EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We truly believe that we need to move forward with our devolution file.
I spoke to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and it is stating the same thing again. We state that we are now available and we now have a negotiator. We are being supported by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated with our devolution file and we need to move forward.
I told the minister that I would like to see our federal negotiator because we already have one for Nunavut, and that is what I told him.
You had mentioned about the federal negotiator not being named and I guess it has been two years that the government has actually been asking for one to be named.
Did he give any indication as to whether or not the federal government would be moving on this?
Are they going to, in a certain timeframe, announce someone to negotiate on behalf of the federal government?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Madam Premier.
We discussed this topic, although he didn’t identify whether they are going to be appointing a negotiator.
We made an agreement and we concluded with each other that we will be continually discussing the devolution file.
Again, there has been media attention on this and there have also been statements by the minister himself saying that we are not ready.
In terms of to be able to put us in a position to be ready, has he given any indication what we should be doing to become ready?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) In the protocol agreement that was signed in 2008 between the three parties, including the Government of Nunavut, in the context in there, it stated that the capacity issue will be addressed parallel to the negotiations.
That is why I feel that it is so important for all three parties to be engaged in negotiations having negotiators.
We are just waiting for the Government of Canada to appoint their negotiator.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Your final supplementary, Member for Quttiktuq.
I was curious to find out: what type of a timeline is the Government of Nunavut looking at in terms of having devolution rolled out?
I know that in some media comments made by Minister Keith Peterson, he was alluding to the fact that it takes time for something like this to unravel and come out.
I think he mentioned something like a decade. Is this the timeline that the Premier is thinking of as well?
I know that the negotiators will be dealing with devolution. Negotiation is not an easy task and they cannot negotiate overnight.
For example, if you look at the Government of Yukon, it took them seven years to negotiate with the federal government.
Along with the Northwest Territories, they negotiated with the protocol agreement and they just recently signed their agreement in principle, which took them almost a decade to negotiate.
It’s evident that Nunavut will negotiate for a long time.
I truly believe that the issues that we face, including getting more employees, will start settling down and that it will be completed along with the devolution agreement.
It takes a very long time to negotiate and I do not want to rush the negotiations.
If you rush negotiations, we tend to omit something.
This is something very important to Nunavummiut and I do want to continually expect to see devolution once the federal government hires their negotiator.
Question 537 – 3(2): Children in Care (Ugyuk)
Again, this is regarding the review of the Child and Family Services Act.
I would like to get clarification on how many children have been taken from their families, how many have lost their children, and how many children have been taken through an agreement.
These are the three child welfare cases where the children are taken are taken from the family. How many families are in each of these three categories?
How many children are being taken away and furthermore, how many children have been taken away through an agreement?
We will be developing an annual report down the road.
I have presented these last year through my director of family services.
It was set for the previous year. The information was contained in that report and it related to Nunavut, how many children are in foster care and how many are out of the territory, and that information is available.
Perhaps even next week, I will be able to table it during our session. Once we table it, it will contain all of the information.
Perhaps there will be questions that arise once I present the report that will be directed at the director of social services.
So the report is done up by the director of social services and the requirement is that it has (interpretation ends) to table it in the Legislative Assembly. (interpretation) The cabinet has already pre-approved the initiative. (interpretation ends) It’s only a matter of scheduling. (interpretation) Once it has been presented, I will be able to provide more details.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Your first supplementary, Member for Nattilik.
I look forward to asking further questions once the minister has presented the report.
We all know as Nunavummiut that many social workers are over-stressed and we have to import a lot of social service workers from outside the territory.
How can we improve the health services?
What kind of initiatives and other incentives are they offering inside Nunavut for hiring these kinds of workers?
When they were dealing with this particular issue during the study, there were a lot of issues that cropped up. A lot of the details are contained within the report as it relates to child foster care.
They’re actually meeting about these issues from all over Nunavut and they’re meeting here in Iqaluit.
There are social workers, regional Inuit associations, and different entities that are meeting on this issue in Iqaluit. They are conducting an independent review and will be providing recommendations to the government and whether these recommendations are spot on.
I know for a fact that it will assist a lot of Nunavutmiut.
It’s important but it’s lagging behind.
Once we present the report, we will be bringing up elders. I can also state that once the report has been completed, a lot of these details will be identified.
There will be assistance identified for social services, but we are under financial restraints at this time and I believe that there are only 26 positions that have been approved.
