EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I made note of your concerns that you voiced on the Member’s Statement last week.
We will try to make that service available because it’s a very reasonable concern.
Some men do not like to talk to non-male service personnel, so I appreciate your very useful suggestion.
I also thank the minister for his informative responses.
Now, with respect to spouses, when people are first getting together, they sometimes go through disagreements. In most cases, they seem to feel that the social worker is their only option. Especially when the spouse is fearful of their husband, the social worker has to provide assistance to the spouse.
Although social workers ought to be working to resolve the husband’s issues, since we are assisting the spouse, the partner often is uncomfortable dealing with the social worker. Although we can provide assistance to both partners, men tend to mistrust the social worker’s attempts.
I believe that we have to deal with both partners and this issue has to be seriously considered. I am not raising a question, but I want this matter to be included in the department’s deliberations.
I didn’t hear a question, but I’m sure that your comments have been noted by the department. (interpretation ends) Oral Questions.
Question 517 – 3(2): Nunavut Teachers’ Collective Agreement (Okalik)
I was recently informed about the fact that the teachers union has been without a collective agreement for over a year since the last agreement expired. Furthermore, it was relayed that although the teachers union has tried to initiate negotiations with the Government of Nunavut, they have not budged from their position.
I believe it was this spring that they had to undertake a court injunction to deal with the issue.
The government was supposed to appoint a chief negotiator, but there was no response other than the fact that they wanted to appoint an outside body to deal with this issue.
It was only through the courts that the Government of Nunavut was forced to negotiate with the union, but that is not the proper negotiation process.
There has to be good faith in any negotiation with the teachers union.
It was just reported by the teachers’ union negotiator that the Government of Nunavut has replied that the teachers’ wages and salaries will be frozen for four years.
Furthermore, the bilingual bonus for those teachers who can speak Inuktitut will also be clawed back.
In looking at these developments, it seems that they are at the edge of a cliff, especially as a member of the legislature.
We have to follow our own processes and we have to ensure that our students can be taught in both Inuktitut and English, but by virtue of the government’s opposition to this issue, this will be difficult to implement, especially if the teachers are not supported in this area.
So my question to the Minister of Finance is: is that the way that you are going to be negotiating with the union when this government publicly states that education is a priority?
I thank Mr. Okalik for updating me on the negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the information that Mr. Okalik is referring to.
Of course, our teachers are very valuable employees in our government and after all, they do teach our children.
But as to answer any specific questions, I don’t have any details on the comments that you made.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) That is rather troubling.
I guess the negotiators are negotiating beyond their mandate.
If that is the case, I would like to get assurance from the minister that he will direct his negotiators to address some of the challenges faced by Inuit teachers.
For example, to roll back Inuit language benefits for teachers who are trying to teach our language in the classroom is something that I don’t think is shared by any member in this House.
So can the minister commit to directing his negotiators to get back to the negotiating table and actually negotiate with our teachers?
I thank Mr. Okalik for his concerns with negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Okalik is probably very aware, these are negotiations and there are two sides to doing negotiating arrangements.
I’m sure both parties have their strategies in place, and we will endeavour to reach a settlement.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) From what I understand, the teachers have now been without an agreement for the last 16 months.
That is a new standard that unfortunately has been set.
Prior to that, they would have an agreement in place before even a year came around.
The teachers have been trying to negotiate in good faith. Even the courts are siding with the teachers on this one because the courts determined that the government was negotiating in bad faith.
Can the minister assure this House and the teachers that they will at least present an offer that is worthy of consideration? If they are not willing to do that, will he commit his government to go into binding arbitration on this matter?
I thank Mr. Okalik again for his concern for the teachers.
Mr. Speaker, I’m sure as Mr. Okalik knows as a former Premier of the Government of Nunavut, in negotiations, it would be inappropriate for any minister to comment on ongoing negotiations.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am going on the basis of what has been presented to me, Mr. Speaker, along with a court judgment against the government, the so-called priority list of this government that education is the priority and legislation that requires our government to offer bilingual education to the children who are going to be graduating out of our schools, hopefully.
I cannot support a position where they want to roll back benefits for offering bilingual education in our classrooms. We’re trying to teach Inuktitut to our children.
Can the minister at least reconsider the position that has been tabled by his negotiators?
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated earlier, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on negotiations that are ongoing.
I’m sure at some point that there will be a resolution to the negotiations.
Question 518 – 3(2): Status of Demolition and Removal of Abandoned Buildings in Chesterfield Inlet (Ningeongan)
I would like to direct my questions to the Minister of Community Government and Services.
