EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The term “Sanginivut” is wrong in spelling; it should be “Sannginivut” instead. The wording of the sign is wrong for a missing simply the “na” syllabic final.
The proclamation uses the term as it stands in the sign, but the wording is not the same in the legislation where the correct spelling is used. A missing final sometimes creates an entirely different meaning.
Can you ensure that correct spelling is used into signage here, starting with the correction of the spelling of that sign? Do you have it in your budget estimates for correcting wrong spellings of signage or would this be in the unforeseen costs?
I thank Minister Tapardjuk for his sharp eye and for pointing out the spelling error in the signage.
We have taken note of his comments regarding the signage and we will be correcting the errors in the sign. We will also ensure that the board looks into the matter further.
I am happy to see you appearing before the committee.
It is hard to sit back and not field questions when you are sitting on this side of the table.
Now, I am not sure whether this question I am about to ask is included in your work plans, but it is included as part of your communications budget.
Since you are looking at making improvements in your communications systems here, including email which is now up and running, let me first thank you for that.
Back when Nunavut was starting out, we had many communication issues to deal with, especially with the email system.
Government email had just come online and computers, including the Internet, were still new technologies.
Nowadays, this communications technology forms an integral part of our communications tool kit.
I believe that our system is amongst the best compared to other jurisdictions, at least with respect to the Legislative Assembly’s email system.
I have gone through two different systems and I can say that the second version is much faster. The Assembly’s server is used extensively by the regular members and our legislative staff. When repairs are required, our service technicians are much faster now in addressing them.
My question with respect to this issue is: have considerations been discussed to extend the Assembly’s server coverage to our constituency offices?
Currently, we have to use a private business server in our communities and most communities do not have full-time IT technicians to serve them.
In some cases, repair times can be quite lengthy and expensive since the technicians have to be flown in and these repairs can take days.
To improve the set up, would it be worthwhile to add the constituency offices to the GN servers? Has any consideration been put into this possibility?
My reasoning is that we seem to have been placed in a second-hand system with all sorts of issues, while the government offices, which are usually right next door, have the best system to use.
Our constituency offices are sometimes hampered by the limitations of the system we are stuck with.
How is this problem resolved in your future plans, especially if we were to add the constituency offices to the GN server system?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Curley.
If you want these issues addressed, perhaps it is worthwhile to ask your colleagues from this side who, I am sure, would welcome you to their side.
That is a very interesting question.
We are aware of the issues faced by our constituency offices. There will always be room for improvement on any system and we continue to look into issues raised by our members. We have noted your concerns.
We will also look into them to see how we can meet your needs and how we can work more cooperatively with the government on this matter.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Curley.
I believe that this matter should be reviewed in greater detail.
I personally have no idea about how other jurisdictions handle this issue and how their IT systems are set up.
I do not know whether their constituency offices are linked to a main system, or whether the legislatures own the system in use by the constituency offices, or whether they have to use a separate, private service like us.
I am not familiar enough with their systems to make definitive comments on how they are set up.
Perhaps we need to see how other jurisdictions deal with the challenges faced by your office. I think that if we had other systems to compare ours with, then we would be able to improve upon them.
The reason why I am bringing this up is because according to legislation, including the Privacy Act, the government cannot own or withhold information in its system.
Sometimes when a private server is used, the emails sent to ministers’ offices do not make it through. With that being said, the performance of our duties sometimes seem cut off and separate from government and we have to rely on facsimile machines to conduct our business.
So it would be worthwhile to look into how other jurisdictions have dealt with their communications challenges.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said earlier, our website is currently undergoing a major overhaul. We will continue looking for ways to improve our system and we will look at how other jurisdictions have their system set up.
We try and ensure that our system is the best possible.  With respect to the question regarding the possibility of linking up the constituency offices to a main server, it’s something we can look into.
I also want to add my piece to Mr. Curley’s concern. He just reminded me of the problems we face in the smaller communities with respect to computers and the Internet.
Most of the smaller communities do not have IT technicians to serve them.
In my constituency office, when my assistant’s computer crashed, we tried to take it over to the GN offices in Pangnirtung where they have their own IT technicians so that we would not have to send it down to Iqaluit for repairs. We were initially told that the computer would be repaired by the GN’s IT technicians.
