EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, sections 13 and 14 of the Tobacco Control Act specifically prohibit smoking within a specified radius near workplaces, public places, and schools.
Section 17 establishes the fines and penalties for contravening the Act.
None of the Tobacco Control Act annual reports tabled to date indicate whether any contraventions of the Act have ever been filed or if any fines have ever been levied. Can the minister clarify whether any contraventions of the Tobacco Control Act, specifically with respect to smoking within a prescribed radius, have ever been recorded and if any fines have ever been levied?
In addition to my response to his question, I would just like to inform the member that we will be tabling the annual report for the Tobacco Control Act during this sitting. I want to thank the member for that reminder.
With regard to specified spaces of smoking limits, three metres is the norm, except at public schools, which are 15 metres.
In addition, as recently as this June, we have taken a step at the Qikiqtani General Hospital here in Iqaluit to even further restrict smoking to two specified areas to create smoke-free grounds around entrances.
To my knowledge, there have currently been no fines levied for smoking within those parameters.
There are a number of different ways that people can go about to make complaints.
If it’s a public building, you can draw your concerns to the department responsible for that building itself and also through the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission.
Mr. Speaker, the Nunavut Tobacco Reduction Framework for Action, Tobacco Has No Place Here, it’s titled, Tuvvaakiqariaqanngilaq, was tabled about five years ago and expires this year.
In planning for the government’s next tobacco reduction action plan, will the minister consider amending the Tobacco Control Act to extend the smoking prohibition area beyond the current three-metre radius from the doorways of workplaces and public places and to also include the areas under building air intake vents as prohibited areas?
I thank the member for bringing that issue to my attention as well.
Again, in the business plan for the Department of Health there is currently no immediate plan to make amendments to the Tobacco Control Act.
We do, however, run a number of programs with our smoking cessation and tobacco reduction campaigns. We are looking to have more measurables to be able to see the impact that those programs are doing.
We’re bringing in new software, upcoming, to be able to track usage and make more community-specific programs.
I appreciate the member’s suggestions and at any time members can make suggestions to the department on amending legislation to the Tobacco Control Act. I would look forward to hearing and discussing with the member some more details on that.
Question 433 – 4(3): Full-time Dentist for Rankin Inlet (Sammurtok, A)
Good day to residents of Rankin Inlet and Nunavummiut.
Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Health assured this House that a full-time dentist was supposed to come to Rankin Inlet, but to date the community is still receiving dental services from a visiting dentist.
Can the minister clearly explain why it is proving so difficult to hire a full-time dentist for the community of Rankin Inlet?
I can’t speak to what former ministers have stated.
What I can say is that in a perfect world we would have full-time dental services in as many communities as possible. There are a number of different factors that pose challenges to the Department of Health to provide full-time dentistry.
The full-time dentists that do work in the territory are here under their own clinics where we pay for service, but we don’t provide full-time dentistry services, as far as I’m aware, anywhere.
Even here in Iqaluit there are two dental offices that I am familiar with and they’re both private clinics run by dentists.
Maybe if the member wished to lobby other dental associations to maybe try to attract a dentist to their community, I’m sure we would utilize the services.
Mr. Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Trying to utilize this full-time dentist, I would presume that would be the responsibility of the health department, not of me as MLA.
Mr. Speaker, with the high rate of tooth decay, especially in our younger population, I am certain that there would be plenty of work for a dentist to do full-time work in Rankin Inlet.
Can the minister clearly describe what steps are being taken to recruit, hire, and retain a full-time dentist in Rankin Inlet?
Again I appreciate where the member is going on this topic, especially when we’re talking about children’s oral health. It is a very high priority to me personally.
Since I took over this portfolio, I’ve had numerous discussions with my health officials on how we can address the waiting times that our youth have to take, especially for oral surgery.
With regard to active recruitment for a dentist for Rankin Inlet specifically, I can’t provide the member with any updates at this time. It’s something I can follow up with my health officials.
Again, we use contracted services with very strict visiting days that they have to adhere to.
Would I like to supplement or would I like to accelerate or increase the amounts of visits, especially to Rankin Inlet and to other communities?
Absolutely and it’s something I have been speaking with my officials at Health to see how we can address it, again especially for youth and children’s oral health.
Getting a full-time dentist for Rankin Inlet is taking far too long, far too much time. The dental health of our children is suffering.
Can the minister tell the House when the community of Rankin Inlet will have a full-time dentist?
At this time I can’t give the member a timeline. There are a number of different factors.