As the minister now knows since I have been corresponding with the hon. member on several occasions to deal with this issue by the end of this fiscal year, there are a couple of units in Chesterfield Inlet previously owned by the Ministry of Transport. These are very old, dilapidated buildings.
I do thank the minister because when I was dealing with this issue, he offered his support, his responses, and he has tried to move this process along.
I have been led to understand via email from his department, or at least from the minister, that he was expecting a response from the contractors that were to destroy the units, as they were awaiting a decision on some issues.
Can I ask the minister if he has been provided a status update as to whether these units will be dealt with and destroyed?
I also thank my hon. colleague for raising that question and other questions.
Just earlier, in response to another question asked by his colleague from the High Arctic with respect to these antiquated buildings where the ownership is uncertain but which the Government of Nunavut is stuck with, not all of these buildings are owned by the Nunavut government.
In particular, where the ownership is in question, especially relating to the Ministry of Transport buildings, it becomes another issue that CGS is saddled with.
There are also buildings that have dangerous substances.
I regret that I keep stating that once I find out, I will be able to respond. Now Nunavut is covered in snow and I believe Iqaluit is the only community that has no snow.
It is still an ongoing issue as far as I know.
The contracted company, as per your statement, has been in contact with our department about this issue.
We asked them to continue their work on these buildings.
They were starting to destroy the building, but they came across a hazardous substance that had to be removed. The amount of asbestos was a lot larger than they initially estimated. The health inspector stopped the destruction of the unit.
At this time, they are still dealing with the matter and we tasked the officials to deal with this matter.
We wanted a report on a certain date as to what the status was and when the project would proceed with the clean up.
The deadline came in the middle of October.
At this time, we are still reviewing the issues to see what the status is.
We did request a response just prior to the weekend on the status of this project.
At this time, I still haven’t received one.
This issue has been faced by the community for a number of years.
Last year, they started the destruction project. It has been a challenge for the community as it considers this matter a priority because these old buildings are close to the high school and there are also a couple of private houses in close proximity to the buildings.
The old buildings are continuing to deteriorate.
One of the views was that if the project was delayed, there would be less damage with the windows boarded up.
The fact is that the department should have ensured that proper preparations were made so that no one could enter the buildings, such as youth vandalizing it and inadvertently endangering themselves.
However, in trying to deal with this issue, we are just bantering and if we just keep deferring this project, then these buildings will continue to deteriorate and the hazardous substance may become exposed, as per the minister’s response.
Can the minister inform me as to the priority status of this project and whether his department has agreed that this is a high priority project and that they have to clean up these dilapidated buildings?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, if we did not consider this a priority, then we would not worry about these buildings.
We consider this a high priority.
As I stated earlier, since the inception of this project, the hamlet has been working on this file for a long time, perhaps even a decade.
The CGS department made the commitment previously that they would try to provide assistance to the community. Upon further research, they found out that these were federal Ministry of Transport buildings and not owned by the Department of Community and Government Services.
The reasons for the high priority are self-explanatory as there are hazardous substances in these buildings. We have to ensure that the buildings are closed off so the public cannot access the buildings.
As long as people are not in the building, they are not exposing themselves to asbestos.
The danger is that when asbestos is being removed from the buildings, it can become airborne.
We’re trying to work with the hamlet council.
Perhaps even prior to continuing the cleanup, it may be preferable to move the buildings so that they are no longer near any public building.
We have made that position clear that at a minimum, the buildings should be moved outside of the built-up areas.
If they cannot destroy the building due to hazardous materials, then at the least they should not be near any residential areas.
Yes, I can tell Mr. Ningeongan that yes, this is indeed a high priority, and we are not dilly-dallying around with this project.
We want all of the asbestos removed that is contained in these buildings since asbestos becomes very dangerous when it is airborne and you can ingest it through breathing.
As long as it is properly boarded up and the public cannot access the buildings, the material is not hazardous.
Nonetheless, we are all aware that youth can overcome many barriers. If they do break into that building, it may be hazardous to their health.
But I can tell you, Mr. Ningeongan, that this is a priority for our department.
When the end of the project deadline comes, we hope the asbestos will be completely removed.
That is our objective that we will continue to push.
Our department is committed to completing this project and to clean up the hazardous materials in the community.
I concur with the member since I am also bothered by the constant delays on this project.
Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. (interpretation ends) Oral Questions. Member for Iqaluit West, Mr. Okalik.
