EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I’ve read the Standing Committee for Government Operations and Accountability reports since that year. I’ve been the vice-chair since 2004, so I well know what the Standing Committee of Government Operations and Accountability is doing.
They make a lot of recommendations to the Government of Nunavut. One of the recommendations is that they review the Lease Activities Report that the Government of Nunavut submitted in mid 2005. I recall specifically recommending that they review leases that would expire soon.
In my opinion, that didn’t occur.
The government said that they began a review in September 2005. That didn’t leave them enough time to do an adequate review. When it did make the decision to implement the review process on that particular lease, they made a decision to bypass some important steps in their own leasing policy.
These are steps that would have enhanced the review process and increased accountability for the Government of Nunavut, for all the MLAs, and Nunavummiut.
When Members of the Legislative Assembly asked for some financial information during the budget process when we were reviewing Community and Government Services, we were told that financial information is privileged information. I was shocked and appalled the other day when we asked for some financial information and we were told it was confidential, I was totally unprepared for an answer like that. It still bothers me today.
The Government of Nunavut has stated that they got a good deal and that the lease represents the best value for the money that they are paying. I don’t know if I’ll ever know that they did because when they bypassed some important steps in their leasing policy the lease did not go through a public tender process.
My colleague, Mr. Tootoo, mentioned that the building was evacuated yesterday. It is an old building. We’ve mentioned that in the House on several occasions.
It was evacuated yesterday and over 100 employees were evacuated out of the building. I think the halogen suppression system failed and released chemicals into the air. They were trying to determine last night and this morning whether those chemicals are toxic.
I am very concerned for my constituents. I asked the Minister of Community and Government Services thereafter, “When they do make improvements will that building be upgraded so that the tenants, the Government of Nunavut employees who are very important to us, will they have a modern and safe facility?”
The minister indicated that it would be. And I hope that they do.
In conclusion, I will urge all members of the House to support this particular motion.
I also rise today because I will be supporting the motion. We don’t want to do that to the Cabinet but this is not the only time that they have done that. I believe that they bought a building, and it was very expensive, and the lease was transferred without using a public tender.
The reason why I raised that, when we were dealing with this line, is we couldn’t get the information on the figures and we were told that they were confidential information but some leases are confidential within Nunavut and some of them are not.
But they are all leases.
I know the NBCC; an Inuit owned company, the leases become public information and they are in the budget information.
But there was a mention if there is a negotiation going on it becomes confidential.
But let me state why I support this motion because Nunavummiut have to know.
The Nunavut Government contract regulations state they have to abide by those if it’s a public interest, best for the public.
Then they can tender it before the termination of the lease.
Maybe… (interpretation)…the government has to think, are we going to ask the private sector who are capable of constructing buildings. Whose responsibility should that be? According to the contracting regulations, the minister responsible for properties, I believe that is CGS, has to consider and the contracting management team.
(interpretation ends) In this case the minister or the government or the contracting managers of our government failed to review exactly what the terms of the leases were before they expired.
The contracting regulations, I think, are the guiding principles of our government to ensure the government uses a fair process for the amounts of dollars that the consumers and the tax payers of Nunavut must account for.
In this case the minister ignored, or the Cabinet ignored, the regulations. Not only that, they ignored Article 24. They ignored not only Article 24 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement but they failed to honour NNI policy, which is the document derived out of Article 24.
Article 24 are a series of principles to ask contracting agents at any level of federal or territorial governments to abide by certain principles and explain in detail exactly how the contracting procedures and opportunities for Inuit firms to bid could be honoured.
But this government failed to honour those commitments. What was shocking to me was, even our own Premier for 14 years, was under the belief that Article 24 did not cover leases.
So yesterday he issued a statement and said, “Oh I misled you on this one day.” I don’t believe it was this one day that the Premier did not understand that leases were also part of the procurement initiative, procurement commitments for Inuit Firms to give it an opportunity to bid. The Inuit people, Inuit firms were not offered to bid on the contract that is sole sourced to this firm, in re-negotiating a 20 year old property.
How can the ministers, or the Cabinet, convince Nunavummiut this 20 year old building is in the public interest and we should renew it for another 20 years.
Imagine who in his right mind would be convinced that you should buy a 20 year old car because the modern day cars or trucks are no good for this part of the world. It’s exactly the same.
