EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Why is it then that in the 1970s, they did blasting in carrying out their seismic studies? Are those seismic studies not good enough that they are required to do more blasting?
Throughout the years, technologies change.
One of the proposals for that area is a marine conservation area. One of the requirements is that a biological, ecological, and geological survey be done pending approval of anything.
All of these are necessary requirements to be done before any agreement is reached for such areas as a marine conservation area, national or territorial parks.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): I don’t think I got the response or I don’t quite understand it. When they do a seismic study, are they going to find out how many fish and narwhal pods there are or are they trying to find undersea petroleum resources?
Can he clarify that for me, please?
No, the seismic testing is not for determining the number of marine animals that are within the area.
The seismic testing is exactly that; the mineral potential, oil and gas potential, and so forth.
So the purpose of the seismic survey is to find out what kind of minerals there are and to determine how much oil and gas reserves might be there. In other words, if there is enough oil for the purpose of production in the future, it will not be set aside as what you want to call a marine mammal protective area. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Whether that may be the case or not, it is up to the people of Nunavut to decide whether the area becomes a marine conservation protected area or for other uses, such as mineral, oil, and gas extraction, but that is determined by the people of Nunavut.
The exercise of seismic requirement is a requirement before any conservation area is declared a conservation area. It is part of the feasibility study to indicate and determine where the boundaries are going to be for any area that is going to be managed or considered as a conservation area, national park, or territorial park.
Speaker: Good timing, Mr. Taptuna.
If my colleagues do not mind, I would like to return to Item 5 of the (interpretation ends) Orders of the Day. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Komoartok is seeking unanimous consent to return to Item 5, Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
Are the any nays?
There are none. We have returned to Item 5.
Mr. Komoartok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleagues.
I want to recognize these young people who came in after we had recognition of visitors.
They are both from my community of Pangnirtung, but they live in Iqaluit and they go back and forth between Pangnirtung and Iqaluit.
It is quite obvious that they will be future community leaders.
They work really hard to complete their education. Kanayuk Karpik and Solomon Ryan are currently watching.
Let us celebrate their accomplishments today.
Tabled Document 161 – 3(2): Considerations Regarding an Open Market System for Annual Sealift – Summary Report – December 2009 (Kusugak)
I am pleased to table the following document: Considerations Regarding an Open Market System for Annual Sealift – Summary Report – December 2009.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Can we have that document brought forward to the table, please.
Tabled Documents 13 – 3(2), 66 – 3(2), 99 –3(2), and 100 – 3(2) with Mr. Okalik in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:05 and Committee resumed at 15:36
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Tabled Documents 13 – 3(2), 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2).
We wish to continue with the review of the tabled documents as noted: 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), 100 – 3(2), and 13 – 3(2).
We will start with the Department of the Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, followed by the Department of Health and Social Services. If time permits, we would like to proceed with the departments of Finance and Justice, Mr. Chairman.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with Tabled Document 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2)?
We can start off with the meeting.
I’ll ask our Premier, Eva Aariak, to make her opening comments.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
It is my pleasure to make an appearance before you as Premier and Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
As you have already heard from Minister Kusugak, the Government of Nunavut believes we receive the best value for public dollars spent through competitive bidding processes.
I am personally committed to transparent and accountable contracting and have already directed my department to reduce the use of sole source contracting as much as possible.
Even our government is trying to use fewer sole source contracts as much as possible so that we can hire qualified people in our departments and to make sure that they provide programs and services.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening comments. I will be pleased to answer any questions the members may have about the procurement and contracting activities of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs in the 2008-09 fiscal year.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Premier Aariak.
Are you going to be bringing any officials to the witness table with you?
Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can escort the Premier’s officials in, please.
The staff is at the witness table.
Madam Premier, if you can introduce your officials, please.
To my right is Markus Weber, Deputy Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, and to my left is Scott Marriott from Corporate Affairs.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Premier. I welcome your officials. I’m sure that my colleagues will have questions and we will just continue the rules from yesterday.
For your information, you have 10 minutes to speak.
I want to start first by commenting about my opening comments yesterday. I did provide them to Minister Kusugak as he requested yesterday.
I want to point out that those were actually my comments that I had prepared and not comments of the Committee as a Whole, just so that the understanding is out there.
