EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Once we felt comfortable and confident, we determined that the price of the New Holland equipment was the lowest and that it was capable of performing the functions required of it, that’s what we went with.
Question 057 – 3(2): Daycare Space in Chesterfield Inlet (Ningeongan)
Just recently, I received a letter from Chesterfield Inlet in regard to its current daycare facility.
It’s been over 40 years since this building was erected. It used to be a residential home which was converted into a daycare centre.
The daycare used to be a three-bedroom house and due to its age, there have been previous attempts to renovate it. These attempts have revealed more underlying problems which are too extensive to repair, as outlined in the letter. It’s now quite apparent that they require a new daycare centre in Chesterfield Inlet.
As indicated in the department’s business plan for 2009-2010, under Early Childhood Education, one of the priorities is to “Develop alternative funding arrangements for licensed child care facilities.”
For that reason, I would like to ask the minister what is included in renovation projects for daycares, or what other assistance can be provided to Chesterfield Inlet or other communities in Nunavut that have daycare facilities.
Minister of Education, (interpretation ends) Hon. Louis Tapardjuk.
That was our initiative and I also made a Minister’s Statement in regard to that matter.
In the past, if an individual was 18 years of age or older, they weren’t able to be provided support for daycare if they were going to school.
I mentioned earlier that the age requirement for the support we provide to young parents has been amended to 19 years of age or older. Previously, we only assisted those students who were 18 and under, but we will now be able to provide support to students who require daycare for their children.
We’re now able to provide support to students 19 years of age or older to assist them in continuing with their education and this was the change we made in the program, Mr. Speaker.
The daycare has a committee and the community of Chesterfield Inlet is interested in getting a new daycare centre, but they don’t know who to contact.
I was asking if our government could provide funding to anyone who is requesting to get a new daycare centre.
There are children being taken care of while the parents are going to work. So I would like to know if the department can provide funding for communities that would like to get new daycare centres.
We have funding for communities that need to construct their initial daycare centre.
We have a line item in our budget for daycare initiatives and we can provide some support for that.
In regard to his question about renovation of existing daycare centres, I would like to take his question as notice. I can’t provide a response at this time in regard to the renovation program or additional daycare centre construction, so I will have to take his question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
At this time, your question has been taken as notice and he will get back to you once he gets his information.
Question 058 – 3(2): Rules for Use of Health and Social Services Vehicles in Communities (Elliott)
My question is directed towards the Minister of Health and Social Services, the Hon. Tagak Curley.
I have some health related questions that I would like to ask.
In my Members’ Statement, I was bringing up the issue of people with disabilities in terms of people who are in wheelchairs and whatnot.
I know that most health centres across Nunavut have vehicles that are used by health care staff.
Could the minister explain what some of the rules are on the use of those vehicles?
With respect to his question, yes, I do understand the context, but we don’t have specific rules for people with disabilities.
There are individuals who assist these people out of the goodness of their hearts. But we, as the Department of Health and Social Services, are indeed responsible for disabled people. However, we don’t provide funding to the communities for that.
There are many underlying reasons for this, but I can only provide that as a response.
I wasn’t actually asking whether there was funding provided for vehicles, I was asking what the rules are for the vehicles that are actually in the communities that the nurses use.
What I’m trying to ask is: can those vehicles be used to transport people with disabilities either to and from medical appointments or to community events? Is it possible in the guidelines for the use of those vehicles?
I imagine it has to do with insurance and stuff like that, but is there an ability to do that?
I think I made it quite clear in Inuktitut, in my language anyways, if you go back to my own Inuktitut verbatim, that there is neither funding nor vehicles available for disabled individuals in communities due to a number of reasons.
With my Inuktitut comments, I’ll translate for myself.
The reason is that there are liability issues and there would have to be a licensed operator to handle all of that. So in view of that, we are very cautious to get into that kind of stuff until we have clarified all of our policies and procedures that we are currently reviewing at the moment.
I thank the minister for that question.
I realize there are usually, especially with government departments and whatnot, different liabilities that we have to work towards and think about.
My next question is in regard to home care workers. I know there has been a push over the years to make sure that people end up staying in the community to get the care that they need.
With an aging population, how do you go about getting home care workers in your community?
I have three communities to sort of watch over and one of my communities does have home care workers and the other two do not. There are a couple of people in Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay that could benefit from a home care worker.
What do we do to ensure that we get that in those two communities that don’t have them?
The minister is not responsible for your question because you were asking about the use of vehicles.
If you would like to ask other questions, please raise your hand again.
