EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I am just wondering if he could explain: is there, in the public housing units, a minimum requirement for units before they are treated and work done quickly, to rectify any defficiencies within those units so it brings up the condition rating to a satisfactory level?
Is there a satisfactory level for condition ratings when it comes to public housing units?
I will be very honest.
That is a real challenge for the Nunavut Housing Corporation and their partners, the local housing organizations.
There is definitely some additional funding that is needed in the communities with our aging inventory of housing.
So, this is an issue that we continue to try and deal with at the Housing Corporation, and also in trying to look for other sources of funding, both through the federal government, territorial, and other possible partners.
The status, as it is today…. We do really have a shortage of funding to appropriately bring some of these units up to standards.
Question 113 – 2(1): Announcement of Program Funding
I noticed in the media early this week, I am sure that the minister knows as well, that there is an announcement out of the NWT that they received $15,000,000 from Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnerships.
I think I remember the Nunavut mine focus group was working on a proposal early this year.
It comes under the Department of Education.
I’m wondering if the minister could update us on Nunavut’s proposal to this program in Ottawa.
I really can’t comment on what the Northwest Territories was successful in achieving through a program for the federal government.
My understanding of the analysis was that it was something that was in place for the Northwest Territories government.
Under the Labour Market Development Agreement, the LMDA, there has been quite a few things that we have been doing also as a government.
I indicated to the member in the past that we actually met with the mine training focus group when I was in Cambridge Bay about five weeks ago.
There has been quite a bit of work put into inter-training under the Labour Market Development Agreement, the LMDA.
There was over 229 people throughout Nunavut, trainees, working under that program.
No, my understanding is that program is 100 percent funded by the federal government, and I’m not sure if that same program is linked with the announcement in the Northwest Territories.
I don’t think it is the same program.
This program was announced, I think, up in Inuvik last October or November.
I think it is the program that’s accessible to all groups across Canada, but my understanding is they will only accept one proposal from each northern jurisdiction, that being the Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut.
I’m wondering if our government is preparing a proposal to this fund in Ottawa.
So, could we get an update on it?
Just for clarification: I believe the program that the member is speaking about was announced in October by the federal government, as the member has indicated.
There was a first call for proposals in November, and I believe the fund has about $85 million in total that is available to the different stakeholders, as the member has mentioned.
The Department of Education, along with other departments in the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut agencies, has been coordinating efforts to determine how best to access the fund that has been announced, and that’s the $85 million.
The working-group was made up of a representative of federal government and the territorial government, Inuit organizations, as well as the private sector. A concept paper has been submitted and is being refined with guidance from the Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership programs.
I also understand that the Kivalliq Inuit Association and the Baffin Fisheries Coalition have also submitted proposals to the program.
And the member is correct, we have also submitted a refined Nunavut-wide mine training proposal to the program and that will be actually submitted shortly, if it has not already been submitted.
There is another proposal that was submitted as well, and that’s through the Kitikmeot Employment and Training Partners, on behalf of the Kitikmeot Inuit Association in, obviously, the Kitikmeot.
So, there is four competing proposals and the federal program will only approve one. Are we going to have to get together, sort it out how that funding is going to work? And, I’m wondering if the minister has any ideas on how that might come out, to ensure that we do get one proposal approved.
The funding is limited.
The limit is $85 million, but they are approving it already. If we don’t get our applications in there and support it, it is likely that the funds that they have available are likely to be approved without a Nunavut proposal.
There is only $85 million that is available under this program developed for aboriginal communities in Canada.
Of the $85 million, it is my understanding, with the recent announcement in the Northwest Territories for the pipeline project, I think that is what the member is talking about, as well as for Voisey’s Bay in Labrador…. We’re not sure how much money will be available to other aboriginal groups in the country, including here in Nunavut.
That’s why we have an interdepartmental as well as an outside agency group working on it.
We have the proposals ready to go.
Now, with the recent federal election called, once again, we’re not sure how that will be brought forward.
What I will commit to the member is to bring actual updates on where we are with the proposal call as well as with the applicatory process that we’re involved in and move that forward.
The Nunavut Mine Training Focus Group is the major player in this program proposal on behalf and for the people of Nunavut, with the cooperation of the Government of Nunavut.
Question 114 – 2(1): Increase in the Government’s Debt
I’m learning from my colleague.
I was going to save this question for tomorrow but I’ll ask it today.
It’s for the Minister of Finance.
As the Minister of Finance knows, I like to read the Auditor General’s report at night to help me fall asleep.
What else is there to do in Iqaluit, right?
