EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Perhaps it would be better for the hunters' boats and I know that some communities do not have facilities and we will be sensitive to those communities.
We will break now for lunch and I would like the members to come back to the chamber at 1.05 p.m. sharp.
>>House recessed at 11.59 a.m. and resumed at 1.14 p.m.
Speaker: Welcome back members.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Joint Report of the Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on the 2000/2001 Budget and Departmental Business Plans of the Government of Nunavut.
This is a joint report of the following four Standing Committee; the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Services, the Standing Committee on Culture, Education and Health, the Standing Committee on Community Empowerment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit.
Mr. Speaker, the four Chairs of these Standing Committees intend to share the reading of the review and the recommendations, however in the interests of time we will not read the actual text of the Standing Committees review of each specific department and at the end of the recommendations we will move that the report be received by the Legislative Assembly as read.
I will begin by reading the Letter of Transmittal to the Speaker.
On behalf of the Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly we have the honour of presenting the joint report on the 2000/2001 Budget and the Departmental Business Plans of the Government of Nunavut and commend it to the House.
Pursuant to rule 91(5), we hereby request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report and its recommendations within 120 days of its presentation.
This Report on the Review of the 2000-2001 Budget and Departmental Business Plans of the Government of Nunavut is a joint effort on the part of four Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly.
The Report is organized into three sections.
The Overview section highlights a number of themes which emerged from all of the Standing Committees in their review of specific departments, as well as a review of overall Government activities during the past year.
The sections that follow under each of the four Standing Committees have specific observations regarding the departments that are within each Committee's oversight mandate.
Lastly, a list of Recommendations provides some direction that the Standing Committees are hopeful that the Government will act upon in the coming year.
Context for the Report
This report is being written at the end of the first year of operation of the Government of Nunavut.
It has been an exciting year, during which the Government has had to balance basic implementation tasks, such as getting staff and new programs in place, with the need to develop new visions and new ways of doing business that will better meet the needs of Nunavummiut, and, in particular, better reflect the cultural aspirations of Inuit.
As a new Government, we inherited most of the statutes of the NWT and, by necessity, many of its procedures and policies have had to continue in order that core services could be provided.
All of these laws, procedures and policies will have to be reviewed, one-by-one, and it will take time to do this.
Nevertheless, an impressive amount of work has been done in the past year that has begun the process of change.
The Standing Committees have been mindful of this context and, as this report will outline, they have endeavoured to play their part, both in terms of implementation issues, and in helping to give direction for made-in-Nunavut approaches to the important work of Government.
Role of Standing Committees
Standing Committees play a fundamental role in a parliamentary democracy.
There are five Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
While the Executive Council (or Cabinet) has the authority to develop laws, policies and budgets, it is the Standing Committees that have the responsibility to review these initiatives in detail before they are approved in the Legislative Assembly.
The Standing Committee review process also provides a forum for public input.
In a consensus government, the process of review by the Standing Committees ensures that all elected Members have had an opportunity for input and comment.
If concerns are raised in the Committee, it is the responsibility of the Government to then review and address these concerns.
Over the past year, Standing Committees have been involved in reviewing legislative proposals, draft Bills, Bills, draft business plans, draft budgets, reports and other documents which have been referred to them.
They have also been involved in the appointments of key officials, and in reviewing reports provided to the Legislative Assembly itself.
Budget Development Process
The budget development process continues to evolve in Nunavut.
Last year, newly-elected Members reviewed budget documents in April and May of 1999.
These budget documents had, by and large, been developed by departmental officials under the guidance of the Office of the Interim Commissioner.
As such, they very much kept the status quo of the previous budgets of the GNWT, as they would have applied to Nunavut. Members did not feel that there was much room to make changes at that time, and gave what direction they could for where they hoped Departments would move, given that there were now elected officials in place to speak for the people of Nunavut.
However, Standing Committees requested a 6-month review in October 1999 in order to better review actual budget expenditures at that time and give further direction for changes.
The six-month review process occurred in October 1999.
All four Standing Committees again issued reports.
A number of recommendations were made for improving the overall budget review process, as well as specific directions to Departments.
The Department of Finance then initiated a budget consultation process in November 1999, which saw a whirlwind tour of officials, Ministers and Regular Members visiting every community in Nunavut to hear input on the budget.
The summary of the issues raised during the budget consultation was provided to Members at the beginning of February.
