what the URRC is doing; they’re reviewing it.
The rate has already been imposed upon the public but there is no room for public participation because they haven’t called for any public submission to be included.
What I’m saying, Mr. Speaker, the consumers or homeowners can no longer afford fuel. It is not possible, at this moment, with the current oil prices which the FSR, Fuel Stabilization Rider, will likely be again increased due to the high oil prices.
Can the minister not proceed with any other entertainment with respect to that until fair subsidies have been presented by his Cabinet colleagues?
Again, I appreciate the member raising the issue, but we have to clarify two things: the price of fuel that we pay at the gas pump and that we pay in our houses is different, and the government has subsidized that again because we never increased that to what we should have increased it.
And, we had to do a supplementary appropriation to the Fuel Stabilization Fund because of that. So that subsidy is in place.
We also went forward, last year, with the support of this House, to subsidize the first 801,000 kilowatt-hours for homeowners who pay their electrical bill.
On the fuel subsidy rider that’s in place, the FSR, in that case, Mr. Speaker, when the Power Corporation pays more for fuel to generate electricity, instead of putting their rates up, the general rate that everyone pays, at this time, 16 cents a kilowatt-hour, instead of putting that rate up, they can put a rider on.
If they take in more money than they’re supposed to, they have to rebate that back to the consumer. So at the end of the day, the consumer will be compensated if that’s the case.
It is only to compensate for the extra cost that they pay for their power and that’s why the URRC reviews it.
It’s not put on by the minister independently, or the Cabinet, it is reviewed by the URRC and they make their recommendation.
It sounds quite good, but this minister actually has the cart before the horse.
In Nunavut, he actually has the dog team before the Qamutik in that regard.
The minister continues going to pass on the increases that they commit every summer and every fall onto the consumer.
The review process is reviewing whether or not the rate increase that he adds on, he’s asking the review process, which is not a policy agency, to review it.
He should put a stop to all the rate increases, including the Fuel Stabilization Rider, until he completely reviews the whole process.
Will he freeze any rate increases, including the Fuel Stabilization Rider, as they may come in this fall?
I would like to remind all of the members that we are not going to be pointing fingers on either side.
It is not parliamentary and because it is an embarrassment to this government, we don’t want to see this in this House.
Then I suggest to the member that he join with me and get on the Qamutik and go in the direction that we’re trying to go in, and that is to provide, Mr. Speaker, subsidies, where possible, in place for homeowners and for our constituents.
For every one cent increase in the cost of oil on the world market, that’s a $400,000 cost to us as a government.
So Mr. Speaker, I cannot commit to not putting the rider on in place because it is a mechanism that is used, not just in Nunavut but across the country, for the consumers.
Instead of regulating the amounts of the rates that are being charged and putting them up on a regular basis, every year on an annual basis, that’s why you put the Fuel Subsidy Rider in place because it gives the Power Corporation the flexibility to be able to pay for those fuel costs.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, if the Power Corporation did not put the FSR in place, then the consumer here and the government would have to pay all that amount of money on top of the subsidies we have in place.
Motion 028 – 2(4): Extension of Review Period of Bill 20 (Alagalak)
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) The Extension of Review Period for Bill 20:
WHEREAS Bill 20, the proposed Midwifery Profession Act, received second reading on November 6, 2007;
AND WHEREAS Bill 20 has been referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Education for scrutiny;
AND WHEREAS the standing committee has given careful scrutiny to this important piece of proposed legislation;
AND WHEREAS the standing committee is of the view that the bill could benefit from further clarification and possible amendments before it proceeds to the next step in the legislative process;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit Centre, that the period of time for the standing committee to report Bill 20 back to the House be extended by a further 120 days. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In speaking to this motion, I just want to make it really clear that the committee would have loved to have proceeded with this bill during this sitting. However, on two occasions, the committee wrote the minister responsible and we still have yet to receive a response to our inquiries.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the day that my colleague gave his Notice of Motion for this motion, it was after that that we get a letter from the government saying that they don’t have to do that during this sitting.
I want to be clear; it’s not the work of this committee that’s delaying this bill.
The reason we had to come for this extension is because we haven’t gotten any information from the government on it.
I just want to respond first very quickly to the motion and speak to it.
Again, this piece of legislation, we believe, incorporated Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit within the framework of government because we’re talking about midwifery and traditional midwifery.
However, Mr. Speaker, there was some clarifications that we needed to put into the legislation and we appreciate the standing committee bringing back the motion to bring back the legislation in the spring session.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I think we’ll have a better piece of legislation with input not only from the members but from some of the midwives and so on that we’ll have an opportunity to speak to.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Nattilik, Ms. Aglukkaq.
As Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, I, too, would have liked to see this bill debated in the House in this sitting.
The questions that the members have raised with us are requiring more extensive research, which is why we have asked for an extension and will involve further consultation with not only the Midwifery Association but the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Pauktuutit and so on, so it’s taking a bit more time.
In order for us to address the questions raised by the standing committee, we needed more time and we will be prepared to present this information in the May session with, hopefully, the feedback from all of the stakeholders that have been consulted to date to address the new questions that have been raised with the same group that we have consulted to date.
So, hopefully, by the May session, I will be prepared to present the bill with the questions that they have asked.
The committee has been trying to express itself that they would like to get more information.
The bill states how the procedure should be if there should be any lawsuits, but for the regular Inuit, traditional midwives, there was nothing written in the bill of how they should be protected from legal liabilities.
So those are the only questions that we have in regard to traditional midwives that if they need some protection if there should be any lawsuits.
So that’s the information that we have been requesting from the minister.
I will be in support of the motion.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Question has been called.
All those in favour to the motion.
Chairman (Mr. Evyagotailak): Welcome back.
We wish to continue with Bill 23 and the review of the Main Estimates for the Department of Human Resources, followed by the Department of Education.
Are we in agreement that we continue with the Main Estimates for the Department of Human Resources?
Chairman: Thank you. Minister Tapardjuk, do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the witness table?
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister’s staff to the witness table.
For the record, minister, please introduce your staff.
To my left is Bob Loehr, the Director of Corporate Services, and to my right is my Deputy Minister, Aluki Rojas.
Chairman: Ms. Rojas and Mr. Loehr, welcome.
D-4.
The 2005-06 Public Service Annual Report states that an interdepartmental committee has been established to review both the existing Bilingual Bonus Policy and how a bilingual bonus should be administered within the Government of Nunavut.
According to the department’s 2006-07 business plan, a draft of a new Language Incentive Policy has been completed, and subsequent to ministerial correspondence to the standing committee indicated that no new incentives in this area have been approved as a consequence of the GN’s fiscal restraint measures.
According to the 2004-05 Public Service Annual Report, 421 GN employees received a $1,500 per year bilingual bonus.
According to the 2006-07 Public Service Annual Report, 787 GN employees received a bilingual bonus - 777 for Inuktitut proficiency and 10 for French proficiency - as of March 31, 2007.
Mr. Chairman, under the GN’s Priority Hiring Policy, which has been extended until 2010, Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiaries who meet the qualifications required for positions will be given priority over all applicants in job competitions.
The government’s staffing procedures give the federal level of priority consideration during job competitions to Nunavut residents before southern applicants.
However, only one year of residency in the territory is required to be considered a Nunavut resident.