The Auditor General’s report indicated that last year our debt was $136 million, and then in the Minister of Finance’s budget speech last week she mentioned it increased to $143 million, leaving the balance with only $57 million dollars or so before we hit the debt wall.
So, I’m wondering, Mr. Speaker…. The question is: what accounted for the $7 million increase in debt over last year, and what did the borrowing achieve?
In terms of the Auditor General’s report, there was indications of further debt that were incurred and it relates to not just one item.
We’ve had to address emergency issues related to the municipality fire in Repulse Bay, the school fire here in Iqaluit, and I believe there was also a fire hall fire in one of the other communities in Baffin.
So, there were a number of activities that occurred that we had to address under the capital projects.
So, the majority of that was related to unexpected incidents.
I’m very pleased to know that the money went to good use because we do need our community halls and schools and hamlet offices, of course.
We’ve got to support the hamlets.
The Auditor General’s report also indicated that the government may not even know what its complete debt position is.
Apparently they have lots of credit cards, with different balances every month.
So, there’s that debt and then there are other debts.
So, I’m wondering what the Minister of Finance is doing, or directing her staff to do, to consolidate the debts so we know what the complete picture of our debt is in Nunavut.
Yes, the Auditor General’s report indicated that.
There are a number of things that the department is doing to address a number of reporting requirements.
One is the issue around reporting public accounts, the delay in reporting that, different types of report structures.
The department is looking at different ways of accounting finances, but that takes time to address.
We are exploring what accounting system is best.
I know most jurisdictions are now looking at an accrual-based system.
But for Nunavut, we have been in operation for five years.
We’re trying to develop our system as we go along, and issues like this come up that recommend further reviews.
So, it’s an ongoing initiative of government to try and streamline systems, or better address reporting, meeting the requirements.
So, in terms of at what type of system we are looking, I believe that we are looking at one that is an accrual system, but that is ongoing.
Our debt limit is $200 million. We’re at 143, so we are $57 million away, and the federal government is not giving any new money to the Department of Finance.
The only reason why we got extra money this year was the last year’s debt was increased.
So, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance: we are getting very close to critical conditions if we do not have new money come in, because we are reaching our debt limit.
So, I am wondering if the Minister of Finance could comment on whether she is going to be approaching the federal government to look for an increase for our $200 million debt limit with the federal government.
Speaker: Ms Aglukkaq.
The member is correct in terms of what is available, in the debt limit of the 200 million figure.
We did receive additional funding through the census, but we also received additional funding in the recent federal budget this last year, about $19 million.
In terms of ongoing discussions with the federal government, we continue to try and present our case to increase the funding or the formula funding for Nunavut.
We recognize that the formula only meets a developed territory for immediate operations and maintenance services.
It does not address the immediate infrastructure needs for the territory, and I mentioned that in my budget address. Those are ongoing initiatives with the government, and we try and educate the federal folks to recognize that we are in need of major infrastructure investment in the North. Not only that, but also in the area of economic development throughout the North.
So, that is ongoing.
One of the other areas that we addressed was to seek further funding for housing.
So, it is ongoing.
After this session ends in June, I had plans to go down and meet the federal officials. But of course, elections have been called, so I will now wait until that election is over.
Speaker (interpretation): Your Last supplementary.
I was reading the public accounts, it is another report that I read late at night in Iqaluit, the other night, and there is $77 million guaranteed to the Nunavut Power Corporation.
As we heard the minister responsible for the Power Corporation, he mentioned they have done assessments of the plant capacities in each community and they have prepared a capital investment plan.
So, I am wondering if the Minister of Finance can assure us that no more debt guarantees will be required for Nunavut Power Corporation for expansion in the future. Or, if it cannot, can she give us an indication of how much she is going to have to guarantee for the Power Corporation to place equipment for expansion in the future in the communities?
It is difficult to guarantee that incidence will not happen.
In terms of the Power Corporation’s situation….
I mean, the Power Corporation’s been in place in Nunavut for the last two or three years.
We have had five years of development, they have had less than that time.
They have had to set up offices as well in Baker Lake and decentralize operations.
But at the same time, they have had to deal with situations that were unexpected, where there was a fire in Sanikiluaq, and that created an emergency for the Power Corporation.
So, with all due respect to my colleagues that are responsible for finance, there are other issues, aside from the report that are outlined that I’ve not highlighted, that caused challenges for the Corporation to address.
My colleague mentioned today that they are taking corrective measures to address the Auditor General’s report at the same time as we build the Corporation.
So, in terms of addressing your question to guarantee that there will be no further debt, I can’t guarantee that, nor can I guarantee that for this government.