I can go back to my officials and clarify maybe some of the previous comments that were made and discuss further with the member. At this time I’m unable to provide a timeline of when or even if Rankin Inlet will get a full-time dentist.
Question 434 – 4(3): Establishment of an Independent Public Service Commission (Angnakak)
Ms. Angnakak (interpretation): Thank you and good afternoon. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the minister will recall, the Legislative Assembly gave careful consideration during our recent spring sitting to a number of issues and items related to the management of the public service, including the most recently tabled public service annual report.
At the end of our deliberations, a motion was passed which recommended that the Government of Nunavut “reintegrate its human resources functions and responsibilities into a single, independent public service commission.”
Can the minister update the House today on the status of the government’s implementation of this recommendation?
I thank Ms. Angnakak for asking that question.
Mr. Speaker, as Ms. Angnakak and most members know, it is very busy during the summer with people working hard on various things.
I can assure Ms. Angnakak that my staff is hard at work on reviewing the public service commission concept.
I thought maybe the third time... . What’s that saying? The third time’s the charm.
Maybe I would get a really good response saying, “Yes, we’re working really hard and we’re going to be able to table it during this sitting,” but I shall go on to my next question.
One of the major issues that have emerged with respect to the elimination of the government’s standalone Department of Human Resources is the separation of its core functions between two different departments.
These include training, Inuit employment initiatives, employee relations, and recruitment.
The motion that was passed during our spring sitting noted that the “reintegration of these functions and responsibilities” into a single entity would “enhance the coordination and cohesiveness of the government’s management of human resources.”
This is a reasonable and logical position, Mr. Speaker.
My question, I guess, is this: why does the government believe that reintegrating these functions under one roof would be the wrong thing to do?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I spent four days in the witness chair in the summer answering questions from all MLAs and I thought they were very good answers. We reviewed the human resources department going all the way back to 1999 or even earlier.
Mr. Speaker, there were countless reports or I shouldn’t say countless, but there were countless complaints about HR over those years. The Office of the Auditor General made observations and recommendations.
The Berger report made observations and a number of other people made observations and recommendations.
We felt at the time, and Ms. Angnakak was here, that it was time to look at strengthening HR and bring it into Finance where we could work on making significant improvements.
I spent 20 minutes speaking to Ms. Angnakak’s motion, explaining all the improvements that have been made in HR in a little over three years; timelier reporting of data, strengthening adherence to the priority policy, fact-finding, and a whole range of areas.
I’m not sure where Ms. Angnakak is getting her information from, but I can assure the listening public, the MLAs, and everybody else that there has been significant progress in improving the human resources side; recruiting and staffing, training and development, and Inuit employment.
Just because somebody talks for 20 minutes doesn’t mean that we are in agreement with what is being said.
In fact I think the elimination of the Department of Human Resources and the dispersal of its functions to the departments of EIA and Finance came into effect on April 1, 2013.
As of March 31, 2013 the government’s overall vacancy rate stood at 23 percent, with 973 positions being vacant.
According to the government’s most recent quarterly employment report, the overall vacancy rate has actually increased by 5 percent since that time and currently stands at 28 percent, with 1,314 positions being vacant.
In light of this trend, does the government still believe that the decision to separate its human resources functions into different departments has helped its recruitment and staffing efforts?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, when we went through the whole process back in the Third Assembly, it was a three-year process.
I stood up in this House to announce the budget. The budget addresses very clearly articulate what we are planning to do. I met with Full Caucus.
We had debates in this House. We didn’t hide anything, Mr. Speaker. We spoke openly and candidly about the issues in HR and what we thought should occur to strengthen it.
Ms. Angnakak has her opinion about HR; we all have our own opinions. That’s what makes human resources a very interesting field. I think I said years ago in response to one of her questions that you can go to universities, colleges, study for a degree, and get Ph.Ds in organizational behaviour.
I have studied organizational behaviour at university. I have worked with HR. I have been a union president. I have been a shop steward.
I have been an independent chairman. Dealing with people is a very difficult area.
We are simply strengthening the processes to ensure that everybody who applies for jobs or works for the government is treated fair and square. If they’re employed, we have vast number of policies and directives that protect employees.
We have the union that protects employees. We have the ethics officer, which we announced a few years ago, who just tabled his report last summer. We’re doing all kinds of things to improve human resources.
Again, Ms. Angnakak has her opinion. That’s her right.
I can assure her that the government takes human resources [seriously] and we treat our GN employees as valued employees.
