EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The by-laws are being developed as I stand right now and we’re looking at putting out advertising and recruitment options in April of 2017.
I am very disappointed to hear that.
The motion specifically said “a board of management” and we all agreed to that.
I don’t think it has been brought to this House to see if we all agree if it should be an advisory board or not.
I think the intent of the motion was actually to do that separation between the department and the hospital, just so that we can have more accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that a significant amount of information, research, and analysis goes into a review of this nature and it is important to ensure that all input is thoroughly considered.
Last November the Information and Privacy Commissioner tabled a report on her privacy audit of the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
On page 16 of that report she recommends that the hospital be treated in an “equivalent way” to public bodies such as Nunavut Arctic College or the Nunavut Housing Corporation for the purpose of ensuring appropriate accountability for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal health information.
I would note that both of those entities are governed by boards of management.
Can the minister confirm whether his officials received input from the Information and Privacy Commissioner regarding the merits and benefits of establishing a board of management for the Qikiqtani General Hospital or, for that matter, to talk about an advisory board?
As all members will be aware, in the coming period of time the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be appearing before the legislature to discuss any reports and recommendations that she makes to the government.
Specifically to this case, it is recognized that the Department of Health has a different need when it comes to health privacy information and access to information.
It’s not like a normal government department. We’re dealing with medical information.
We’re dealing with a higher level of scrutiny with regard to how health care is provided to Nunavummiut across the territory.
I can’t speak specifically to what feedback we got from the Information and Privacy Commissioner with regard to the specific creation of a board of directors.
I do understand the member’s frustration in how this is proceeding.
At the same time, as all of us know in this room, when it comes to the creation of spending money, which a board of directors changes the fiscal requirements of the Department of Health, it changes the makeup of how reporting and accountability is.
An advisory board is a step, in my opinion, that as we go forward, it will increase community engagement, it will increase accountability, and it will increase transparency.
It may not be as fast as the member or even me originally when I seconded the motion wanted to see.
At the same time we have to recognize that to change the entire framework in an endeavour of this nature overnight is quite cumbersome and it opens us up to potential liabilities.
It is felt at this time that an advisory board is a step in the direction to increase the community engagement, accountability, and transparency of operations of the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
Once again I want to say how disappointed I am that the department has come to that conclusion.
I’m wondering if I could ask the minister to see if he could share that information with us of how they came to that decision where they felt that the advisory board was the best route to go.
As far as sharing all the information with the entire Assembly, I can talk to my officials and correlate all the information and have a meeting with the member.
If she still feels that that is a necessary step, it’s something that I will explore.
Question 575 – 4(3): Municipal Funding Formula (Sammurtok, T)
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Greetings to the people of Chesterfield Inlet and Rankin Inlet, as well as my fellow Nunavummiut.
(interpretation ends) My question today is for the Minister of Community and Government Services.
As the minister is well aware, his department is responsible for the government’s Municipal Funding Program, which provides core contribution funding to municipalities on an annual basis.
These contributions are intended to assist in the cost of delivering municipal programs and services.
Mr. Speaker, the amount of funding that the government has allocated to its Municipal Funding Program has remain unchanged for a number of years.
Can the minister tell us today: when was the last time that the government increased the amount of funding that it allocates to its Municipal Funding Program?
The funding formula has not changed, I believe, in the last five years.
A review has been done and the review is concluded, but the funding formula is currently still the same.
Your first supplementary, Mr. Tom Sammurtok
I guess I have to take that as a non-answer response to my original question.
However, I will go on to another question.
Can the minister tell us how the government determines whether or not it will make changes to this funding program in a given fiscal year?
As I indicated, the funding formula was reviewed and the department feels that it’s adequate right now.
The parties that reviewed the funding formula agree that the hamlets are getting adequate funding right now.
In fact we feel that the funding formula is more than adequate because we have had decreases in the cost of fuel and the cost of energy twice now.
We’re still going with the same funding formula.
As I stated earlier, the funding formula is currently staying the same. That was the recommendation of the parties that reviewed the funding formula for the hamlets.
According to the department’s Municipal Funding Program Policy, and I have a copy here, the amounts of each contribution are determined according to the municipal funding formula, which takes into account populations, “community uniqueness factors,” and the need for funding as a result of forced growth.
This policy also states that “Community uniqueness factors will be reviewed every five years to determine if there are any changes in community circumstances that require an adjustment.”
