EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Could the minister explain why the Income Support Program increased by $2.2 million this year over last year?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That amount was for forced growth within the program.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister be a bit more specific on what he means by forced growth within the Income Support Program?
Hon. Ed. Picco: The definition of forced growth in governments is a term that is used to indicate an increase in the amount of funding available to a said government, or department, or program, based on forced growth features. For example, these would include population increases, increases to the cost of living allowances; it could increase the CPI and so on.
You said earlier that the program hadn’t received an increase since 1997. Yet since 2004, I think this is third increase. Why wouldn’t there have been forced growth increases in years prior to 2004, but yet now we’re seeing forced growth increases?
Chairman (Mr. Arreak): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Minister Picco.
Welcome to the chair Mr. Chairman.
The short answer for the member, and again, he asked me what forced growth was, and I gave him the example. One of the things of forced growth is the extra costs of a draw down on programs.
So if your population is increasing, then you would expect to have a larger uptake on a given program. That’s forced growth and that’s what we mean there. The 15 percent increase to the income support amount would be exclusive of any forced growth amount, meaning that’s actually new money put into the program.
So the rates would be increased contingent on whatever the applicant would be eligible for.
The 15 percent is real increases; the forced growth amount only maintains the status quo of the amounts that are available.
On page G-26 of the business plan under Priorities for 2006-07, priority of the development and implementation of an electronic case system for use across Nunavut, can the minister clarify it for the House what system they are using currently to administer the Income Support Program?
We are using, right now, the Agga system, or in Qallunaatitut, the hand system, which means a manual system.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister indicate or see if they have investigated systems from other jurisdictions, or could the minister indicate whether or not he expects some costs to be associated with implementing this electronic case management system that’s mentioned as a priority for 2006-07?
The case management system that’s in place for income support, and this has a long history in files, we have gone out and we have tried to find systems that would work for us.
There is an RFP being put in place right now to be finalized and advertised during March of 2006, and that’s this month.
Several companies have expressed interest in working with it and submitting proposals for the Government of Nunavut.
We would expect that once the RFP is complete and comes back, an analysis will be done and they will look at a cost/benefit analysis on the proposals that have been submitted.
It’s very important to be able to have the electronic case management systems in place, not only does it customize the information it has received, it will give us a better correlation of that information, stats, and so on, which will help us do a better job with the program.
Will this system be a system that, if it’s implemented, the hamlet councils that are under contract with the department could easily use or interface with the Government of Nunavut’s system?
The inter-capability of the new program is one of the things that we would want to have in place with it.
So the quick answer would be yes, it would be inter-compatible with the other equipment being used and by the other contractors that we would have under the employ of the government.
On page G-25 in the business plan under Community Income Support Delivery, there’s a decrease of $366,000.
It says it’s a regional administered program, funds individual communities through service contracts to deliver the Income Support Program.
If there’s a decrease by $366,000, does that mean that there’s a decrease in community organizations delivering the Income Support Program in Nunavut?
Under the Community Capacity Building Budgets Program, we have issue where the amount was decreased and we are trying to ascertain the amount right now as I speak in opening it and as I continue on with this monologue, I hope to be in a position to answer the question. It’s a transfer between the Building and Careers Compliance or BCC and the Community Capacity Building or CCB Program.
So in actuality, it’s not an actual decrease, it’s a transfer of program dollars.
I’m sure everybody else is as confused as I am. I was talking about page G-25, the Community Income Support Delivery Program that decreased by $366,000.
When the budget documents were being presented in this book that we’re reading from, there was confusion between the two acronyms that were being used, and I gave an example that the BCC, which is the Building Careers and Compliance, and the Community Capacity Building, which is the CCB.
Corporate Services will prepare a Financial Management Board Report submission to correct this error, and the hamlets providing these services on behalf of the Government of Nunavut will not experience any reduction in service because of the err of acronyms.  The convolution and the monologue have ended.
Chairman: I think everyone is getting a little tired.
I had to pick a good one for the minister. It was worth a question, if you use logic and common sense you think the communities are giving up the program.
My final question is on page G-25 of the Business Plan, the Seniors’ Fuel Subsidy, it’s budgeted at $130,000. We know that the cost of fuel is continuing to be high. It will probably increase; I don’t think it’s going to decrease.
It is mentioned that it is income tested; I recall the other day the minister had mentioned; he was quite specific. How many seniors in Nunavut own homes and qualified for this program?
The Seniors’ Fuel Subsidy Program is available to any Nunavummiut over the age of 60, who is considered low income, who owns their own home.
Last year in Nunavut, there were 45 homeowners who had an uptake on this program.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
I wasn’t expecting you to call my name.