Question 059 – 3(2): Bridge for Sylvia Grinnell River Update (Okalik)
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Last year, the federal government agreed to provide funding for the construction of a bridge here in Iqaluit. They agreed to build a bridge across the Sylvia Grinnell River which would be for public use, especially by Inuit hunters who have wanted to be able to cross the river.
The federal government agreed that this project could proceed. However, we haven’t been informed on the status to date.
I would like to ask our Premier about that.
Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Hon. Eva Aariak.
The Department of Environment is responsible for that project.
Thank you for the question from the hon. member.
I believe he is referring to the Sylvia Grinnell Bridge in Iqaluit and yes, we are currently reviewing this bridge.
We have discussed this at cabinet and we are proceeding in the direction of a pedestrian bridge. We’re reviewing the whole bridge plan with all of the original partners and partnerships involved to try and put these in place again because they have all terminated these agreements in the sense that all of the funding has lapsed.
So we’re trying to get all arrangements and commitments into place at this time with the Department of National Defence, Trails Canada, and the Rotary Club.
Once we have these further commitments in place, we will move forward and then I would advise the member at that time where we are.
Did I hear correctly that the original residents of Iqaluit, the hunters who wanted the ability to cross the bridge with their snowmobiles and four-wheelers, who have been requesting this bridge for a long time, are being denied?
I would like to advise the hon. member that no, we are not denying anybody’s request.
Originally, this bridge is identified as a pedestrian bridge under the park master plan for the Sylvia Grinnell Park.
We have all of the correspondence and documentation from the City of Iqaluit and all interested groups and parties of Iqaluit, and everybody is in support of a pedestrian bridge.
It was under the understanding that the Canadian military was going to construct and erect the pedestrian bridge and that is their gift-in-kind to us.
We have had discussions with the military so far.
They are reviewing the request and their offer of a pedestrian bridge and trying to renew that commitment to us right now.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Your second supplementary, Mr. Okalik.
I apologize to the original residents of Iqaluit because the federal government had agreed that the bridge could be used by harvesters. I regret that our government has turned their backs on the hunters and I apologize.
Will you commit to reviewing that issue again?
The minister stated that they reviewed the correspondence on the matter, but public announcements were made via the radio that this bridge would be used by anyone, whether it be pedestrians or harvesters with snowmobiles or four-wheelers.
So what happened to the agreement; has it been lost?
Again I wish to advise the member, and I have met with General Millar of the Department of National Defence, the commitment and intent for this project was always a pedestrian bridge.
I would appreciate and would like to receive any correspondence that the member has that says anything different than that.
We were meeting with all our partners that are involved, we have discussed this in cabinet, and we are proceeding with the direction of a pedestrian bridge.
Last year, it was the centre of several news stories on the radio and there was a written agreement with the federal government that this bridge could be used by hunters, especially original residents of Iqaluit.
Now, we have been informed that the original reason for the construction of the bridge is no longer applicable as it will be just a pedestrian bridge.
I sincerely apologize to the Iqaluit residents that this government has turned its back on them.
That sounded more like a comment. Mr. Shewchuk, would you like to respond?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: No, thank you.
Question 060 – 3(2): Telehandler Purchase (Schell)
My question is for the housing minister.
On this quote here for 22 telehandler units from the farm supplier that was dated March 9, I’m really impressed that they were able to analyze it all in one day and come up with a decision, but that could maybe explain why there’s so much overtime at the Housing Corporation.
That same day, they made a decision that the farm supplier was the best deal. That same day, they got a hold of the farm supplier on March 9 and requested a price for five units. It’s surprising, they had it analyzed in one day and they got a price for five on the same day.
I would like to know how they did that.
We have very efficient and effective staff at the Housing Corporation, and I thank the member for pointing out their strengths… no, Mr. Speaker, I can’t give him an exact reason why.
But I could only assume that, as indicated, discussions were going on between all of the people who were asked for a quotation as far as exactly what type of equipment and what was required. So at the end of the day, when the time came, everyone was in agreement as to what the technical specifications were; it was just a matter of waiting for the numbers.
That would be my guess, but I will commit to looking into it and if it is different from that, I’ll let the member know.
I would like to know who those people were involved in that.
I’m sure that all of the other government departments would be glad to pick them up because they’re very efficient.
Going back to what I said earlier, like I say, we’re not comparing apples to apples here when we’re talking farm equipment and when we’re talking CAT telehandlers. I specified to you that there were three different things included in the CAT that wasn’t included in the New Holland.
If you take into account, the CAT product was $1,000 less.