My first question is: the government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded a $72,000 contract in 2008-09 for the services of Nunavut’s chief devolution negotiator.
It’s contract C1350. Given that your department’s current business plan indicates that formal devolution negotiations have not yet started, what services did the individual actually provide to the government?
Ms. Premier, can you try and respond?
We have a negotiator who is Tony Penikett. (interpretation ends) Tony Penikett had to negotiate the protocol, not the devolution negotiation but the protocol, with the Government of Canada. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So the contract was actually for developing the process for the protocol.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Yes. (interpretation ends) When we are working on a protocol, we have to ensure that we are taking the right steps in developing the protocol and we need someone to do that, which would be Tony Penikett. (interpretation) Thank you.
In your department, how many people are actually hired on as full-time staff members to handle the file of devolution?
My deputy, Markus Weber, will respond.
All together, there are seven person-years, or seven positions, in the Devolution Division.
Currently, four of those are staffed. We have an acting director and three other staff members currently working there.
The negotiations are not currently ongoing, but we hope to get them going this year and we will be working actively towards that. So we will be staffing that division this year.
You had mentioned that there are seven person-year positions but only four [are filled] and you also mentioned that devolution actually hasn’t started in terms of negotiations.
It just makes me wonder.
What are those four people doing and why couldn’t they have handled the work? Did they not have the expertise that was required to do the work?
Markus Weber will respond.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Weber.
The expenditure, the $72,000 contract, was for the 2008-09 year.
The activity level was somewhat different than it is now. It wasn’t just a matter of research, there were also ongoing negotiations. There weren’t negotiations of a devolution agreement; there were negotiations around a devolution protocol, a protocol for how the negotiations will proceed.
All parties were active in that process, including the GN but also NTI and the federal government.
Mr. Penikett was hired as a consultant because of the specialized expertise that he brought to the position. We will re-examine as we enter into negotiations. When the federal government has a negotiation protocol, we will again look at whether this is done by a consultant or by staff.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded a $29,900 sole source contract in 2008-09 to the Conference Board of Canada to prepare a report on the economic and fiscal impact of devolution.
Your department’s Devolution Division has, as you mentioned, seven positions but four of them are filled.
Why did the government need to hire an outside organization to do the work?
Who would like to respond to that question? Premier Aariak.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): My deputy, Markus Weber, will continue to respond to these questions.
At that time, the staffing of the division was actually fairly good.
We have grown the size of the division by creating some new positions in anticipation that we will need to negotiate very soon.
But at the time, we needed the Conference Board of Canada for some specialized expertise. The focus of the research that they did was primarily on ensuring that we get a framework for devolution that will give us a net fiscal benefit for this territory and that was the extent of the work that they did.
They were not at the table with us when we were negotiating the protocol, they did some specialized research.
Again, my limited knowledge of devolution and how it works: when you talk about the economic and fiscal impact of devolution, does this research include, actually, once it’s in place and money starts coming and flowing to the territory for different things, a plan of how to spend that money properly?
I’m just thinking ahead with the Nunavut Housing Trust and things like that, that we wouldn’t want to have an influx of money and not be able to handle it.
Is research covered under that in terms of what you are doing with research?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation) Mr. Weber, you don’t mind answering?
The focus is on ensuring that there is a net fiscal benefit to Nunavut. We don’t want devolution to cost us money. We want to exercise control over our land, so that is the focus ultimately.
In the very long term, there may prove to be a positive fiscal benefit. At that point, we will have to ensure that we use those resources appropriately, but the research currently is not focused on that.
The financial promise of devolution lies quite some time into the future.
The exercise of control over our land is the primary focus at this point, but the research that we did do was to ensure that that financial promise that is far into the future happens and that in the meantime, we don’t have a net fiscal loss.
Would the Premier be willing to commit to tabling the report that was produced?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation) Premier.
This was done quite a while back and we will look into it and provide the information to the House.
My next question is in regard to contract C1286.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded a $48,000 sole source contract to Circumpolar Consulting in 2008-09 for “devolution division special projects.”
Your department’s devolution division again has people hired.
I’m just wondering why the government needs to go out and sole source a contract for this.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In response to your last question, you wanted information on the negotiation aspect of it tabled in the House.