My question Mr. Chairman is; it’s stated in the business plan...first of all, I would like to thank the minister during question period…
The eligibility is very difficult and the minister stated when I asked him to check into this further, it’s in regard to some elders keep their grandchildren, but the eligibility criteria, how long can they have a boarder or their grandchildren’s income to make sure that it doesn’t go over $39,000? Can the minister make it where that the homeowner, sometimes some children will be there maybe a week, would their income be included in their eligibility criteria?
It seems like they are used to disqualify them in regard to the fuel subsidy. It makes it harder for the seniors.
I wonder if the minister can tell us if this can be remedied.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That program, and there are program criteria in place for this program and the eligibility requirements. The case that the member brings up is an interesting one.
We believe that the elders should not be penalized.
When you have a visitor in your home; if I have someone visiting me for two weeks; that person is a visitor; is not considered a permanent resident of that household, then their income should not be included in the case management of that subsidy allocation, or the amount being applied for.
The quick answer to the member is no.
On a short-term visit, that person wouldn’t be included. However, if I take a grandchild into my home and the grandchild is now living permanently with me, is considered as a member of my home, and has an outside job, then that income is counted. Because the person is a permanent resident or a member of the household, it can then be included for the total income of that household.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Mr. Curley.
Do I understand if that person doesn’t stay for a whole year, but stayed for six months, let’s say, as long as it’s under a year because it doesn’t specify that in the pamphlet.
The reason I brought this up is what qualifies so that person who stays with them, if they only stay with them for a year, not less than that, then it wouldn’t be included. Is that how I understand it?
Through questioning in the House on this program, Mr. Curley raised some issues with the documents and so on. On further review, the member was correct and we’ve sent the pamphlet back for translation changes to make it more accurate, based on some of the things that Mr. Curley has raised, so we appreciate that.
Again, the clarification on the eligible income depends on the case worker; the income support workers. There is an appeals process in place if needed for individual clients to be able to move to the next level.
Are you done, Mr. Curley?
At this time, we can’t vote because we don’t have a quorum.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Did you forget our names?
We are page G-14.
Under Education. (interpretation ends) Career and Early Childhood Services.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $38,182,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Page G-16, and G-17. (interpretation ends) Education.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to recognize the clock, I’d like to report progress.
Chairman: Thank you very much Mr. Peterson.
All those in favour, raise your hand please.
Okay. (interpretation) The motion is defeated. We’ll proceed. We’re on page G-16, along with G-17.
We don’t have a quorum again.
We are on G-16 and G-17.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $10,003,000.
Chairman: G-19.
Education. School Operations.
Committee Motion 004 – 2(3): School Bus Services in Sanikiluaq (Kattuk)
I have a motion on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee recommend that the Department of Education review the current status of school bus services available to students in Sanikiluaq, and that the department consider purchasing a new school bus for the community in 2006-07 fiscal year.
Before we proceed with debate on the motion I have a few comments to make as to procedures.
Every member has the right to speak once to the motion for a total of 20 minutes. The mover of the motion speaks first. The mover of the motion has the right to the last reply which closes the debate.
To the motion, Mr. Kattuk.
As the ministers know that our school busses are very old, it’s being serviced by the hamlet, and it uses a lot of money.
The District Education Authority is concerned it is falling apart now.
So I think our community is growing and the DEA is concerned that we need bigger school and Nunavut is growing now.
I’m looking forward to the motion to pass today.
I will certainly support the motion.
I think it’s appropriate; I don’t believe it’s too much for the community to be asking for services of this kind that are important to our students and also safe and reliable.
The situation we have in Rankin Inlet is that...I was amazed at how some of the communities have first class bus services in places like Iqaluit.
I had always taken it for granted until my boy, who was out with me and he looked at the bus and he says, “Wow.
That would be about one trip to Area 6 if we have a bus service like that.”
In Rankin Inlet, to go to one location, the bus goes three times and it was so shameful, not long ago, that there was no security, the bus drivers were questionable, even.
There was a letter sent to the principal and a number of parents because there had been problems in the bus and the bus driver...I really, truly believe that your department, Mr. Minister, should put in guidelines.
If they are going to be contracting them out as they do in places like Rankin Inlet, there must be guidelines for the safety of the students and I do really, truly hope that they would be run by more professional business or what not, whether or not for profit groups like we experience in a place like Rankin Inlet.
I’m not 100 percent sure of whether or not there was safety checks on the run down, old bus that we are currently using in a place like Rankin Inlet.
I certainly hope that will not be the case of this motion when it’s eventually funded.
Through questioning in the House, the member has raised the issue of the school bus and we are on our O&M budget right now and this is a capital item.
However, recognizing that it is a capital item and that it is an issue that the member has raised in Question Period, the department is trying to ascertain what dollar values we have available to us within the capital budget to be able to purchase the given motion item.