So I just don’t understand how you could compare the two notes and then say, “Well, the farm supplier was the cheaper one.” They’re not including the same thing, so I would like to have that explained to me.
By tomorrow, if you can explain to me why the farm supplier was chosen even though they don’t have the same specs as the CAT.
It’s times like this when I wish I was a better artist than I am, I could have drawn a very clear picture for the member.
Mr. Speaker, in any piece of equipment you buy, if you look at two pick-up trucks between Ford and Dodge, there’s going to be differences.
Nothing is the same. Otherwise, there would only be one manufacturer out there making equipment.
Naturally, there are going to be differences in different manufacturers as far as what type of equipment they have included or required in their particular design of a piece of equipment. As the member pointed out, I did ask my officials in the Housing Corporation to ensure what are the differences between the two pieces of equipment. And there are basically about three real differences, Mr. Speaker.
One is that the CAT, which the member is a proud owner of, has a lift capacity of 6,500 lbs. and the New Holland telehandler has a lift capacity of 7,500 lbs. Both of them are capable of doing what we need them to do.
I think the most that they would be lifting is to lift plywood up to the second storey roof at 20 feet, so both are very able to perform that task.
The other difference is the CAT boom is a 42-foot boom and the New Holland boom is a 31-foot boom.
As I indicated earlier, we’re looking at two-storey or one-storey buildings.
I think the maximum we would need for the boom would be 20 feet to go out, unless someone wanted to use it, if they’re net was a little longer than that, to put their net out across the river.
The other difference, and the member pointed that out, and it was something that was identified as an issue is that the CAT package has hydraulic reservoir heaters in them. When we confirmed with New Holland, they had indicated that they have an arctic oil package that would address that same issue and deal with it so that it would still be able to work under those cold conditions.
Those are the main differences. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, it was determined that both pieces of equipment could perform the function required of them.
And, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, based on government policy, and the corporation did follow it, after the NNI adjustment, the Case Toromont bid was still $61,860 higher than the New Holland bid, so we went with the cheaper price.
I guess the minister is just not going to get that there’s a difference here. This one has a lift hook which was specified as $5,000, outriggers are $9,000 and you will find out that you will probably need them, and then if you take the difference of the NNI Policy, the CAT was $1,000 cheaper.
I just don’t see… were there any specs when this was quoted?
I mean, what did you do? Did you just go to somebody? Like if I went down to a Volkswagen dealer and I say, “I don’t need the spare tire,” and the other guy includes the spare tire… I mean there should have been some specs put in when you got the quotes because that’s why Toromont CAT consistently asks, “Why is this not tendered?”
Because when you do a tender, everything is itemized.
They tried to get a hold of people over there at housing in order to try to get what has to be included and had no returns on it. So basically, everybody put in whatever they thought they should need.
Well, that’s not fair. You’re not comparing apples to apples. You’re comparing two different units with two different types of specs for it.
So I find the way this was done rather confusing and what I also find very interesting is, of course, that this is in the Morrisburg area, which is where the marshaller happens to be, where the consulting firm happens to be, and I hear Peter Scott is moving down there.
I don’t know, but maybe a guy should be looking down there to purchase some other things. It looks like it’s a good place to buy stuff and to live.
So my question is: why were there not proper specs done?
A Point of Order has been called. Mr. Tootoo.
While I’m not trying to quash the member’s comments and I look forward to answering legitimate questions, but it is against our Rules to make accusations and implying ulterior motives to anybody.
And that’s exactly what the member was doing.
I have no problem answering his questions if he would stick to questions and not make allegations. So I would ask that if he could withdraw those comments and just stick to the questions, I’ve got the answers.
I’ll take those things out. I mean, I can leave the consulting firm in there because they were involved in this tender, but I will take the other two comments out.
And I guess my question is I just want…
Speaker: Mr. Schell, can you give me a minute.
The Point of Order was accepted by Mr. Schell.
Mr. Schell, I would like to caution you, please do not use personal names in your questioning or comments.
I apologize for that. I guess all I’m trying to find out is why there wasn’t a proper quotation done on this with specs.
They should have got a hold of somebody so that we’re comparing apples to apples. Unfortunately, we’re not and it’s very misleading to both of the actual suppliers because they don’t really know what they are bidding on.
It’s quite clear that the member has some personal concerns with this issue and like I said, I told him in my office and his office, and anywhere he asked me about it, “Just tell me what you want to know and I’ll get the information for you.”
Mr. Speaker, I do want to set the record straight, so if the member can provide the exact times when.