We have to look into that again because its content is in negotiation.
We cannot devolve all of the negotiation information to the House and that’s why we have to review the negotiation part of it.
Markus will also respond to his question.
That particular contract again related to devolution activity and the primary focus of that was around capacity building.
Capacity building is an argument that is always brought forward for the reason that devolution should not happen, but on the other hand, it’s also a reason that devolution should happen.
We were doing some anticipatory research to prepare us for what, at that point, was expected to be a very short timeframe for negotiations. The government at the time thought that there might be an opportunity for negotiations to begin in the immediate future.
Despite the fact that we had staff, we needed additional help and that was the purpose of those consulting contracts.
Aside from the chief negotiator who still remains on contract, these other contracts are no longer in existence.
We will re-examine whether we can do things with staff or whether we need specialized advice at times. This is a very specialized field and requires specialized knowledge.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded a $25,700 sole source contract in 2008-09 to the Nunavut Development Corporation for Nunavut Day coasters and bookmarks.
Why did the department not issue a public tender or RFP for this contract?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) The contract referred to is C1192 for the benefit of the witnesses. (interpretation) Premier.
Sometimes if we need to do things on an emergency basis, we have to ask the same contractor.
We are trying to stop sole source contracts within our department.
Other departments are now working hard to keep away from sole source contracting, but in emergency situations, we do sole source contracting.
I understand that in emergency cases, like we had the example of the Pangnirtung Bridge and whatnot in an emergency case, but was the government not aware of when Nunavut Day was?
Chairman: Yes, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation) Premier.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): It is evident that it was planned and on top of that plan, they wanted to do more work. They provided celebration gifts to all communities in Nunavut during that time.
After I saw that, I told them not to do that again if at all possible.
I thank my staff for listening to my advice.
The other concern that I had was this specific sole contract. It’s nice to know that the Nunavut Development Corporation was used and hopefully, the coasters and bookmarks that came didn’t have “Made in China” on them.
What I would hope to see is that we’ve got a lot of artists and different people in the communities who could have used funding and shown artwork from across Nunavut.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded a $60,000 sole source contract in 2008-09, that’s contract C207, to Hill and Knowlton for consulting services.
What specific services did this company actually provide to the government and is the government still using this company to do work?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): First of all I thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Hill and Knowlton is used as a general retainer for our office to get information and research with respect to relationships with other governments, (interpretation) especially down in Ottawa.
The company is down in Ottawa. We have to work with the federal government within the Department of EIA and we use that consulting service.
I have just gone through four different examples of sole source contacts that the government has given.
For these contracts, we had learned yesterday that CGS has nothing with contracting with another department.
Each department does the contracting and the evaluation of contracts themselves.
Within your department, who gets to make the decisions for sole source contracts?
The deputy ministers are responsible for dealing with that.
At the same time, we were also told that the deputy minister does sign them. Is it the deputy minister as well who writes up the activities that will be done under each of the contracts or are there other people within your department that do that?
Who can respond? Madam Premier.
According to the services that we need to provide, the deputy minister usually is responsible. If they require assistance, they can jointly work together.
I do want to supplement that, as I stated in my opening comments, we’re trying to reduce the use of sole source contracting as much as possible.
Sometimes when it’s necessary, we do sole source contracting. We’re now trying to reduce the use of sole source contracting.
Is it also the deputy minister’s responsibility to evaluate the contract in terms of were the objectives met, or was the contract successful, did the government get the value for its money?
The deputy minister would be responsible to sign off contracts.
The staff in other departments can set those up, but the deputy minister is the head.
I wanted to ask questions on contract C209. The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded a $61,920 sole source contract in 2008-09 to Aarluk Consulting to prepare a proposal for an energy strategy.
With regard to that contract, it is part of the Ikummatiit Energy Strategy work to prepare towards the completion of the strategy. This strategy is to look at energy issues.
So you are saying that the Ikummatiit, which was finished in September of 2007, they are taking that sort of report and coming up with a strategy to implement it within the government.
We have already tabled it in the House and I would be pleased to give you a copy.
Just for clarification, are you saying the strategy is finished and it was tabled in the House? I have a copy. Is this what you are talking about?