I’m ashamed to say that we’re investing in a facility that is outdated; it’s not up to code, the fire marshal should have done an inspection and other inspections and those inspection reports should be made public, if they are going to enter into that 20-year lease.
So, in conclusion I just want to say that I urge all the members, including the cabinet ministers, to stand up and support this motion and I will be asking for a recorded vote on this one.
I think it would be difficult to censure ourselves so I think that would be a bit of a conflict of interest in this instance. The lease that is in contention pre-dates Nunavut.
We did not sign it. We renewed it because we had to use it. It was signed by the Northwest Territories in 1986.
None of us, except for maybe one member, was a part of that Cabinet that signed the lease. I do not know why they signed the lease.
Since 1999, we have been constructing our own. Yes, there was a lease but we decided to buy it in the interest of saving money in the long run because we’ll need it in the long run.
So that is unfortunate at the time when the lease was signed and we were stuck with it and we had to use it.
We have employees that have to work and provide services for the good people of Cambridge Bay and the surrounding communities so that is why we have been using it and we will continue to use it.
We did our best to salvage what was before us.
Unfortunately, our officials did their best in assessing what was available in the community and what we could utilize and they’ve decided, with our support, that at this time with the limited resources that we do have that we continue to use the facility. And at the end of the day we will own it.
Yes, it is 20 years old but we have workers throughout Nunavut in much older buildings.
So, we will continue to use it past 20 years.
Yes, there will be work done to improve the situation. And, I am sure in light of the latest news there’ll be additional work that will have to be done.
But to censure us for decisions that were made 20 years ago, I think is a bit harsh. I think that there are other means of addressing these kinds of situations.
My Cabinet tried to re-negotiate a five-year agreement so that we can look at alternatives in the meantime.
Unfortunately, that was not feasible. In the interest of saving money and utilizing the resources that we do have, we decided that we would buy it at the end of the 20-year period.
The cabinet worked very hard on this particular instance. It was not an easy decision.
But in light of the limited infrastructure that we do have, not just in Cambridge Bay but throughout Nunavut, it was best to utilize what we have today and live with the current situation.
During the review of this, I said I do want to ever go through this again. And I made a commitment to my colleagues that we will change this fact. That in the future where we are stuck with a long-term lease and it is going to expire within the next five years, it will be mandatory to go to the public and ask for proposals.
That is what we will do so that we will not go through this exercise ever again.
That is transparency. That is what I am committing to do.
Unfortunately, we don’t have that right now but we will change that so that we will not have to go through this again.
So, I respectfully ask my colleagues to withdraw the motion and let’s find a way to work together and improve what we are under today.
I wish to inform the House that I don’t have any more names on my list and the mover has a chance to last reply.
I don’t think any of us here have said we are censuring our Executive Council because of a lease that was signed 20 years ago.
As the Premier indicated, we are not holding them accountable for that mistake that was made 20 years ago. The mistake that was made was outlined two years ago that there was a concern in regard to this and there was a belief that it would be looked at differently, that the option of going and looking at it with enough advance time to be able to seek public input, would happen.
The Cabinet, the Financial Management Board chose, they were presented with different options, they chose to forego that process and sole-source negotiate the renewal and they said it was the best deal.
Well, how do we know it was the best deal? If there were other developers, nobody else had a chance to even offer a different alternative. Maybe it would have been but we will never know.
That is why the members are frustrated and are bringing forward this Motion of Censure. Not because of, as the Premier had indicated, a lease that was signed 20 years ago.
This government was made aware close to two years ago, April/May around the same time, that there were concerns around this lease.
We were led to believe things would be looked at differently. That didn’t happen.
As he indicated, I’m very happy he is committed to provide an avenue or mechanism for long-term leases that will automatically go out for expressions of interest or requests for proposals so that we don’t have to go through this again. We didn’t even have to go through this now.
That’s why we raised it two years ago. It seems, out of frustration on the members on this side of the House that our concerns are not being addressed until after the fact. It’s great now that you did the single biggest lease the government has; now we will change it after we already have this one cemented.
That is where the members think it shouldn’t have happened.
Again, I am sorry Mr. Premier, I will not withdraw my motion and I would encourage all Members on this side of the House and Mr. Arreak on the other side of the House to support this motion.
The debate is now closed.
We have a request for a recorded vote.
So all those in favour, please stand and sit down when I have called your name.
All those opposed, please stand and then sit down when I have called your name.