However, when we brought the computer over, we later found out that it just sat for two days untouched.
The IT technician said that the computer belonged to the Legislative Assembly and therefore, he was uncomfortable to even touch it.
We came across this problem which left us in a bind when we were told that they were reluctant to repair what we thought was a computer belonging to the GN.
We just assumed that we had this service option available to us. We did not want to pay expensive shipping costs and we thought we could have the computer fixed by the in-house IT technician. The technician himself stated that he could repair the computer, but since the computer was issued from a different department, the directives were to treat it as not part of his IT tasks and responsibilities.
I want to ask the Speaker if is it possible for the Legislative Assembly to develop policy to allow for IT technicians working for the GN in the communities to repair our computers.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank Mr. Komoartok for asking that particular question.
Indeed, we are aware of this situation where IT technicians are not readily available to service our computers. This is especially true in the smaller communities, such as my community.
We will look into it further to see if we can accommodate that request and if we can enter into a contract or agreement with the GN technicians for repairs and maintenance of constituency office computers.
We can check into that.
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page A-4.
Assembly Operations. Total [Operations] and Maintenance, to be Voted. $6,747,000.
Chairman: Go to A-5. Branch Summary. Office of the Legislative Assembly.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $6,126,000.
Chairman: Go to A-6. Office of the Legislative Assembly.
Branch Summary. Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $2,635,000.
Chairman: Go back to A-3. Department Summary.
Detail of Expenditures. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $15,508,000.
Chairman: Are members agreed that we have concluded with the Office of the Legislative Assembly?
Chairman: Does the Speaker have any closing comments?
We may now expect to have the operations and maintenance budget for the Legislative Assembly approved.
I want to thank my support staff, John Quirke and Michael Rafter, and all people up on the third floor.
I thank each and every one of them on behalf of the members here for running and managing the Legislative Assembly.
Thank you for approving the main estimates, Mr. Chairman.
Could the Sergeant-at-Arms escort the Speaker and the witnesses out.
We have concluded the review of the Legislative Assembly.
We are now ready to commence with the review of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Madam Premier, please proceed with your opening comments.
Bill 22 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2010-2011 – Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs – Consideration in Committee
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.(interpretation ends) It is a pleasure for me to appear before members today to present the 2010-11 main estimates and 2010-13 business plan for the Office of the Legislative Assembly.
The proposed 2010-11 operations and maintenance budget… (interpretation) just a minute, let me get the other documents. My apologies, I didn’t get the right document. Okay, I have a copy in front of me now.
Can I resume, Mr. Chairman?
I sincerely apologize for that.
(interpretation ends) I am pleased to have this opportunity to present to the committee the budget for the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for 2010-11.
The role of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs includes providing support to cabinet and overall coordination of the work of the public service, including the implementation of the priorities we, as Full Caucus, have set under Tamapta/ᑕᒪᑦᑕ: Building Our Future Together.
In addition, the department coordinates intergovernmental and circumpolar relations and supports the Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.
The department ensures that our responsibilities under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are implemented.
The department’s main estimates total for fiscal year 2010-11 is just under $17.6 million.
This includes approximately $11.8 million for salaries and benefits and $5.8 million for other operations and maintenance costs.
Iksivautaaq and hon. members of the committee, please allow me to outline several of the key budgetary priorities for the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for this year.
In the Tamapta Action Plan, we agreed that one of our priorities would be to strengthen the public service, including “multi-year planning [and] interdepartmental collaboration.”
The Department of Executive first coordinated the business planning function again for the 2009-2010 plan that you considered in June 2009.
Starting with the business plans which you are currently considering, the GN has moved to a true three-year planning format.
The Government of Nunavut now has operational priorities for every year from 2010 to 2013.
This additional coordination will be carried out by the existing Policy Division, but two positions were moved in 2009-2010 from Finance to EIA to undertake this work.
The most significant change in EIA’s budget for this year is the addition of 25 positions for the new Government Liaison Program.
This is a direct response to our direction in the Tamapta Action Plan. A government liaison officer will be the public’s central point of contact with our government in communities.
This program will serve as a reliable source of information about programs as feedback to government, as coordination for collaborative initiatives, and as delivery agent for some services.