So you are saying that Aarluk Consulting prepared this.
We are working on it and right now, we are getting help from Aarluk Consulting.
Mr. Elliott: So I’ll go back to my original questions.
Help with what? What exactly are they helping you with? Creating the strategy that is going to be implemented, or what are they helping you with?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The work is on the implementation plan of this strategy. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m assuming that since the money was given to Aarluk between the fiscal year of 2008-09, the work is done, the implementation plan is done.
Will you be tabling that as well?
It is quite a large document and it takes more than one individual and other departments to review it.
It is not completed; we are still working on it. The Department of EIA is working with other departments.
So is the Aarluk Consulting part of this finished? Did they get paid their $61,000 or is that not done as well?
I don’t deal with the day-to-day operations as the Premier, so I will have Markus Weber respond to that question.
I don’t have the exact details of the number of dollars spent. This was the award value of the contract. I don’t have the exact number of the dollars spent on that contract.
The work of creating the implementation plan is continuing and it is an interdepartmental initiative, largely with staff participating.
The consultant element is ancillary. It’s the Department of EIA that’s involved through the Energy Secretariat and is coordinating the implementation plan, but the Department of Community and Government Services and the Nunavut Housing Corporation especially are also actively involved in creating a plan for implementation of that strategy.
It’s our hope that we can get that done this fiscal year.
You had mentioned the Energy Secretariat. Why did the staff in that department not perform this work?
At the time, there was only a very limited number of staff, and these are very complex and technical implementation plans. The strategy speaks generally to what the government will do in terms of energy awareness and energy conservation. The plans are very detailed and they entail exactly how we will conserve energy in government owned assets, for example.
So it requires very technical and detailed knowledge. For that reason, the consultants were retained to assist with the work.
In previous answers, the Premier said that on certain occasions when it’s an emergency, they use sole source contracts and because of special technical... for devolution, certain people are hired.
So you are telling me that Aarluk Consulting has special technical people on energy conservation and performing duties involving energy and those types of activities?
Again I don’t have the details of the expenditures on this particular contract, so I can’t give the member information on exactly who was involved, but we could provide some information on the details of the implementation planning to the member afterward.
Chairman: The actual amount is $61,920.31. Is that the amount that we are talking about?
Is the proposal for an energy strategy that was sole sourced to Aarluk?
Is that correct, Mr. Elliott?
Mr. Elliott: That’s correct.
That’s the information I was given and I am a little shocked that the information is not available because I know that when we put the motion forward back in March, we made it aware to all government departments that we would be discussing the contracts that had been awarded in the 2008-09 fiscal year.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation) Ms. Premier.
The $61,920 is a sole source contract and we don’t know if we have paid out that total amount.
We don’t have the breakdown of what has been paid out. (interpretation ends) It doesn’t mean that the whole amount has been spent to date. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I’m glad we are doing this exercise because it brings up more questions.
You are saying that your department puts out and does a sole source contract for $61,920, and then it could actually carry over more than one fiscal year where you don’t actually know how much money is being paid out to a consulting firm?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We use the usual contract process.
If we award a contract for a certain amount limited to a particular number, we keep it under and if we go over, then there has to be an amendment to that contract so that the numbers that are going over would go through that.
Mr. Elliott, one more question then Mr. Arvaluk afterwards. Mr. Elliott.
With that being said for this particular contract C209, yes, I would like to see the final results, what came of it, and how much was actually put in. Again, what I’m trying to do is get an understanding of how the government gives out the contracts and awards them.
To me, if it’s very specialized and technical, like you said, and we want the best type of report or the best type of strategy for the money that we are paying, you would think that for that type of specialized… rather than sole source, you would want to go out and request for tender or something so that you can get people from outside of the territory or maybe people from within the territory coming and getting the best people for the job.
Not that I’m saying that you didn’t, but that’s my understanding of how the process works.
So if you could commit to getting me that information, it would be great.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) I didn’t hear a question but a request for a commitment to provide more information on this and why it can’t be advertised to get the best price and value for our dollar. (interpretation) Premier.
I would be pleased to give an update in the House as we keep stating that the government should be transparent and accountable.
I will be pleased to give the House an update once that is complete.