Members, the results of the votes are as follows: those for the motion: nine.
Those against the motion: eight.
Those abstaining: none.
(interpretation) Going back to the Orders of the Day. Item 16.
Bill 1, Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 8, and Bill 9 with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
In accordance with the authority vested in me by Motion 4 – 2(4) the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
At this time we will take a lunch break and resume at 1:30 in the afternoon.
>>House recessed at 12:01 and the Committee resumed at 13:34
Chairman (Mr. Arreak)(interpretation): Welcome back to the Committee of the Whole.
We have Bill 1, Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 8, and Bill 9.
In the Committee of the Whole today we wish to continue with Bill 1, and commence with the main estimates of Economic Development and Transportation, followed by the Department of Finance and Legislative Assembly. The committee also wishes to proceed with the review of Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 8, and Bill 9.
Are we in agreement that we deal with the main estimates for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation?
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2007-08 –Consideration in Committee – Economic Development & Transportation
I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation to make his opening remarks.
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, (interpretation) I am happy to provide the 2007-08 Main Estimates of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
The department’s main estimates total is $50,296,000. (interpretation ends) This amount is comprised of $13.481 million for departmental salaries and benefits, $15.199 million for operations and maintenance costs, and $21.616 million, or 43 per cent of the total budget for contributions to individuals, businesses, non-governmental and municipal organizations to support economic development and transportation projects throughout the territory.
The Department of Economic Development and Transportation has prepared a “no-growth” budget for 2007-08.
Despite the growing demands on our projects and services, the department will not exceed current expenditure levels. We do expect, however, to improve the outcomes of our programs in 2007-08 over past years. This will be achieved through more efficient program delivery, improved communications to the public on the goals of our programs, and better reporting of program results.
We also anticipate improved program outcomes as a result of the implementation of specific sector strategies approved this year for the mineral exploration and mining sector, and the arts & crafts sector. Programs such as the $4 million Strategic Investments Program will be targeted toward development opportunities in these sectors, particularly new business opportunities.
As members of this committee are aware, at the beginning of this fiscal year the department made significant changes to program delivery, resulting in a more focused Strategic Investments Program, which now includes separate schedules for businesses and for organizations and municipal governments that contribute to Nunavut’s economic foundations.
In addition, the department revised its small business-funding program, to create the new Small Business Support Program, and developed a policy for implementation of the $5 million program for non-decentralized communities mandated by Cabinet from the Northern Strategy Trust Fund.
The department expects to spend $2.5 million on the Small Communities Initiatives Fund in 2007-08.
It will be a budgetary priority of this department in 2007-08 to deal more effectively with business and business development in the coming year.
Altogether, the department makes available to business in Nunavut more than $5.7 million in contributions, through the Strategic Investment and Small Business Support programs, and support for regional chambers of commerce and business development centres.
The department also provides business support through its two crown corporations – the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation and the Nunavut Development Corporation. In addition, the department through the NNI Secretariat, the Canada-Nunavut Business Service Centre, and Nunavut Tourism supports the development of our private sector.
As the Nunavut economy grows with the initiation of new large-scale development projects, particularly in the mining sector, the department will focus its efforts to ensure that the business community in Nunavut is able to respond to this opportunity.
I am also expecting favourable results for businesses and communities from the creation of the policy this year for Development Partnership Agreements with mining companies, the first of which, for the Meadowbank Gold Project, has been signed and will begin implementation in 2007-08.
I would now like to highlight for the committee, some of the key budgetary priorities for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation for the coming year.
Working closely with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the NNI secretariat will launch a new web site that will assist business and all interested parties in the application of the policy.
The department will improve its public communications to ensure its programs and services are understood and used more effectively.
We will undertake public consultations on the revisions to the Travel and Tourism Act, in order to provide a better legislative structure to support the tourism industry.
The department will implement the Canada/Nunavut International Business Development Memorandum of Understanding to support export development and attract investment to the territory.
The department will implement a Memorandum of Understanding with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, to ensure our business and economic development programs are implemented cooperatively and in a way that simplifies access to funding for Nunavummiut.
The department will support at least two major inshore fisheries projects and will assist with the implementation of a new allocation strategy for offshore fisheries.
As part of the implementation of the Nunavut Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy, the department will undertake a review of permitting and regulatory structures to remove inefficiencies and implement the Nunavut Mine Training Initiative.