Furthermore, there are only 20 that are filled and of those, 12 are aboriginal social service workers.
I know for a fact that we have to provide more incentives and more opportunities for people to undertake these positions, but the report should highlight a lot of the issues that we have to deal with to create more social workers.
Your second supplementary, Member for Nattilik.
When social service workers take a child, they tend to go to the court in order to deal with the issue and they have to provide a report, such as to KIA, and they also have to report why they are apprehending the child and forcibly taking them from their parents.
Based on my personal experience, a lot of the issues with foster children are never dealt with when they’re being looked after by social services.
There are a lot of important issues that have been incorporated into studies, such as interviewing elders and family members.
Based on what I have seen, they’re missing a lot of the actual people and it seems like they’re not getting the whole story before they go and apprehend the children from the family.
It seems like the regional Inuit associations aren’t voicing support for the people.
Due to that very reason, we are trying to resolve all of the problems and issues related to the Child and Family Services Act.
Due to these problems associated with your question, we have initiated an independent review that has been ongoing for about a year.
Starting last October, they started the tour to consult with the communities located in the Kitikmeot and other regions. The focus of this consultation is to conduct a review of this legislation, as well as the problematic areas and concerns noted previously by the communities.
All of the issues related to this legislation are currently being reviewed, including what areas the communities require assistance on. This independent review is mandated to review all of the issues related to the legislation.
Due to these reasons, I expect that the independent review report will be presented to the cabinet members and we will have to make changes to the legislation based on the recommendations.
Currently, only by utilizing our legislative foundation have we been able to deal with the issues related to child protection and social services. At this time, here in Nunavut, we currently have over 200 foster homes available.
These foster homes are the last resort when the child is at serious risk at home or if that child requires protection at that point. If the child is at risk at their home, there is no other alternative but to remove them from their home and place them in a foster home. That’s what the Act states.
The Act is very legalistic in its language and lays out the protocol for apprehending children. The process involves the court system whereby the case for apprehending the child is argued before a judge. Furthermore, these foster homes have to be certified through social services.
We are constantly being apprised of the changes within the independent review process based on their consultations, which would lead to legislation revision.
We expect that this tour will have some good recommendations that ask for legislative changes that we will have to review and make revisions to meet our needs.
Your final supplementary, Member for Nattilik.
As I had mentioned earlier, the Inuit organizations, such as the Kitikmeot Inuit Association, receive a copy of this report presented by the social services department to the Government of Nunavut, which speaks to the number of children that are apprehended by the social workers. These bodies are not even voicing their concerns about these apprehensions, which lead me to ask if these organizations even review the report that is submitted to them.
Is the report being reviewed and will these bodies start representing the people in their regions?
To cite an example, the Indians have a system that incorporates a check and balance system that counteracts the legislation designed to apprehend children at risk. The First Nations have a system that catches the children who fall through the gaps and the aboriginal children who are apprehended in the reserve have to stay on reserve.
Whenever one is placed where they have to deal with youth and children, that person is always looking for support and assistance when dealing with these cases.
I want to ensure that this is understood, as many social workers expect support from the organizations that are supposed to represent them, especially in these cases.
I believe I got the gist of her question.
However, under the requirements of the Family and Child Services Act, it doesn’t state that they have to report to these Inuit organizations.
Where social service workers have to report to the organizations is usually under the research into the case and whether the child is at risk and where they require assistance from other bodies.
As stated earlier, the social workers can only apprehend a child through the court process. I believe that in these cases, they request the assistance of the organization.
However, the regional Inuit associations are all involved in this review and this includes the Kitikmeot Inuit Association, currently partaking in the meeting here in Iqaluit.
These matters will be taken into consideration when they are reviewing the consultation process, including the review of the final report.
I believe that the review committee will still be here, at least the senior managers. Further, the departmental deputy ministers also meet with the Inuit organizations and they are free to comment on what they feel is a priority.
Question 538 – 3(2): New Char Marketing Strategy (Tapardjuk)
He spoke about very good news items with regard to fisheries.
So based on the Minister’s Statement, they are trying to look at new initiatives to sell fish and how it would be operated.
My question to the minister, Mr. Speaker: this (interpretation ends) new Char Marketing Strategy (interpretation) that he referred to, when can we expect to see it?
That question is for the Minister of Environment.
As he has mentioned, the char strategy is being worked on. I would expect the new char strategy to be able to be tabled in the next sitting.