The full details of the program will be developed over the next six months in consultation with all stakeholders, including various levels of government and community organizations.
Initial estimates are that the annual operating cost, which is primarily driven by salary and training, will be around $4 million.
In 2010-11, EIA will complete a program design, including training, and then create the first GLO positions in the 14 non-decentralized communities during this fiscal year.
Since this will take time, we estimate that only about half of the annual operating cost will be required during the coming year and have allocated $2 million to this in the 2010-11 main estimates.
The Department of Executive will also be coordinating a comprehensive review of social safety net programs, again as directed under the Tamapta Action Plan.
It is envisioned that this review will identify areas where our social programs may conflict or work at cross-purposes.
It will examine such varied programs as income support, transition to work programs, rents scales and supplements, and supplementary health benefits.
Given the nature of this review, it will be conducted through contracts which will be overseen by the Social Advocacy Office which was created last year. $500,000 has been allocated in the budget for this purpose.
I welcome your comments and look forward to answering your questions on the EIA business plan for 2010-13 and the main estimates for 2010-11. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan): Thank you, Madam Premier.
Hon. Eva Aariak: Yes.
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can escort the witnesses in, please.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is Markus Weber, the Deputy Minister, and also to my left is David Omilgoitok, the Deputy Minister of EIA.
Welcome. (interpretation ends) Does the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations have opening comments?
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the proposed 2010-11 main estimates and 2010-13 business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
(interpretation ends) The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2010-11 operations and maintenance budget of $17,566,000 has increased by approximately 27 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2009-2010 main estimates.
The number of positions in the department is increasing from 86.5 PYs in 2009-2010 to 114.5 PYs in 2010-11.
During the Premier’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members took the opportunity to raise a number of issues and concerns.
Mr. Chairman, the most significant change in the organizational structure of the department is the proposed creation of a new “Government Liaison Office.”
This is being established as a division in the Directorate Branch. 25.0 new PYs are being allocated to the division. The division’s proposed annual budget is $2.0 million in 2010-11 and $4.0 million in subsequent fiscal years.
The department’s business plan indicates that “a Government Liaison Officer will be the public’s central point-of-contact with our government.
These individuals will ensure that government services can be more easily accessed in every community.
This program will serve as a reliable source of information about government programs, as feedback to government, as coordination for collaborative initiatives between government agencies, and as delivery agent for certain government services.”
After careful consideration of this issue, some members of the standing committee are in support of the proposed initiative while some members are not in support of it.
Some members view the initiative as an important means to improve communications between Nunavummiut and their own government and are of the view that it has the potential to complement the work of such bodies as their own constituency offices.
Some members view the proposed GLO model as constituting a needless and costly duplication of services that are already provided through other entities and are of the view that the GLO model risks undermining the role of elected members in articulating community concerns and priorities to the government.
Mr. Chairman, the Commissioner’s Address of April 1, 2009 announced the creation of a new Social Advocacy Office, which has been established as a division in the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
The department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicates that the Social Advocacy Office plans to undertake a number of initiatives in the coming fiscal year.
The standing committee notes that the proposed budget for the Social Advocacy Office is increasing to $1,337,000 in the 2010-11 fiscal year. It is projected to drop to $876,000 in subsequent fiscal years.
These include providing “support to Health & Social Services in the first year of implementation of the Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy,” conducting “a comprehensive review of governments’ social safety-net programs, to develop a common framework to ensure these programs are complementary, consistent, accessible, and fair,” and “In coordination with the review of child protection being conducted by Health & Social Services, research and consult on the creation of a culturally relevant Child and Youth Representative.”
While members support the government’s intention to move forward in addressing these priorities, which were identified by Full Caucus in October of last year following its consideration of the findings of the Qanukkanniq Report Card, it is the committee’s understanding that the one-time increase in the Social Advocacy Office’s budget is for the engagement of consultants to undertake the government’s planned review of social safety net programs.
Although the committee recognizes the occasional necessity of engaging external consultants for highly specialized or technical projects, it stresses the importance of ensuring that the development of core government policy in this fundamentally important area be led by individuals who will ultimately be accountable for its implementation and who live in the jurisdiction where its results will be measured.
Mr. Chairman, there is still no formal system in place for the registration of lobbyists in Nunavut.