Finally, before I conclude these opening remarks, I want to briefly point out some highlights from the main estimates that focus on the improvement of Nunavut’s transportation infrastructure.
Transportation is central to the development of the Nunavut economy, and as we improve this infrastructure, we reduce barriers to economic growth and the participation of Nunavummiut in this growth.
In the coming year the department will oversee the completion of the major construction phase of the new Arctic Bay airport, and the rehabilitation of Apron 1 at the Iqaluit International Airport.
We will continue to support the development of major road projects, including the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project and the Manitoba-Nunavut Highway project.
With our federal counterparts, we will work on the implementation of the Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report.
The department will complete a legislative review of the Motor Vehicles Act and implement a new driver’s licence system.
In summary I would like to say again that our goal in 2007-08 will be to overcome restraints in program spending by becoming more effective in program delivery, including reporting on program outcomes.
I welcome your comments and questions on the Main Estimates for 2007-08 for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
(interpretation) For the record Minister please introduce your witnesses.
To my left is Paul Suvega, Assistant Deputy Minister for Economic Development and Transportation, and to my right, Deputy Minister Alex Campbell.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome Minister, Deputy Minister and Assistant Deputy Minister, Paul Suvega and Mr. Campbell.
The Committee has reviewed the 2007-08 main estimates and business plan of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation and had the opportunity to meet with the minister in February.
Members noted that the department would be undertaking several legislative initiatives in 2007-08.
Members look forward to scrutinizing amendments to the Travel and Tourism Act and the Motor Vehicles Act.
During the review of the 2007-08 Capital Estimates in this House in December, I voiced the concerns of the committee with respect to the lack of federal commitment to funding the small craft harbours that are described in the department’s Small Craft Harbours Report.
Members remain concerned that there has been no announcement with respect to federal support for the construction of harbours in the seven communities outlined in the report.
Members note that the second round of consultations for the route selection study for the Nunavut to Manitoba road was held in February.
Members support the construction of nation-building infrastructure that connects our territory to the rest of Canada but remain concerned that funding has not been committed for the actual construction of the road.
Members note that the department has restructured its economic development programs for small businesses and hamlets, including the way that Community Economic Development Officer positions are funded. Members encourage the minister to continue supporting important economic development initiatives at the community level.
Members also note that there is no longer a Community Initiative Program.
Members recognize that the department is trying to do more with less and that the goal of the program review was more efficient program delivery.
Members also noted that one of the department’s priorities in its business plan is to publish an annual report on the impact and effectiveness of the department’s programs and services on the development of the territorial economy.
Members look forward to reviewing the first annual report in 2008.
Members are concerned that the 2007-08 Business Plan for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation was not included in this year’s budget package. Members note that the request for proposals to undertake an operational review of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation and Nunavut Development Corporation was issued in September 2006.
Members also note that 2005-06 annual reports for both corporations are now overdue.
Members look forward to receiving updated information on the status of the operational review of the two crown corporations.
Committee members noted that the department is working to implement some form of memorandum of understanding with the federal department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The standing committee urges the minister to make the memorandum of understanding public by tabling it in this House at the earliest opportunity.
Members note that several strategies are referenced in the department’s business plan but have not yet been tabled.
These include the Carving Stone Supplies Strategy, the Nunavut Arts and Crafts Strategy, and the Char Marketing Strategy especially in the lakes and rivers we need to have a marketing strategy.
The committee urges the minister to table these strategies in a timely manner along with the business plans.
Members note that the Government of Nunavut’s Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy was released at the 2007 Annual Convention of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada in Toronto.
One of the action items listed in the strategy is to develop our uranium policy.
Another action item is to implement the Nunavut Mine Training Initiative.
Members look forward to receiving these in addition to the implementation document that is referred to in the strategy.
Members note that the Government of Nunavut and Cumberland Resources have entered into a development partnership agreement. This agreement is with respect to the Cumberland Meadowbank Gold Project and is required in order for Cumberland to access the Nunavut Fuel Tax Rebate Program.
Members look forward to updates from the minister on the cost of the Fuel Tax Rebate program and benefits that have been secured under the Development Partnership Agreement.  Members note that the department continues to emphasize the importance of streamlining the regulatory regime with respect to all economic development, including the mining sector.
Members note that the start of the Barriers to Business Study was announced almost two years ago.