Can the minister tell us today: when was the last time that his department reviewed the “community uniqueness factors”? I’m asking in particular of Chesterfield Inlet and Rankin Inlet.
I’m not that familiar with the “uniqueness factors,” but I assume that means like in case you have a lot of snow build up or roads washing out.
The funding formula was reviewed and that is part of the funding formula, so it would have been reviewed at the very same time as all the other factors that are looked at in terms of seeing if the municipalities are adequately funded. It was reviewed the last time the municipal funding formula was reviewed.
Question 576 – 4(3): Public Housing Construction (Akoak)
Good afternoon to the community of Gjoa Haven and family watching. Welcome to my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note that the NHC’s tender package for the construction of 20 new public housing units in Gjoa Haven was recently issued and closes on March 10 of 2017.
The community is very much looking forward to these desperately-needed new units.
Mr. Speaker, I was also pleased to note that the tender documents indicate that the prescribed minimum level of Inuit labour as a percentage of total labour by dollar value for this construction will be 25 percent.
Will the minister commit to ensuring that Gjoa Haven’s local housing association is made aware of this requirement so that the LHA can inform local Inuit workers of this employment opportunity?
Mr. Speaker, we work and must work with the local housing associations or authorities in every community.
I agree with him 100 percent that we will and I will ensure that my staff in the department are working closely with the local associations across Nunavut, including my colleague’s community of Gjoa Haven.
Mr. Speaker, the NHC’s tender package for the construction of 20 new public housing units in Gjoa Haven also indicates that “an amount of up to $50,000 will be made available to the contractor to fund training of Inuit workers” in trades and other disciplines.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that we as Inuit already know how to shovel snow and already know how to carry lumber.
Will the minister commit to ensuring that Gjoa Haven’s local housing association is made aware of this requirement so that the LHA can inform local Inuit workers of this training opportunity?
Again I want to make it clear to the member that the corporation would like to and always works closely with the associations and LHOs because they know best how the numbers are in terms of the employment rate and all that.
When it comes to construction, we have to, must, and will continue to work closely with the local associations or authorities when it comes to dealing with issues such as the member is asking about.
I can say that we will continue and I will ensure that this good working relationship continues with both my department and the local associations.
The NHC’s tender package for the construction of 20 new public housing units in Gjoa Haven also indicates that the NNI Policy will apply to the tender.
As the minister is aware, the government’s new NNI Policy comes into effect on April 1, 2017.
Can the minister clarify whether the current NNI Policy or the new NNI Policy will apply to this tender?
The NNI Policy that my friend is asking about, all government tenders, whether it is through my department or other departments, the NNI Policy that is in place is the GN’s policy.
All I can say is that we at the Nunavut Housing Corporation, as well as with our partners, the local partners, associations and authorities, ensure that we abide by the rules of the NNI Policy.
All I can say at this point is that we do follow the NNI Policy when it comes to tendering or awarding of our contracts and so on.
I can say yes, we follow our policy when it comes to the NNI Policy.
I can confirm to my hon. friend at a later date about the specific question that he is asking about, the specific contract or tender that is out today.
I can get back to the member on that specific question about the specific contract and get back to him on a later date.
Question 577 – 4(3): Status of Medical and Duty Travel Contracts (Mikkungwak)
I say “good day” to the people of Baker Lake and Nunavummiut.
(interpretation ends) On June 1, 2016 I asked questions in the Legislative Assembly concerning the government’s contracts for medical and duty travel on scheduled airlines.
At that time the minister of the day publicly stated that the government’s current standing offer agreements will expire on August 31, 2017, which is just a few months from now.
This date was also provided in response to a written question that I subsequently asked concerning medical travel.
Can the minister confirm when the government will be issuing its request for proposals for the new medical and duty travel contracts?
It gives me an opportunity to bring forward and update some information to the House.
At this time, for two of the airlines involved, there has been a negotiated two-year extension to the existing contract, bringing us to August 31, 2019.
That being said, we are working very closely with the Department of Community and Government Services, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to coordinate the best practices to create an appropriate RFP process so that we can get the best value for our dollar.
There are a number of issues leading up to the decision to go for an extension versus an immediate RFP. There was some concern around the codeshare agreement that we have just recently found out has been dissolving between two partners.
At the time it was calculated to be the best financial result possible for the Government of Nunavut to negotiate an extension.
We have extended by two years with two airlines and are in the process of negotiating an extension with a third.