They’re doing a great job for us out there and I hope that will continue.
Member for Whale Cove, Mr. Tony Akoak.
Question 435 – 4(3): Recreational Infrastructure (Akoak)
Good afternoon to my colleagues, ministers, Nunavummiut, the community of Gjoa Heaven, and to my family, if they’re watching.
As the minister will recall, he participated in an announcement that was made on February 29, 2016 concerning the Small Communities Fund.
This announcement indicated that $19,918,400 in federal and territorial funding would be made available for upgrading community arenas.
Can the minister indicate which proposals have been approved to date for assistance and can he clarify the maximum amount that can be provided to any single project under this initiative?
Yes, it was part of the announcement and I’m grateful for any monies that we would get from the federal government.
As for the question of which arenas, there are ten arenas left in Nunavut that don’t have concrete on them so that we can get more usage out of them other than just skating on.
One of the reasons I haven’t said which communities will be getting them first is there’s a set amount of money and we don’t have what exactly has to be done and how much it will cost on each arena.
The evaluation process will be done to make sure that the arenas need it the most will be prioritized and we haven’t finalized a list yet.
Like I stated earlier, the reason is because we don’t know the scope of work that has to be done yet on each arena.
The bulk of this will be used to extend the arena usage so that it can be used longer, but if there are any safety concerns, then that issue would have to be dealt with first.
Can the minister confirm how much funding under this initiative remains available and can he clarify the process by which municipalities can apply for funding assistance in the smaller communities?
I don’t have the figures in front of me right now as to the amount that is available. None of the amount that is available has been spent yet. We’re still working on that and the application process will be through my department.
I believe there’s no actual application form right now and we’re working on that.
The February announcement also indicated that $4.2 million would be allocated to undertake major repairs to Cambridge Bay’s arena.
The government’s current 2017-18 capital estimates indicate that Rankin Inlet’s new arena will cost approximately $25 million.
Mr. Speaker, the Municipality of Gjoa Haven is working on a proposal for a new community arena.
Can the minister clarify what criteria his department uses to determine whether a community needs minor repairs to its arena, major repairs to its arena, or a new arena altogether?
The process in which an arena is looked at, whether it’s minor, major, or replacement, would have to do with the cost.
If the cost is not so big, then it’s a minor upgrade. If the costs are substantially higher, then it’s a major renovation. If it’s just not practically and financially feasible to renovate to get it to the standards you want, then it would be replaced.
I don’t have the exact guidelines in front of me as to how the process goes. Just using common sense, if $25 million will buy you a new arena and it is going to cost $20 million to renovate the old one, then obviously you would put in for a new one because the money would be more well spent.
As to how a community decides when they get an arena, the process starts at the hamlet level or the community level first. The community, through their hamlet, would put it in their integrated community sustainability plan. If a new arena is priority over absolutely everything else that the hamlet wants or needs, then that would be looked at.
When this list of infrastructure needs is brought forward from a community, then there is ranking in terms of what gets approved. Safety is always high on the list and aesthetics is lower on the list.
If any community needs a new arena, then they should work with their hamlets and then we will see what we can do from there. If it’s a hamlet priority, it will be looked at, but if something is more needed and safety is a factor, then that would trump an arena.
In the process, the community will put in their integrated community sustainability plan what that community wants as their infrastructure priority.
Question 436 – 4(3): Bedbug Infestation at Sylvia Grinnell Building (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Health.
From what I understand, there has been an infestation of bedbugs in one of the buildings in my riding and in the office building, Grinnell Place, and there are adjoining apartment units for my constituents.
The first report was on October 6. There were attempts to clean it up and remove the bedbugs from October 7 to 11.
They reopened it on October 11 just to discover more bedbugs and it has been shut down and they’re supposed to be open today.
Can the minister explain what happened and if they have taken the proper steps to remove this infestation?
We do have offices in that building, so it’s a concern for our staff.
To make sure that they feel comfortable at work, there have been a number of steps that Community and Government Services has been providing to the facility to exterminate the issue.
That being said, they are a resilient insect and I know that Community and Government Services is doing everything possible with the building owner to make sure that the issue is resolved as soon as possible.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) The latest information I have is that the offices would be open today.
I’m hopeful that’s occurring and that the infestation has been removed from the facility and the building. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister of Health, Mr. Hickes.
Hon. George Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I thank the member for that question.
It’s obviously a concern to us and I know that Community and Government Services, with the building owner, has been working very diligently and aggressively to eliminate this problem.