During a January 2000 retreat in Cambridge Bay, the Minister of Finance presented a budget development schedule that was agreed to by the Regular Members.
It was clear to Regular Members that the timing of the process would be limited by the fact that information still had to obtained from Departments and reviewed and approved by the Financial Management Board, before it could go to the Standing Committees.
Draft business plans and draft capital documents were provided to the Legislative Assembly at the beginning of February.
Standing Committees then reviewed these documents and subsequently met with Ministers and their departmental officials during a two-week period in February.
As the Committees were reviewing draft budget documents, the meetings were in camera, but they provided an opportunity for detailed questions by Members and scrutiny of the plans.
It was the expectation of the Members that any concerns raised during these reviews would be incorporated into the final documents before they were formally tabled in the House and this was one of the valuable reasons for conducting the preliminary review.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask my honourable colleague, Mr. Nutarak, to continue.
General Comments on the Budget
The Standing Committees are pleased that the Government is being very responsible in presenting two balanced budgets in a row.
The Committees are well aware of the number of needs in Nunavut, but do not want to see Nunavut fall into the debt trap that deficit spending results in.
Indeed, the Government has a budget surplus.
The Standing Committees are somewhat concerned that the actual amount of the surplus has been quite elusive over the past year and also disappointed that the Government did not respond to Standing Committee proposals as to how the surplus could have been allocated in the second half of the year.
In the Fall of 1999, Members were advised that the surplus would be around $10 million.
In February, this number was dramatically revised upwards to $30 or $40 million.
While Members appreciate that the actual number will not be determined until the full audit of the previous fiscal year, they nevertheless suggested that some of the surplus be allocated immediately to the two stated priorities of the Government -- housing and education.
However, Members were very frustrated that their recommendations were ignored.
The fact that the capital budget for the Housing Corporation was reduced in this year's budget sends the wrong message about what "priority" means.
Similarly, while the overall Education budget was increased a very small amount, there were cuts to such key areas as libraries, early childhood programs and adult literacy.
If these are priority areas, Members question why they are being cut.
The overall budget picture is not dramatically different from last year. It is evident that without full staff and all programs in place, it is difficult to adequately assess how delivering programs in Nunavut may require adjustments in the budget.
Members expect that this information will be more forthcoming in the coming year, and that we may see fuller discussions about relative priorities and more discussion about comparative approaches to programs and services which may have budget implications.
The capital budget was a source of concern to Members as many priority needs of communities do not appear to be on the list and it is not clear when in the future some of the projects will actually begin.
As well, there were very explicit examples where Members perceived some unfairness and Members were disappointed at the lack of response to the concerns raised during the February review of the draft capital estimates and the lack of leadership by the Government in the discussions in the House when these concerns were raised again.
The commitment in the Budget Address to bring forward a Preliminary Five-Year Capital Plan in the Fall of 2000 is a welcome one.
Mr. Irqittuq will be continuing.
General Comments on the Budget Review Process
After the time-pressured review of the budget last year, Members looked forward to a more measured review of the budget for the new fiscal year, with more time and more information from Ministers and their Departments.
However, because of the timing of receipt of information, the schedule this year was still very constrained and there was a lot of pressure to move quickly through large volumes of materials and vote quickly on capital projects in order to meet sealift deadlines.
While the idea of pre-budget consultations with communities is welcome, there is room for improvement in how such consultations actually take place.
In reflecting on the Fall 1999 consultation process, it is clear that many hamlets and organizations did not seem to understand that this was the time to raise their formal capital and program needs, and this information is lacking from the pre-budget consultation report.
While broad priorities are clearly articulated, there is very little specificity in the report that would be useful to the Government in making actual budget choices between programs or projects.
Nevertheless, the Standing Committees all support the idea that focussed consultation is necessary.
In particular, the Government has committed to developing a Five-Year Capital Plan, and the Standing Committees would support a solid budget consultation process with local governments and the residents of each community in establishing their priority needs and the order in which they feel they should be met.
But community wishes are not the only factor to consider.
The Government should also develop more explicit criteria for funding programs and capital projects, so that a more fair assessment can be made about allocations to communities.
Several departments have spoken about preparing audits of the status of capital facilities under their responsibility in the communities, which will be welcome information in any future planning.