In the statement, he also identified that the fish plants in Rankin Inlet and Pangnirtung would be requesting more resources from outlying communities and that they will be looking at new communities that they can buy char from, such as Igloolik, Hall Beach, Qikiqtarjuaq, and other communities.
What I would like clarified, Mr. Speaker, is what exactly they mean by being involved. Perhaps I can get more detail as to what he meant when he said they would be searching in Igloolik.
Why isn’t Hall Beach included? Why aren’t other communities included?
That is the part that I want to understand, the reason why he only mentioned certain communities.
As part of the fisheries strategy, the communities that are listed or mentioned are communities that have been available and showing interest in supplying arctic char to the fish plants.
However, fisheries are very important across all of Nunavut, not just to the Baffin region or one region.
Lately we have hired two positions to develop fisheries in both the Kivalliq and the Kitikmeot regions. Those positions will be working very closely with communities and HTOs to provide opportunities and development in the fisheries industry.
The supply of arctic char right now is supplied to the fish plant on quotas that are available through DFO.
Sustainable stocks are there; we know quotas are sustainable. That type of work needs to happen all across Nunavut and to be established in individual communities to see what is sustainable to harvest.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the situation in our infrastructure to handle arctic char right now is limited. I also expressed that to the Minister of DFO that we need more viable fish plants and fishery operations, and small ports to operate our fisheries to their fullest potential.
I didn’t quite get all of those responses.
I’m sure he alluded to certain communities that have arctic char, such as Repulse Bay, Igloolik, and Qikiqtarjuaq.
I’m sure they will be expecting to get calls or requests for char. How will this be managed by either the department or the Wildlife Secretariat?
I don’t want to place undue expectations, but it seems that some communities may start thinking that, “Good, our fish are going to be bought.”
If he can he clarify that, please, Mr. Speaker.
That is not what that means.
The government is not going to be responsible for buying fish and reselling it. However, we will help and develop communities in the fishing industry. It’s an open market out there.
I know that there are individual quotas for different communities. Those quotas are in place for them to develop a fishery and sell their fish, if it’s profitable for them to do that.
Individual HTOs and fishermen are responsible for making markets and deals with buyers in the south and receiving freight subsidies, if there are any, from airlines to operate profitably.
Yes, it’s true that everybody is always looking for more ways to raise revenue, and our communities require assistance to develop our economy.
Mr. Speaker, my last question is related to a new branding and marketing strategy underway for Nunavut.
I would like to see what that new brand looks like. Will we see that new brand?
The branding I’m referring to is a brand that is put on the fish that is packaged. What that branding is it identifies the arctic char that is coming out of Nunavut is from Nunavut and is fresh, clean, healthy, and from natural sources.
It’s very important that when people buy that fish and they see that brand, it’s the label on the packaging that says that that is one of the highest quality arctic char you can receive. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 539 – 3(2): Capital Adjustments (Elliott)
My question is directed towards the Minister of Community and Government Services.
In a letter that was received on February 17 from the Hon. Keith Peterson, which is the Financial Administration Manual capital adjustments for 2010 and 2011, there is a $75,000 figure for the Arctic Bay school gym repair.
Before leaving Arctic Bay and having meetings within the community to come up with ideas of what issues the community wanted me to bring forward, the DEA was concerned and was wanting to know what was actually happening in Arctic Bay with the community repairs in Arctic Bay.
I was wondering if the minister could update the House on that.
I will talk with the Minister of Education and I will check to see what repairs are being done at the school.
Your first supplementary, Member for Quttiktuq.
In the actual documents, it says that it’s not the Department of Education; it’s actually the Department of CGS that has the funds for the repairs to the gym in Arctic Bay.
I’m just curious: is that a misunderstanding on my part?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, I will look into it, what that refers to and what is being repaired in the school, and in the particular community you are talking about. As soon as I find out, I will let the member know.
Question 540 – 3(2): Cape Dorset School Repairs (Schell)
My question is for the Minister of CG&S, the Hon. Lorne Kusugak, and it’s in regard to the two schools in Cape Dorset.
I brought the issue up in our committee meetings on February 2 in regard to the issue at Peter Pitseolak School, and he stated to me that the company SIFEC was in Cape Dorset repairing this.
They were not there at the time but they did come a week later, and I do have to thank them for showing up and doing the repairs at Peter Pitseolak School.
Going to the other school, the Sam Pudlat School had the same issues and they had sent memos back and forth to CG&S since November of last year and nobody had gone there to repair it.