Question 519 – 3(2): Nunavut Teachers’ Collective Agreement (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I want to continue on with my questioning of the Minister of Finance on the matter of the teachers and the bargaining.
I understand the bargaining process quite well and I respect the process.
However, when the parties are at an impasse, the parties have try and find a way to continue on and make some progress, but according to the Nunavut Teachers Association, there has not been reasonable offers presented by the Government of Nunavut, including also the union.
The association is now having to go public with their concerns because of the lateness of these discussions.
Can the minister reassure Nunavummiut that the Government of Nunavut will actually make reasonable offers to the association and accommodate some of their concerns throughout the bargaining process?
I thank Mr. Okalik for asking the question.
Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Okalik understands the bargaining process, he will understand that I’m not the lead minister on negotiations with the Nunavut Teachers Association.
However, I will say again that teachers are very valued employees of the Government of Nunavut and they do a tremendous job teaching our children every day.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Well, the teachers expressed their concerns and the consequences this impasse can have throughout Nunavut, not just in the classroom but also the education of the children.
I would add that, for the younger children in the classroom who can’t look after themselves, then those people who don’t have daycare space… .
If there was a stoppage of school, then those employers would have to suffer the lack of workers coming to their office because they’re providing daycare for their children.
So I would ask the Minister of Finance to try and facilitated these negotiations as he is the keeper of the purse. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I again appreciate Mr. Okalik’s concern.
Mr. Speaker, indeed I am the keeper of the purse.
I have heard across Canada that many provinces and territories are dealing with the union agreements this year and, of course, we are as well.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I said in my earlier response to Mr. Okalik’s question, I am not the lead minister on the negotiations with the Nunavut Teachers Association. I am sure that the lead Minister of Human Resources is paying attention to the line of questioning and we will ensure that Mr. Okalik’s concerns are brought to the negotiating table.
Question 520 – 3(2): New Office Building (Elliott)
On Friday, the minister did a return to oral questions where he had mentioned about the new office building that the QEC has. I had the pleasure of walking by the building this weekend to check it out. In his answer, he said that the total estimated office building project costs around $5 million and he also mentioned that centralizing the various leased offices will result in savings of about $5.6 million over the financing period.
I was just wondering if the minister could explain in terms of centralizing the various lease offices. Is that the centralizing of office space in Iqaluit only or are they bringing positions from other communities here and dropping leases in those communities?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: I thank my colleague for the question.
It is beautiful infrastructure that they are building there and it is just for the office space that is leased in this fine city by the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
Also, it mentioned about the cost saving of $5.6 million, which is a great savings, and I am sure the corporation and all of the taxpayers will be happy about that.
How long is the financing period that the minister is talking about in his reply?
I do not know the exact years on that, Mr. Speaker.
I will have to get back to my colleague at an appropriate time.
Written Question 022 – 3(2): New Nunavut Housing Corporation Directorate Office in Iqaluit (Elliott)
My question is to the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation, the Hon. Tagak Curley.
It is in regard to the new Nunavut Housing Corporation Directorate Office in Iqaluit.
As the question is long and detailed, I would like to move that the question be entered as read.
What is the lot number and civic address of the building in Iqaluit now being used by the Nunavut Housing Corporation for its directorate office?
What was the total amount expended by the Nunavut Housing Corporation for the acquisition of the building that is now being used as office space for its directorate office?
From what company or individual was the purchase of the building made?
What was the process by which this acquisition was approved by the Financial Management Board?
Through which Appropriation Act was funding for this purchase approved?
What renovations, upgrades, improvements, repairs, or other work were completed on the building subsequent to the Nunavut Housing Corporation taking ownership of it?
What was the dollar value of any renovations, upgrades, improvements, repairs, or other work completed on the building subsequent to its acquisition by the Nunavut Housing Corporation?
Through what type of contracting procedure (e.g. competitive tender, request for proposals, etcetera) did the Nunavut Housing Corporation acquire the services for the renovations, upgrades, improvements, repairs, or other work on the building?
What company or individual was awarded the contract(s) to perform renovations, upgrades, improvements, repairs, or other work?
On an annual basis, how much does the Iqaluit Housing Authority pay in rent for the use of the facility?
How long is the term of the lease to the Iqaluit Housing Authority and what are the particulars of the lease agreement in respect to payment of utilities and other conditions?
The member is asking that these be entered into record as read. (interpretation ends) Written Questions.