Standing Committees have been asking for more objective and concrete indicators that will help communities determine when they should be able to request and expect new facilities, additions, renovations, etc.
The budget debate this year has made this need all the more pressing, where it seemed that one community's wishes were addressed before many other communities' needs.
There is a vital need for the overall budget process to evolve normal timelines as envisioned in the Main Estimates document.
All departments must be made to understand that the deadlines are real, in order to ensure adequate time for review of draft documents, translation of documents, revisions and finalization of documents.
The Standing Committees are very supportive of the Department of Finance's plan to have an annual cycle that incorporates a timely review of current expenditures and proposed expenditures for the coming year; and they would support measures to sanction tardiness on the part of line departments.
In establishing the annual cycle, the Standing Committees wish to make the following observations.
It is clear from the experience this year that the review of capital estimates in Nunavut has to begin months earlier than it began this year.
The government introduced the Main Estimates on March 24, less than a week before the new fiscal year, and only three weeks for some of the sealift order deadlines.
If the Government had addressed even one of the concerns that the Standing Committees had raised during their review of the draft capital estimates in February with Ministers, the tone of debate in the House might have gone differently than it did.
But it appeared that the Government ignored every concern, so Members had to raise them again during the Budget debate, in the hope that the Government would consider the concerns at this time.
The fact that the Minister of Public Works only informed the House on April 17 of sealift order deadlines of April 18 and April 25 was galling for Members, as common sense would have suggested that this information should have been made clear at the beginning of the budget debate in the Legislative Assembly, so that those projects could have been addressed first.
Better still, the whole debate on capital projects should happen in the Fall, well in advance of any sealift order deadlines, and with a six-month lead time to address any outstanding issues or questions.
Clearly, once there is an approved Five-Year Capital Plan, this need may become less acute each year.
But Members will want to see the draft capital estimates for 2001-2002 at the time they conduct the mid-year review of departmental operations in October, whether the Preliminary Five-Year Plan has actually been developed or not.
I will now ask Mr. Akesuk to read the section on the Departments' Business Plans.
Departmental Business Plans
The Standing Committees were pleased to have secured a commitment that the 2000-2001 Business Plans for all Government of Nunavut departments would be tabled in the Legislative Assembly this year, making them public documents available for anyone to read.
The Bathurst Mandate articulates the long-term goals and vision for where we want to be in twenty years.
Each department's Business Plan sets out the tangible ways by which we'll get there.
Equally important, they set benchmarks for success and progress that will be important tools of accountability in measuring ministerial and departmental performance in the year to come.
The Standing Committees were also pleased to see the Business Plans evolving for different departments, reflecting both the concerns of the Standing Committees, as well as a growing appreciation of how departments will address their responsibilities in ways that will more truly meet the needs of Nunavummiut.
Departments should be generally proud of their Business Plans.
Many of them are very ambitious and hopeful of great changes in short amounts of time.
We would observe that it would be useful to further standardize some aspects of them across the Government.
For example, some are much more detailed than others.
The Standing Committees would encourage the public, the media and all Government of Nunavut employees to read them in detail.
In this regard, we would like to encourage the Government to make them as accessible as possible.
They should, for example, be available on the Government's primary website, and on departmental websites, and at least one printed set should be available from government offices in each community.
Many of the Business Plans outline plans to review legislation or policies and procedures under their jurisdiction, in order to produce "made-in-Nunavut" solutions.
The Standing Committees applaud these plans, but express their hope that the appropriate balance be struck between "review processes" that don't appear to start or end, and actually getting important new legislation, policies and procedures for Nunavut in place.
It would be useful to have a broad, Government-wide set of guidelines on what the concept of "appropriate consultations" should entail, as we begin to undertake these processes in earnest.
It would also be helpful to receive an overall list of priorities for change, so that the Standing Committees could also identify how they can contribute to these important review processes over time.
The overall role of the Law Reform Commission remains somewhat unclear, especially with respect to how its work will coincide or overlap with ongoing or proposed departmental reviews of existing legislation.
Finally, it is incumbent upon the Government and, in particular, its central agencies, to do a better job of making public in the Assembly new policies and procedures as they are developed and approved.
Members of the Legislative Assembly were pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss in the public forum of the House the Government's new NNI Policy and hope this will occur for all important new policies.
Lastly, the Departmental Business plans outline the decentralization plans and in a more general manner, the Inuit Employment objectives as they apply to each department.