I note that the motion does state that the department is to consider purchasing a new school bus and that’s something that within the budget framework that we have available for us to go to.
On the issues that Mr. Curley has raised, there are regulatory regimes in place for licensing and certifying our equipment on the road in Nunavut and that does also pertain to the buses.
Part of the leadership of the department, and the member is correct, is to look at what processes are in place for school buses and when they should be brought to purchase and how those types of contracts are allocated and allotted.
So with that, it’s a capital item and we recognize that there are some real issues with the bus service in Sanikiluaq.
If you want to vote and you want your vote to count, you have to be in your seat and it goes along with the other members to be in their seats.
I have no more names on my list if you wanted to speak to the motion. Mr. Kattuk, do you have any more comments to make?
All those in favour please raise your hand.
Please raise your hand if you are opposed to this motion.
Moving along; we’re on page G-18 and G-19.
Department of Education. School Operations.
I would like to ask the minister with respect to exactly what the roles the Director of Education are providing in the regions.
I believe in the regions, I don’t know exactly how the school districts are working out because there does not appear to be all that much leadership these days.
Could the minister or deputy explain to us what they do; what they provide? What are their mandates and are they there 100 percent of the time?
We don’t appear to have that experience now in Rankin Inlet for the community, and where are they located?
We have three regional operations centres for the Department of Education as it pertains to the K to 12 system.
Those regional offices are in Kugluktuk, Baker Lake, and Pond Inlet. The Director of Operations is the supervisor of schools and coordinates all the activities within the schools, the principals, as well as the coordination and the facilitation with the District Education Authorities out of those three regional offices.
So in terms of the Kivalliq region, did I hear the minister say Baker Lake is the location for the Director of Education, where all the other programs appear to be located in Arviat? Am I correct in that?
The School Operations, which is administration and supervision of schools and so on as I indicated, is based out of Baker Lake. The director is based out of Baker Lake.
Arviat holds the Nunavut Arctic College education facilities as well as the Curriculum Services Division of the department.
How long has the Director of Education for the Kivalliq region, as far as I know, been located in Rankin Inlet?
The Director of School Operations, as far as I know, has been in the community of Baker Lake since I’ve been minister and my understanding is before I was minister; so certainly, over the last several years.
I appreciate the minister providing that information because obviously there must more than this number of directors in the whole administration.
Are there other similar roles in terms of other programs?
Are there other directors that are located at Rankin Inlet?
Through the decentralization process, the majority of our positions have been decentralized outside of the regional centres; in this case in the Kivalliq. We do have decentralized offices in Arviat as well as in Baker Lake. In the Qikiqtaaluk, we have them in Pond Inlet and in Pangnirtung.
In the Kitikmeot, we also have them in Kugluktuk. The majority of our leadership or supervisory positions are located in the aforementioned communities.
Currently, I believe there is an acting position based in Rankin Inlet and in that acting position, is that an Acting Director for School Operations; the Director of Education currently based at Rankin Inlet now? Is the position vacant in Baker Lake?
There is a position that we have within the department in Career and Early Childhood Services. That is vacant, as the member has indicated, in Rankin Inlet; that’s the position.
It isn’t the Director of School Operations or School Services; it’s under the ECE Program.
Mr. Curley: So the minister earlier indicated that most of the school operations are directed out of Baker Lake; curriculum development are based in Arviat.
I’m not exactly sure what is based in Rankin Inlet.
Who directs the positions that are based in Rankin Inlet and exactly what are they?
As I indicated earlier, the bulk of our operations for that region are based out of Baker Lake. We do have a position within the Early Learning and Childcare Services Branch of the department based in Rankin Inlet.
I think we have an acting person in that position right now. In Arviat, we have the curriculum school services, as I spoke about earlier.
I don’t have the Rankin Inlet organization chart with me, so I can’t say exactly what supervisor positions and the director positions that would fall under the School Operations Branch have been ascertained and identified, as I’ve given that answer to.
If the member knows, specifically, of what position he is speaking on, what the name of that position is, or title of it, then I would probably be able to answer it quickly.
If anyone can navigate through the bureaucratic titles, I don’t think it’s me. I think you are going to have to help us out in this one because the case that I’m reading is G-18, it indicates that the Executive Director of School Operations supervises and administers all schools.
So if there is an executive director, could the minister help provide exactly if that position is currently occupied and based in Baker Lake? Am I correct in that?
Maybe I’ll ask the deputy minister to explain those two positions.
The Department of Education is divided into almost two major divisions. One is the School Operations side of it.
The member is correct; there is the Regional Director of School Operations located in Baker Lake for the Kivalliq region. In Rankin Inlet, there is the Director of Career and Early Childhood Services, which is the other side of the division. That office is located in Rankin Inlet for the Kivalliq region.