There are situations that occur that we have no control of.
Time for Oral Questions is over.
I wish to table a response to written question 003 – 2(1) on behalf of the Minister of Health and Social Services.
Return to Written Question 003 – 2(1): Physician Services
1. Full time physicians between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004:
Baffin: 6
Kivalliq: 1
Kitikmeot: 1
There was one physician in Baffin on a regular one-month-on, one-month-off contract: Dr. Paul Stubbing. Two physicians who had worked in Baffin for two or more years resigned in the spring of 2003.
Number of physicians hired to provide services between April 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004 who are still employed:
3. What percentage of physicians are compensated by fee-for-service versus physicians compensated through base pay contracts as of April 1, 2004?
As of April 1, 2004, none of the physicians working in Nunavut are remunerated on a fee-for-service basis, except specialist physicians from Ottawa who come to Baffin to do 4-5 day clinics.
There were two private practice family physicians in Iqaluit, Dr. Paul Stubbing and Dr. Peggy Netscher, until the last two years; Dr. Stubbing closed his private practice in March 2002 and Dr. Netscher closed her private practice on December 1, 2003.
Both are now employed by the department on part-time contracts.
Has the Department of Health and Social Services held any discussions with the NWT Medical Association regarding contract terms for physicians in Nunavut since April 1, 2004?
The NWTMA is the official bargaining agent for physicians in NWT and Nunavut, but to date, has not been active in Nunavut.
Full-time physicians in Nunavut have been encouraged to obtain membership in NWTMA and to date, four of them have joined.
Will the terms of compensation for full-time physicians in Nunavut be reviewed?
Yes. The medical director is currently in the last stages of developing a new pay package for full- and part-time physicians in Nunavut, and for the specialists who provide services in Nunavut and in the major referral centres of Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Yellowknife.
Discussions have already occurred with the physicians in Baffin, are scheduled for Kivalliq for next week, and the proposal has been sent to the physician in Cambridge Bay.
Options being considered to reduce the turnover of physicians and to promote longer terms of service:
Designation of a physician recruiter for the territory to work with the medical director; this was implemented May 1, 2004.
Recruiting visits to universities with training programs which emphasize rural medicine: University of Ottawa (February 2004); University of Manitoba (March 2004); planned for Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dalhousie University, and the Northern Ontario Medical School.
For the first time, Physician Services has a significant recruiting budget of approximately $100,000 for 2004-05.
Increased physician positions in all regions to reduce physician stress and on-call burden, both of which have been cited by many physicians who have left the territory as being major factors in their decisions to not stay long term.
A new contract arrangement which puts a premium on contracts of one year or longer and has retention bonuses to reward physicians who stay for more than one year; establishment of chief-of-staff positions in Rankin and Cambridge Bay will help with planning for the new health centres and provide more support for the physicians working in both of those regions.
Reviewing the possibility of return-of-service contracts for international medical graduates who qualify and agree to 5-7 years of service.
Speaker (interpretation): Item 9 of our orders of the day.
Item 14: Tabled Documents
Tabled Document 020 – 2(1): NAM Annual General Meeting 2004 Resolution 04-01 (Peterson)
It is with pride that I table the resolutions that were passed by the Nunavut Association of Municipalities during their 2004 annual general meeting.
I encourage my colleagues to take some time to read these well prepared resolutions.
I urge the government to take action on these measures.
Speaker (interpretation): Tabling of documents.
Tabled Document 021 – 2(1): Introducing Income Support – An Overview of Income Support (Picco)
It gives me great pleasure to table the Department of Education’s communication package on the income support program.
Tabled Document 022 – 2(1): Sanikiluaq Charter Airline Requirements - Re: Request for Quote (Brown)
I wish to table the following document: A Request for Quotes: Sanikiluaq Charter Airline Requirements.
Tabled Document 023 – 2(1): Children’s Advocate – Departmental Response in Main Estimates - Letter to Levinia Brown (Peterson)
I have two documents related to the same topic.
I would like to table a letter that I wrote to the Hon. Levinia Brown, the Minister of Health and Social Services, on April 26, 2004 concerning the issue of a children’s advocate for Nunavut.
It is now one month later and I still have not had a reply from the minister on this issue, even though it is one that I have raised a number of times in different capacities.
Tabled Document 024 – 2(1): Children’s Advocate for Nunavut (NAM) Materials (Peterson)
The second document is a package of materials prepared by the Nunavut Association of Municipalities relating to the establishment of a children’s advocate in Nunavut.
Item 17. Item 18.
Item 20. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Bill 2 – Appropriation (O&M) Act, 2004-2005.