Reply to Opening Address 004 – 3(2): Ms. Eva Aariak (Aariak)
I believe that our interpreter/translators will translate these nicely into Inuktitut.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, last week, the member from Iqaluit West took the initiative to provide a so-called evaluation of our government.
This was not a surprise.
Mr. Speaker, our government is now accustomed to demands that we solve problems created by the past administration.
Although it is incredibly tempting, I do not believe the Premier or her cabinet should stoop to the level of responding to petty remarks and invented insults.
However, Mr. Speaker, while I always welcome questions and comments from my fellow colleagues, under this government, there is no room for insults or innuendo.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that responsible governments must complete projects started by previous governments, as well as initiate their own.
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the hon. member is criticizing this government for doing precisely the things that Nunavummiut asked for in the Qanukkanniq report.
For instance, creating government liaison positions was in direct response to an overwhelming demand from Nunavummiut across the territory.
Mr. Speaker, under this government, we listen to the people who elected us into this office and act in accordance with their needs and wishes.
Our role is to make difficult decisions in the best interests of Nunavummiut.
Mr. Speaker, two years ago, while our former Premier was being investigated by the Integrity Commissioner, Nunavut was demanding change and change has arrived.
Mr. Speaker, our government is rebuilding a culture of respect in everything we do. We are rebuilding respect within the civil service.
Mr. Speaker, under this government, our civil servants are chosen for their skills, not for their allegiance.
Under this government, our employees are not afraid to speak their mind.
We are rebuilding respect within cabinet and within this House.
Ours is an administration of consensus and our decisions are made through above-the-table discussions.
I make decisions with my ministers and do not single-handedly dictate the outcome.
Mr. Speaker, under this government, we do not make backroom deals.
Members know that our doors are open and that we value their input.
Hon. Eva Aariak: We are rebuilding respect with the Inuit organizations. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s annual general meeting and I am proud to say that our relationship with NTI, both at the political level and at the working level, has never been stronger and better.
It’s hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, for the first eight years of Nunavut’s existence, Nunavummiut in Iqaluit celebrated Nunavut Day with two separate events – one organized by the GN and the other organized by NTI.
This year, for the very first time, our government joined with NTI to provide Nunavummiut with one giant celebration.
Mr. Speaker, this was one of the biggest parties in Iqaluit since 1999.
People were still dancing even as the sound technicians were packing their gear.
It was a complete success, not for the GN, not for NTI, but for all Nunavummiut, just as it should be.
I can assure Members of this House that, under this government, the GN will continue to work collaboratively with Inuit organizations on every file that we share.
Mr. Speaker, we are earning back the respect of Ottawa. I am providing an assertive voice on behalf of Nunavummiut.
And guess what? Ottawa is listening. After years of little or no movement on the devolution file, the Prime Minister has agreed to a phased-in approach that will eventually see Nunavut gain control of its land and resources.
Most importantly of all, Mr. Speaker, we are rebuilding respect with the people of Nunavut.
Under this government, Nunavummiut no longer fear they will be embarrassed by the public remarks of their elected officials.
They know that our government is here to listen to the local people, not to tell them what to do.
Our cabinet travels to other communities regularly and speaks to people about their concerns.
If one of our cabinet members cannot visit a community, then at least we speak on the community radio to explain what we are doing in this government.
Mr. Speaker, all of us here adopted massive and systemic problems from the past administration, including millions of dollars in housing overspending, which is having an effect on everything we are trying to achieve.
We are now being punished for finding the problem and trying to fix it.
Despite this unforeseen obstacle, the Qanukkanniq report told us everything we needed to know and continues to give us a clear path which we are resolved to follow.
We have a strong mandate to do and, that is, for this House to agree what the House agreed upon when we met together.
Mr. Speaker, again another first in the history of Nunavummiut was the collaboration of Full Caucus on our mandate, with this very strong mandate that this House agreed upon together as a whole, and we are making progress:
We have tabled a Suicide Prevention Strategy;
We are delivering the much asked for GLO positions in every community;
We have launched a Poverty Reduction Strategy;
We are answering our phones;
We are making early childhood education and health a priority;
We are building to new standards of energy efficiency;
We are implementing a child and youth advocate;
We have completed the housing needs survey;
We brought the GN website into the 21st century;
We are encouraging community self-reliance.
For those who think that change is not happening quickly enough, I say, “Let’s get it right for the first time.”
We are having to return to square one with certain pieces of legislation that were passed too quickly in previous governments and without enough careful planning.
Mr. Speaker, under this government, we work sustainably. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will feel the positive changes long after we have left office.