As the minister mentioned extensions, Section 2.2.8 of the government’s 2011 request for proposals for standing offer agreements for medical travel on scheduled airlines provided that the term of the agreement would be for a period of three years, with the possibility of three one-year extensions.
Mr. Speaker, that’s a maximum of six years.
Can the minister clarify under what authority the government has extended the current standing offer agreements?
We do have the authority.
I’m just trying to find the exact clause that it was put under.
It was a negotiated extension. It was in collaboration with Community and Government Services.
Whenever we enter into direct contract negotiations, there is a permission to initiate a negotiated contract at that time with a potential two-year contract, which was based on existing medical travel contracts.
At that time it was recognized that it wouldn’t change the parameters of that contract in any substantial way, so it allowed us to negotiate an extension.
The government’s response to the written question that I asked last year indicated that it spent approximately $50.6 million on scheduled medical travel and approximately $58.8 million on duty travel during the 2015-16 fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, while it makes sense for the Department of Health to have the primary responsibility for managing medical travel contracts and standing offers, it does not necessarily make sense for this department to also be responsible for all of the government’s duty travel.
Can the minister clarify whether the government will be separating its medical and duty travel contracts into two different sets of agreements?
The member raises a very valid question. It has been raised here before in the House and the member has raised it himself.
With this extension, it allows the Government of Nunavut, amongst a number of different involved departments, to take a look at best practices on procurement to decide on what is the best value for residents of the territory and employees of the Government of Nunavut for duty travel as well as medical travel.
At this time I can’t state whether those contracts will be separated or not.
This extension allows us time to explore procurement procedures that will give the best value to us as the Legislative Assembly and the Government of Nunavut overall.
Question 578 – 4(3): Development Partnership Agreements (Enook)
First of all, I say “good day” to my wife and have a good day, Mary.
During last year’s winter sitting I asked questions to the minister concerning the government’s Development Partnership Agreement Policy, which expired at the end of March of 2016.
At that time the minister publicly stated in this House that the Department of Economic Development and Transportation was working with the Department of Finance to “develop a replacement” for the DPA program.
My question to the minister is: can you update us today on the status of this work?
Under the development partnership agreement, the mining companies were able to claim part of their fuel tax based on a review of what assistance they provided to the communities and residents of Nunavut.
I can state today that the fuel tax rebate can no longer be claimed by mining companies anymore.
I don’t think my question was answered.
You said that you were working on a replacement partnership development agreement and I asked about the status.
However, I will go to my first supplementary.
Just before Christmas the government announced that its Fuel Tax Rebate Program was being changed so that the rebate “will no longer be available to firms using the fuel for mining development, extraction or reclamation.”
New regulations to this effect were published last month in the Nunavut Gazette.
Under the government’s former Development Partnership Agreement Policy, companies that entered into DPAs with the government to benefit communities impacted by mining projects would be eligible for fuel tax rebates.
I’m asking now: what incentives is the government considering offering to companies under its replacement program?
We are still working on amendments to the agreement with the Department of Finance.
On your question on how the communities can benefit financially from mining companies, the agreement is being phased out. There was one company that had a partnership agreement with the government and we don’t have any other partnership agreements.
What we are working on instead is making arrangements with mineral exploration companies for the future. Our position is it would be better to have exploration companies receive benefits.
We are not looking at assisting the operating mining companies as they are profitable.
Our government has indicated that they were going to come up with a replacement policy.
I have spoken clearly and consistently on the need for communities to be closely consulted when it comes to proposals that would impact them.
As the minister is well aware, the community of Pond Inlet is the most significantly impacted by the Mary River project.
Can the minister indicate how the community is being consulted on the design of the government’s replacement for the development partnership agreement program?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the member for pointing that out.
I can ask my officials exactly what work they have done with your community to date and provide that information to my colleague.
An Hon. Member (interpretation): It’s Mr. Speaker.
Question 579 – 4(3): Activities of the Makigiaqta Inuit Training Corporation (Joanasie)
Both the Premier of Nunavut and the Minister of Education sit on the board of directors of the Makigiaqta Inuit Training Corporation.
Earlier this month the minister jointly announced with NTI approximately $3.0 million in funding for a dozen different training initiatives that are intended to “provide Inuit with employment skills,” and I applaud this work.