He had indicated that one of the companies that was asked for a quotation was requesting information and that they weren’t gotten back to.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the emails or the questions that were asked, though the member did point that out to me outside of the House earlier and I did check into it and said that the only correspondence back and forth on questions as far as, “Should it include this?
Should this be in there?”
You know, emails that were received... the one on February 12 was received at 11:40 in the morning and was responded to, Mr. Speaker, on the very same day at 1:57 in the afternoon.
Another email on February 9 requesting that type of information and clarification at 12:22 in the afternoon and they were responded to at 5:29 that same day.
So I don’t know if the member may want to check with his source at Case Toromont to make sure that they are providing him with accurate information.
Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated and I don’t know how much clearer I could be, the member indicated that he doesn’t get it and I don’t think he will get it, it’s the fact that we have two pieces of equipment and naturally, there are going to be differences and different manufacturers that it’s not going to be identical.
If you buy two vehicles, they’re not the same. But both pieces of equipment have the capability to do the job.
Mr. Speaker, I must also point out the fact that when the Housing Corporation did the request for quotations, they had indicated and they did follow up with both Case and New Holland people saying, “Okay, do we need anything else?” And there were suggestions of specific things to be included in the price put forth by both companies and both companies were made well aware of what those requirements were prior to submitting their quotations.
So I don’t know how much clearer than that I could get, Mr. Speaker, but I’m sure the member has more questions and I look forward to continuing to provide him with the information he needs.
Yes, I do have to make a comment on the Housing Corporation.
They do get the information to you but they give you a little piece at a time. You ask a question, and I asked this question right from the start, and they give you a little piece of paper and say, “Well, maybe that will shut him up for a while,” and then you ask them and then you get another piece of paper.
It seems to take forever to try to get the actual answer, which makes it very suspicious as to what’s going on there.
That’s a trick I learned a long time ago as a regular member, if you want, you have to be very careful of how you word your question because you get the answer to the question you ask.
The member indicated that we’re just providing him dribs and drabs of information. Mr. Speaker, the member asked us last week for what all of the specs that were included in that, the information was provided to him.
He asked us for the total price, we provided him with that information.
I don’t know where he’s coming from as far as, generally, the question he asked us, we gave him the answer.
He asked us for a detailed listing with both suppliers of what was included in their bid, the information was provided to him.
So, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how, unless he wants to be clearer in outlining in his questions as to exactly what he’s looking for, which is something that I have talked to him about and said, “Whatever it is you want to know, let me know.
I’ll get the information for you.” But I and my staff have provided all of the information that has been requested by the member in answering his questions.
And if he has thought up of something else once he has received that information, well, I don’t know that until he asks it again.
So if you want more information, just be clear in what you’re asking for and we will be more than happy to provide the information to him, which is, as I have indicated to him in the past, what we would be more than happy to do.
Mr. Speaker, the member and his colleague from Iqaluit West keep referring to the fact that it’s farm equipment. I believe New Holland doesn’t just produce farm equipment.
It would be like saying, if you go to Canadian Tire, they don’t just sell tires at Canadian Tire. It’s the same type of scenario.
Just because it is in the farming area and the majority of it is farm equipment, New Holland doesn’t just produce farm equipment.
Question 061 – 3(2): NHC’s Purchase of Telehandlers (Elliott)
Originally, I had asked questions about home care workers to the Minister of Health and Social Services, but I think I’ll ask that question tomorrow because I want to get in on these questions happening today in regard to what’s happening with the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission.
I have been sitting here listening and kind of interested and intrigued as to what is actually going on.
As the questions were going around, Mr. Schell actually had mentioned about the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, and I might not have the technical words right because I’m not into dealing with telebooms, or farm equipment, or whatever.
Could the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission make a commitment to contact that department and ask if the specifications meet their needs in terms of whether it’s farm equipment or industrial equipment?
That way, we will know whether this equipment is going to be able to be used here before it gets here.
Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, Hon. Tagak Curley.
I appreciate the concern of the member, but I believe that the member knows that we cannot comment on hypothetical cases; we don’t have a case at the moment. WSCC deals with cases that are quite different from this kind of stuff, so I’m not prepared to comment on the question further.
I wasn’t actually asking the minister to make a comment on his own, I was asking if he could contact the WSCC, which he’s responsible for, and make inquiries.
Now, my understanding is that he’s implying that if there’s a claim at the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, and then they deal with it.
My understanding of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission is they’re more preventative and they want to get the information out there and make sure the accidents don’t happen.