Now, at the time that this company was there, it was suggested by somebody from Pond Inlet at CG&S that SIFEC should go there and look at the problems at Sam Pudlat while they are there and fix them.
They went and looked at the issues there and lo and behold, a day later, another crew was flown in by CG&S to do the repairs at Sam Pudlat School.
So my question is: why were there two companies in Cape Dorset doing the same repairs?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) I am glad that the problems faced by the two schools were rectified in your community. The first contractor was repairing the work as agreed to by the department and contractor. That is what happened to the first case you mentioned.
If the contractor had been informed beforehand as to the problems faced by the other school prior to their arrival to the community, they would have been able to resolve the problems at the other school. It was due to the fact that the work order was only for the one school that they had to undertake another work order to complete the repairs on the other school. At least that is what I surmise from the report.
Your first supplementary, Member for South Baffin.
No, both of the requests were made by CG&S. One was done by Pond Inlet and the other one by Iqaluit here, so that’s why I’m asking the question.
Why was that order put in from CGS to two different people? It wasn’t the hamlet, or the school, or anybody else that ordered it; it was directly with CG&S.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, I didn’t mention that any other division or department other than CG&S was involved in this project. I didn’t state that other than the fact that these contractors dealt with the work orders they were given and they conducted repairs as per the paperwork. It is true that we ended up with two contractors to complete the work as per the requests.
At this point; I don’t comprehend what the member’s concerns are with regard to this issue as the repairs were completed as per the orders.
As far as I’m concerned, the problems were resolved to our satisfaction.
I guess what I’m getting at here is that SIFEC went and did an estimate on getting the repairs done at Sam Pudlat School. They were in Cape Dorset already repairing the Peter Pitseolak School. They went down and looked at it, gave the estimate, and got the okay.
Basically they were going to get the okay to do it. The next day, another crew was flown in from down south to fix the same problem. Both requests were from CG&S.
So my question is: why were there two crews?
They had to pay double for this and this was all done through CG&S. I know that the directorate in Cape Dorset at CG&S was aware that SIFEC was there to do this repair.
I don’t know who put the request in for this other company to come in and do the same repairs when there was a company already there doing it.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): I am happy that the problem was rectified and resolved.
I don’t know why they had the exact same problems based on the details that the member has provided, but what I’m happy about is that all of the problems were rectified in both of the schools.
They experienced problems and to me, I am happy that both problems were resolved and rectified.
Your final supplementary, Member for South Baffin.
Mr. Schell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am also happy about the repairs being done, but what I’m getting at is that there were two companies paid to go do this work when it only required one company. It was a waste of money and that’s what I’m getting at.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): With regard to funding, he seems to think that we threw the money out, but I cannot ascertain that based on the details.
That is my response, Mr. Speaker.
Question 541 – 3(2): Implementation of Language Acts (Elliott)
I wanted to follow up on some of the questions earlier brought forward by the member from Amittuq in regard to the Nunavut Official Languages Act. I just wanted a firm commitment from the Minister of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth, the Hon. James Arreak.
When we first started asking questions about the implementation or the Government of Nunavut’s implementation plans for these Acts, we were told in spring 2010 that it would be tabled in the fall session of 2010, and then we were told that it would be in the winter session, during this session.
Can he confirm that he will be tabling that document in the spring sitting?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. The question is directed to the Minister of Languages.
I would like to say yes.
It will be produced this fall, but the work that we’re doing is very comprehensive and we have been facing a lot of barriers in trying to get as much done as we can.
We have proposed that.
We did the initial plan in January and then in February, we would have a draft report done.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, the timeline we have created is: in January, a draft comprehensive plan was started; in February, circulate a draft plan with government for input, review of proposed activities and budget by departments; and one-day presentation to deputy ministers and presidents, which was done on February 9; in March, circulate the revised draft to main stakeholders, representatives of Inuit organizations, Nunavut’s Languages Commissioner, representatives of the Francophone Association, the Commissioner of the Official Languages of Canada, representatives of other sectors, businesses, and municipalities, and so on.
We are planning to table the comprehensive plan in the June sitting.
My understanding is the hamlets have to start following and are expected to have implementation plans and working on this by September.
Will the Government of Nunavut be ready and doing the same and following the same standard?
With regard to the hamlets and their requirements to implement the legislation, we have informed them and we’re trying to get feedback from the hamlet councils, including our planning for the implementation, and we have let them know that September 2012 is our implementation date, not this fall but next fall.