This announcement also indicated that the Makigiaqta Inuit Training Corporation has, and I quote, “established an advisory council, developed a work plan and a framework for a strategic plan…”
For the benefit of people following our proceedings today, can the minister confirm who belongs to the Makigiaqta Inuit Training Corporation’s advisory council?
Hon. Paul Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank my colleague for looking into that.
Yes, it’s true that our Premier and I sit on the Makigiaqta board.
I think he’s asking about the advisory council. We select the members from the government and NTI representatives who sit on that council.
The Associate Deputy Minister, Virginia Mearns, sits on the council, as well as Richard Paton from Nunavut Arctic College.
Those are government representatives and the rest of them are appointed by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
I’m just telling you about the ones from the government.
For the benefit of the public record, will the minister commit to tabling a copy of the Makigiaqta Inuit Training Corporation’s work plan and budget in the Legislative Assembly before the end of our current winter sitting?
Please remember that this came about after Nunavut Tunngavik took the federal government to court.
The money that will be spent comes from Makigiaqta and it will mostly be up to Nunavut Tunngavik to put this out on the public record.
We have also heard through the media that NTI is in a better position to answer that question because the money is held by them.
I also thank the minister for elaborating on that.
As the minister is aware, I have been a strong proponent of training programs and investments for Inuit employees of the government.
Can the minister describe how the Makigiaqta Inuit Training Corporation works with the Government of Nunavut to ensure that its training initiatives are complementary?
The Makigiaqta board recently held its meeting and we work very closely with them because we have the mandate as government representatives. We work very closely with the NTI representatives who are board members of Makigiaqta.
It’s evident that we do get a clearer understanding after a meeting.
As a government, we get a better idea of what would be best to use.
This is just at its initial stage.
Let us remember that the Makigiaqta corporation is quite new, so we still have quite a bit to deal with.
We do have a good working relationship and understanding amongst the two entities. The Government of Nunavut officials work closely with them and I know the government and NTI communicate on a daily basis.
The representatives who sit on the advisory council get regular reports of what we should be doing or what is happening within Makigiaqta.
I just want to reiterate that we have a good working relationship.
Question 580 – 4(3): Status of Mental Health Treatment Services in Nunavut (Sammurtok, A)
Mr. Speaker, for some time now the department had plans to renovate and repurpose the children’s group home in Rankin Inlet to a mental health transition facility.
We have been given to understand that the costs to renovate the facility were too high to proceed with that initiative.
Can the minister provide an update on what plans are currently being considered to build a mental health transition facility in the community of Rankin Inlet?
The member, I think, is quite well aware that the Department of Health is exploring many different options for building a new mental health facility in Rankin Inlet.
As recently as last week when the federal Minister of Health was here, it was a topic that I again raised with her on the importance of creating mental health facilities in the territory to provide care to our residents.
I can assure the member that there are numerous discussions ongoing.
It’s a very high priority of this government to bring mental health services to be able to stay within the territory.
Some of the services planned to be delivered at the mental health transition facility were related to addictions and recovery.
Can the minister clearly describe what specific plans are currently in place to address addictions treatment needs within the territory of Nunavut?
I thank the member for that question. It’s a very important issue.
The Department of Health works with a lot of organizations at the community level and a lot of professionals to be able to deal with mental health and specifically addictions, as the member highlights.
There are a number of qualified people in our communities that assist people through the evaluation to determine whether they’re able to help at the community level for addictions counselling and determine whether a residential treatment facility is needed to provide them that level of care.
At this time, again, it is part of the evaluation whenever we look at exploring opportunities to provide infrastructure within the territory. Addictions counselling is very high on the priority list to examine.
We do have to make sure that we’re able to provide the level of care that people expect.
We have good partnerships with outside organizations right now.
That being said, the goal of all health care that the Department of Health provides and my goal as the minister responsible for it is to provide care closer to home and at home whenever and wherever possible.
I recognize that sending individuals away from their home and culture is not always successful in treating their substance abuse issues because, when they come back home, the circumstances which led them to that abuse are still there.
On the other hand, having mobile treatment units visit communities for short periods of time risks leaving clients without ongoing support in their home community when the program is completed.
Can the minister confirm whether any serious analysis has been undertaken to determine the benefits and feasibility of opening a permanent treatment centre in Nunavut?
I sincerely want to thank the member for continuing the dialogue on this important issue.
Whenever we’re dealing with mental health and specifically, as the member raises, the addictions residential treatment, it doesn’t always work the first time.