A recent annual report of the Integrity Commissioner suggested that the value of lobbyist registration, introduced by other jurisdictions, might be considered.
The department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicated that “There has been a persistently high vacancy rate for decentralized positions in many communities. Of the 459 decentralized positions in the GN, the numbers of vacancies have fluctuated between 105-125 positions over the past few years.
However, Inuit employment rates for departments for those filled positions have been quite steadily averaging around 56% and positions filled by local residents at around 65%.”
The department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicates that “A functional review of decentralized offices will be conducted as a priority action in 2010/11.”
This initiative was announced by the Legislative Assembly’s Full Caucus in October of last year, following its consideration of the findings of the Qanukkanniq Report Card.
The standing committee urges the Premier to provide regular updates to the Legislative Assembly on the status of this initiative.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2010-11 business plan indicates that the budget for its Energy Secretariat has been increased to $678,000 for 2010-11.
The department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicates that “the Ikummatiit Implementation Plan will be completed and approved before the end of [the 2009-2010 fiscal year].”
One of the department’s priorities for 2010-11 is to “Begin implementation of Ikummatiit in cooperation with relevant GN Departments and partners...”
Its purpose is to “subsidize the cost of energy or otherwise make energy more affordable.” The Government of Nunavut’s Ikummatiit Energy Strategy, which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 30, 2007, indicates that this fund is to be managed by the Department of Finance.
However, none of the GN’s 2010-13 departmental business plans make any reference to the Affordable Energy Fund.
The standing committee also looks forward to the government clarifying whether it will or will not move forward on the potential initiatives that are included in the Ikummatiit Energy Strategy, including “a five percent reduction target for government-related travel, the testing of hybrid vehicles, public transportation in Iqaluit, and graduated registration fees based on the size of vehicle engines.”
The standing committee also recommends that the Premier review the balance and distribution of energy-related portfolios between different departments and ministers.
At present, almost every member of the cabinet has an energy-related responsibility in his or her portfolio.
The merits of this structure are questionable.
For example, although the Minister of Community and Government Services serves as the Minister of Energy, the government’s Energy Secretariat is located in the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Although the Department of Finance is responsible for the administration of the Nunavut Electricity Subsidy Program and the Harvesters’ Fuel Tax Rebate Program, the Department of Education is responsible for the administration of the Senior Fuel Subsidy Program.
On November 20, 2009, the Qulliq Energy Corporation announced that it will file a General Rate Application in the spring of 2010.
The standing committee notes that the proposed budget for the Utility Rates Review Council is projected to increase to $786,000 in the 2010-11 fiscal year.
The standing committee recognizes that this increase is due to its pending review of the General Rate Application.
On September 5, 2009, the Government of Nunavut, the governments Northwest Territories and the Yukon released a joint communiqué announcing the renewal of the Northern Cooperation Accord for a five-year term.
The department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicates that work in relation to the tri-territorial Northern Vision document is “being reviewed for current issues and in the context of the recently released federal Northern Strategy.”
Members encourage the Premier to effectively represent Nunavut’s priorities with respect to arctic sovereignty and pan-territorial initiatives.
The department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicates that “Based on direction from the NTI board and the Government of Nunavut’s Tamapta, drafting is well underway for a new protocol for working together.
The protocol is expected to be signed in the 09-10 fiscal year.”
Members look forward to this document being tabled in the House.
The standing committee supports a positive working relationship between the GN and NTI.
At the same time, it is incumbent on the government to be clear and candid with MLAs and the general public concerning the rationale for its own position in areas where the two parties may have disagreements on specific issues.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicated that although one of its priorities was to “Complete the negotiations process of the Implementation Contract for the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement,” there have been no official discussions or negotiations while the NTI lawsuit for breach of contract against the federal government is before the courts.
The department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicates that “While NTI v Canada is before the courts, no negotiations on the Implementation Contract have occurred.”
The department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicates that its “Avatiliriniq Coordinator supports interdepartmental Sustainable Development groups, coordinates GN participation in resource development planning activity and initiatives to improve the regulatory system for land management.”
One of the department’s priorities for 2010-211 is to “Take a comprehensive and strategic approach to promoting sustainable economic development and environmental stewardship coordinated with partners to support efficient and effective land use planning, environmental assessment and regulatory processes.”