Members want to state very clearly that the decentralized communities and Inuit in Nunavut have high expectations that steps will be taken to ensure that these plans are carried out and Members will want to hear about their progress at the mid-year review.
I would now ask Mr. Tootoo to present the recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, I will start off with the recommendations.
The Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut recommend:
That each Department of the Government of Nunavut present a comprehensive Mid-Year Progress Update in October 2000;
That the Standing Committees of the Legislative Assembly be fully involved in reviewing and having the opportunity to make substantial input into the Preliminary Five-Year Capital Plan;
That the Five-Year Capital Plan fully involve local governments and communities in its development;
That the Government of Nunavut's Standards and Criteria for funding new capital projects be made more explicit;
That the Standing Committees review draft capital estimates in the Fall; and draft main estimates in January;
That departments undertake a comprehensive audit of capital facilities under their jurisdiction, with a view to objectively assessing their state of repair, and whether they meet the needs of communities and their residents;
That the Government of Nunavut make public the final figure for the 1999-2000 budget surplus as soon as it is known;
That all Members of the Legislative Assembly be involved in determining the allocation of the budget surplus;
That the areas of Housing and Education have first call on any surplus;
That the Main Estimates and Capital Estimates documents that are tabled in the Legislative Assembly, and therefore available for public review, include full substantiations of capital projects; and that the Main Estimates provide detail to the level of expenditure by Standard Object;
That the Government of Nunavut work to ensure that the annual budget cycle provides for sufficient time for a comprehensive and thoughtful review process that avoids the need for interim appropriations; and that Departments adhere to FMB-established deadlines;
That the Business Plans of the Government of Nunavut's Departments, Boards and Agencies, and bodies funded by the Government be tabled each year in the Legislative Assembly; and that they be made easily accessible to the public through distribution to Government offices in all of Nunavut's communities and placement on Government of Nunavut websites;
That departmental and senior management performance be measured against the goals and objectives set forth in each Departmental Business Plan;
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask my honourable colleague, Mr. Nutarak, to continue with the recommendations.
Recommendations of Standing Committees:
That the Department of Health and Social Services place more emphasis on community alcohol and drug programs; community wellness programs; and community mental health programs;
That the Department of Health and Social Services provide more training and support to community health committees to play a more effective role in health and social services issues;
That the Department of Health and Social Services conduct a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of Telehealth centres in Nunavut, and that the results be tabled in the Legislative Assembly;
That Public-Private Partnering projects be reviewed and approved by the Legislative Assembly in the same manner as other capital projects, and that full details of P3 costs be made public;
That the Department of Education provide more training and support to local DEAs to play a more effective role in education issues.
That the Department of Education work to develop a "made-in-Nunavut" formula to determine appropriate Student-Teacher Ratios in Nunavut's schools;
That the Department of Education consult with the NSDC and other Inuit organizations, the Languages Commissioner and the Department of CLEY in the development of an Inuktitut curriculum;
That the Department of Education table in the Legislative Assembly all research studies undertaken by the Department since April 1999;
That the Department of Education assess the needs of students with disabilities and develop new initiatives to meet their needs;
That the Department of CLEY bring forward a plan for a comprehensive review of the Official Languages Act involving the Languages Commissioner and other stakeholders;
That the Department of CLEY make available to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the public the Department's draft Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Policy for the Government of Nunavut within 90 days;
That the Department of CLEY develop a plan for providing support to Elders' Councils at the community and Nunavut-wide level;
That the Department of CLEY develop a comprehensive planning document for the development of heritage facilities in all communities in Nunavut;
I would now ask Mr. Akesuk to continue.
Recommendations of the Standing Committees:
That the progress of work of such bodies as the Nunavut Law Reform Commission be conveyed to the Legislative Assembly and the public on a quarterly basis;
That the Government of Nunavut develop an explicit set of guidelines for what constitutes "adequate and appropriate" consultation processes with the public and non-governmental bodies;
That the policies of the Government of Nunavut be made easily accessible to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the public in a consolidated and up-to-date format.
That the Government of Nunavut undertake a comprehensive public review in 2000-2001 on policies related to the sale, possession and distribution of alcohol in Nunavut;
That the Decentralization Secretariat of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs continue to provide formal monthly updates to Members of the Legislative Assembly and local leaders on the status of decentralization in each community;