As the minister stated before, there is also part of the Department of Education Headquarters located in Arviat, which includes also the Curriculum and School Services.
I appreciate the response from the deputy minister clarifying my question.
My question then is I understand that position in Rankin Inlet is acting director. Can the minister or the deputy minister tell this House, this committee, exactly when the full-time director will be hired for the position that she quoted earlier?
The position right now is out for active competition. The position closes effective March 10.
The incumbent in that position is the new assistant deputy minister of the department and that person, right now, is attending the Council of the Education Ministers of Canada meetings in Yellowknife.
The person who was just indicated has now been hired as assistant deputy minister. Where is the assistant deputy minister position located?
Hon. Ed. Picco: It’s located here in headquarters in Iqaluit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: So I understand the minister that the current acting director, in view of the fact they’ve been appointed assistant deputy minister, will now be relocating to headquarters?
Hon. Ed. Picco: That is correct.
The person is in the position and the members have met the individual in question at different standing committee meetings all summer. She is now representing the department ably in Yellowknife.
Part of the employment offer is to move to Iqaluit. So the assistant deputy minister will be moving to Iqaluit.
Mr. Curley: I move that we report progress.
Chairman: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion on the floor to report progress and the motion is not debatable.
Speaker (interpretation): Going back to the Orders of the Day. Item 20.
Mr. Kilabuk: Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 12 and would like to report progress that one committee motion was adopted. And Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be agreed to.
Mr. Barnabas seconds the motion.
A reminder that there’s a standing committee meeting tomorrow at nine o’clock, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability at the Tuktu Boardroom, followed by the meeting of the Regular Caucus at eleven o’clock.
Orders of the Day for March 9:
Speaker (interpretation): We will resume on Thursday, March 9 at 1:30 in the afternoon.
>>House adjourned at 19:07
Thursday, March 9, 2006
Pages 1530– 1613
Opening Prayer 1530
Ministers’ Statements 1530
Members’ Statements 1532
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 1536
Oral Questions 1536
Replies to Opening Address 1555
Tabling of Documents 1559
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 1560
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 1560
Report of the Committee of the Whole 1611
Orders of the Day 1612
Thursday, March 9, 2006 1530
081 – 2(3): Qulliq Energy Corporation 2004-05 Annual Report (Picco) 1530
082 – 2(3): 2006 Arctic Winter Games – Day Three (Netser) 1531
204 – 2(3): Prospectors Mining Meeting – Toronto (Peterson) 1532
205 – 2(3): Lack of Job Opportunities in Clyde River (Arreak) 1533
206 – 2(3): Lack of Employment Opportunities in the High Arctic (Barnabas) 1534
207 – 2(3): Lack of Job Opportunities (Kilabuk) 1534
208 – 2(3): International Women’s Day Event (Tootoo) 1535
209 – 2(3): Fuel Delivery Salaries (Kattuk) 1535
239 – 2(3): Qulliq Energy Corporation Funding (Tootoo) 1536
240 – 2(3): Oil and Gas Exploration in the High Arctic (Barnabas) 1539
241 – 2(3): Update – Arctic College Letters of Expectations (Curley) 1541
242 – 2(3): Davis Strait Polar Bear Survey (Kattuk) 1542
243 – 2(3): Federal Funding Arrangement (Peterson) 1543
244 – 2(3): Type of Aviation Fuel in Arviat (Alagalak) 1545
245 – 2(3): Support for Ilisaqsivik Society Core Funding (Arreak) 1546
246 – 2(3): Total Number of Decentralized Positions for Pangnirtung (Kilabuk) 1549
247 – 2(3): Department of Finance Plans (Tootoo) 1551
248 – 2(3): More Resources for Diabetes (Peterson) 1553
Reply to Opening Address 002 – 2(3): Mr. Tagak Curley 1555
005 – 2(3): Review of the Department of Environment’s Hunters and Trappers Disaster Compensation Program (Kilabuk) 1581
097 – 2(3): A Brief Summary of QEC 2004-05 Annual Report (Picco) 1559
Bill 15 – An Act to Amend the Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Property Tax Relief Act – Notice 1560
Bill 12 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2006-07 – Review in Committee – Education 1561
Bill 12 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2006-07 – Review in Committee – Environment 1569
Bill 12 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2006-07 – Review in Committee – Community and Government Services 1588
Speaker (interpretation): Good afternoon, Premier, Ministers, Members of the Legislative Assembly, and our staff.
Minister’s Statement 081 – 2(3): Qulliq Energy Corporation 2004-05 Annual Report (Picco)
Later today, I will be tabling in the House the 2004-05 Annual Report of the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
I had released the financial statements for this period and tabled them for members last session.