I am awaiting an update, as I’m sure the Minister of Community and Government Services is, on the status of reopening the office. As soon as I know anything, I’ll let the member know.
Question 437 – 4(3): Patient Relations Office (Mikkungwak)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of Health and his staff for the good work of the patient relations office in helping to address and resolve patient issues.
Can the minister provide an update on the operations of the Office of Patient Relations and how it has been fulfilling its mandate?
I thank the member for the accolades of the Division of Patient Relations at the Department of Health.
There have been some capacity challenges with filling some of the positions, but I know that people who are in there are working very hard.
I know, personally through some of the members here, I send them a lot of work and they have always been very diligent in the responses.
I would just like to take this time to publicly thank them for the work that they do.
That being said, can we do more? Yes. Like I had mentioned, we do have some challenges filling a couple of positions and working very hard myself, even personally, to try to attract Inuktitut-speaking in addition to the ability to provide French services as well.
The Office of Patient Relations deals with a number of different avenues in health care provision and they have a very diverse responsibility across the department.
Like I had stated earlier, they work very hard. As I’m sure most members here can attest, they’re doing a very good job of what they do.
I look forward to getting those other positions. There are two vacant positions that I’m aware of right now and I’m looking very much forward to getting those positions filled in the very near term.
As I mentioned, the Office of Patient Relations is a very good place to direct people if they have complaints or concerns regarding their health care.
However, it has been mentioned to me that some individuals are finding it is sometimes difficult to get a response or discussion in Inuktitut.
Can the minister confirm whether or not this office will be increasing the number of Inuit language speaking staff?
I am certain that the Office of Patient Relations is very busy and it serves an important function.
Will the minister commit to reviewing the workload and capacity at this office in the near future?
I truly do thank the member for bringing up that question.
Like I had mentioned earlier, we have had some challenges filling some of the positions. My goal first of all is to make sure that it is running at full capacity with the PYs that that division is provided.
The very moment that that happens, we will be monitoring the activity to make sure that the staff there are given the resources to be able to do their job adequately in assisting the department in addressing client concerns.
Until I or the department know that there is an issue, it’s difficult for us to address it. The patient relations office is one of the first points of contact that patients and health care recipients have with the Department of Health.
It’s a very good avenue for me to learn about what some of the issues that people are experiencing and to resolve them to the best of my ability and the department’s ability.
Question 438 – 4(3): Foster Parents (Enook)
Mr. Speaker, last week the minister celebrated Foster Parent Week and we join him in acknowledging the important role that foster parents play in our society.
As we are all aware, in some cases, for the safety and well-being of a child, a decision is made to apprehend a child from a home and place them with foster parents.
Let me first ask the minister: can he confirm that when a child is apprehended, every attempt is made to place them with an appropriate foster home, preferably in the same community?
Hon, Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank my colleague for asking that question.
We follow the Child and Family Services Act and its regulations, which require us to involve parents in deciding what actions to take.
We also are required to involve foster parents whenever children under their care are to be moved out to ensure that their needs come first. I can say that at this time.
It has come to my attention that on occasion social workers themselves have fostered children who have been apprehended. Can the minister clearly explain how a social worker, who plays a professional role in the apprehension of children, can also be a foster parent to a child who has been taken into care?
I will look into the member’s question because I believe he’s talking about a staff member.
There is family services legislation and you are very familiar with what it says on the process that is followed when a child is apprehended from their home.
You stated that there is legislation governing that. However, I would like to ask if you consult the legislation regarding foster parents and interview them when a child is being referred to them to ensure they would be in a proper place.
There are different scenarios when children are involved in the child welfare process.
What I can say here is that there are two different scenarios where children need to be transferred to the state and the child can be apprehended.
The child welfare system has been running for many years.
The other category revolves around agency apprehension of children, whether it is the social worker or RCMP that does the apprehension. Whenever a situation arises in the home where apprehension is required, without the proper signed documentation, there are pieces of legislation that pertain to child welfare or even to be placed in a foster home.
The process plays out differently, and I don’t quite understand which part the member is asking about.
Perhaps in an emergency where a child is in a dangerous situation due to the parents’ lack of care or other reasons, the legislation lays out what process is to be followed.
Nunavut’s legislation is designed to protect our children.
For that reason, when a child is taken without the required paperwork needing parental signatures, the agents can apprehend the child and place them in a foster home if they can find one.
When a child is under the care of the state, there are a number of hours and I believe it is listed at 72 hours, if it is required.