Mr. Netser will be the Chair in Committee of the Whole.
We will take a ten-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:22 and resumed at 15:51
Chairman (Mr. Netser): The committee will come to order.
In Committee of the Whole we have the following item to deal with: Bill 2.
Mr. Evyagotailak: We wish to continue with the review of the main estimates for the Department of Education.
Once we are finished the review we could then go back to the Department of Health and Social Services.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Evyagotailak.
Does the committee agree that we continue with the main estimates for the Department of Education, then following the conclusion of Education that we continue with the main estimates for health and social services? Are you agreed?
Chairman: Good.
Thank you. Minister Picco, will you introduce your officials.
I ask you not to wish the Premier happy birthday anymore today.
Minister Picco, please, for the record, introduce your officials.
Hon. Ed Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the record, joining me at the witness table today: on my immediate right is the deputy minister of the Department of Education, Ms. Pam Hine. And, on my immediate left, the director of corporate services, with expertise in the area of finance for the Department of Education, Cathy Stinson.
We will begin on page G-7, and we will continue with questions on page G-7.
I have Mr. Tootoo as first on the list.
Before the minister was saved by the clock yesterday, I had some more questions to go on.
Yesterday I finished off by asking the Chairman on the makeup of the committee, and members didn’t have the opportunity to suggest names.
He had indicated that he was going to be having this advisory group, or committee, or whatever you refer to it as.
This education advisory council to the minister was going to be inclusive, and he was going to only include his act for submission from the Federation of Nunavut Teachers, also to the early childhood educators, and instructors from the college.
I am just wondering if the minister would be inviting any representation from the district education authorities. Hopefully under the new act they would have a huge role to play in the implementation and the delivery of what the final outcome is going to be, to be able to have some input on his advisory council.
Chairman: “Qujannamiik,” Mr. Tootoo.
The idea of the advisory council to the minister, when I first discussed this with the department when I was first appointed, was to be able to bring some experience, to the senior levels of government, of people that were physically in the classroom and working with our children as well as working with the students. When I say students I mean students in general.
That is why when I was looking at the advisory council, I was trying to put under the advisory council teachers, adult educators, Arctic College instructors, and early childhood education instructors so that I would have the full range of the educational programs that are delivered by the Government of Nunavut or the Department of Education. That was the process.
In that regard I have sent out call letters to the different organizations, including the FNT, asking for people to submit their names to be on the advisory council.
Interest in the council itself has been overwhelming since we first announced it and indeed, I have been contracted by many instructors and teachers and so on, especially at the high school level in particular, to be on the Minister’s Advisory Council in Education.
I did not, in itself, have it set up to have elected representatives on the council, which would be, for example, the district education authorities.
I was trying to get representation from the teaching or the instructor staff who are actually on the frontlines of education in Nunavut, in the classroom, and so on.
A couple of things: I guess the minister does not feel that district education authorities are frontline people.
They are dealing first-hand, prior to the department, on issues relating to the schools and their communities. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you recall, I am sure the minister recalls…. One of the drawbacks of the last education act, I think, was the lack of consultation, the lack of adequate input from the district education authorities.
So, again, I would just like to ask the minister if he would reconsider and look at having members of district education authorities’ representation on that advisory council, given the fact in a lot of cases these people are former educators themselves in different aspects, in a lot of cases have been involved, and they are intimately knowledgeable on the system that they are working within.
I would just like to ask the minister…. Given that, considering what happened last time, we do not want history to repeat itself….
If the minister would reconsider and take that into consideration….
The member’s words are well taken.
Again, when I was looking at the idea of the advisory council to the minister, who was to deal with issues around curriculum resources and so on…. The district education authorities, I would like them to represent us by community, in our communities. They have a role as advocates for education, and in their role as advocates for education they actually deal with budgets, and so on, in regards to education itself.
I am prepared, though, to reconsider and to look at an opportunity where there may be opportunities for representatives of district education authorities to be on this council or the advisory committee to the minister.
Again, I was trying to keep the committee to a manageable size.
I had announced 10, at the beginning, when I did talk about the process having appointees to it.
I was trying to have a good breakdown from K-12, trying to have, for example, grade 9,10,11, and 12 teachers, having some K-6 teachers, as I said earlier, early child education instructors, as well as adult educators and college instructors.
So, I would reconsider looking at if there is an opportunity for representation from a district education authority.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Picco.
I appreciate the minister’s willingness to do that and look forward to him positively considering that in the future because I think it can only help.
If the minister is intending this advisory council to be involved in the development of a new education act and what’s going to be in there then I think that’s a crucial component of that.