EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The artifacts that had been taken before the creation of Nunavut, there are some private collections, or that are in the American Universities, they’re all in different hands so we have to think all those things.
Although these artifacts are in southern Canada, in the United States as well as overseas, we have to bring them back to Nunavut.
I have heard about this traveling museum.
We have artifacts and it’s interesting.
I would like to know if we can have a traveling museum here in Nunavut to go from community to community.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): We have no plans at this time to include that traveling museum.
Mr. Evyagotailak (interpretation): It would be nice to have a traveling museum because there’s always requests from the communities for the students and the young people may want to learn about their past and history.
As what I am suggesting is that this travel museum would go from community to community, so that schools would take advantage of this opportunity.
Chairman (interpretation): We are on F-9. (interpretation ends) Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $3,809,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Good boy.
Page F-12.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $1,678,000, do you agree?
Page F-14.
I wanted to raise a question regarding Sport North.
There’s an increase by $500,000 I have heard because of the Canada Summer Games.
What’s the reason for increasing it?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): We are trying to increase it by $500,000 for 2005/06, which is geared towards Arctic Winter Games.
Every two years we have Arctic Winter Games.
So within that year, we tried to come up with more money and that’s also geared towards the Western Canada Summer Games.
So this money is for both the summer and winter games, so that our young people can participate in those Canada Summer Games.
Out of these dollars, does Sport Nunavut get a contribution from there and is it for the total amount or is it just for a portion of it?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have my deputy minister respond to your question.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For this year 2005/06, and on page F-15 there’s $2 million identified for Sport Nunavut.
There has been an increase of $500,000 in there.
Following what I have heard, this is an annual contribution to Sport Nunavut; is that the case?
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Yes, when there’s no Arctic Winter Games, there’s usually the territorial competitions that are held and it’s all for sport development, it’s an annual contribution for Sport Nunavut.
In 1970, Prime Minister Elliot Trudeau went to the Arctic Winter Games in Yellowknife.
The communities used to play traditional games in order to preserve and enhance the culture.
Today we see our young people playing floor hockey, ice hockey, volleyball and so on, when they are participating in the Games.
My question is why don’t we include traditional games anymore?
Yes that is very true.
We have set aside some monies that could be used by the communities to promote traditional Inuit games.
We have identified monies under the Recreation and Leisure, it in on page F-17 under Grants and Contributions.
We are focusing more on traditional Inuit games and we are trying to revive some of the old Inuit games like the amarujaujaq.
We are focusing on these traditional Inuit games and we have funds available should any of the communities want to access it.
In the Government of the Northwest Territories the Dene promotes traditional Dene Games.
This pot of money that’s identified and if the smaller communities are going to be promoting the Inuit traditions.
Is this little pot of money are going to be divided up among the Nunavut communities?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes it is to be divided up among the Nunavut communities.
Mr. Barnabas, are you done?
We are on page F-14.
Sport Nunavut. $2,834,000.
Recreation and Leisure.
Operations and Maintenance. $1,876,000.
Back to F-4.
Operations and Maintenance. $15,636,000.
Have we concluded the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth?
Mr. Tapardjuk, if you have any closing comments, the floor is now yours.
I would also like to thank the Members of the Legislative Assembly.
The main reason why we are looking for additional benefits for the elders is because it is very important and we’ll keep the members informed and give them an update on a regular basis.
With culture and language these are two areas that are very important and I think we are going to make an improvement with Mr. Akeeagok and the other David, I thank them both for helping me out during this appearance before the Committee.
Thank you, very much for approving our budget.
I would like to thank your officials for being here.
(interpretation ends) Does the Premier have opening comments?
I am pleased to be here to talk about the proposed 2005/06 budget for the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
This budget is designed to assist the government to meet the priorities of Pinasuaqtavut, our mandate document for 2004-2009.
Our priorities as government are to create a stronger cultural foundation based on Inuit societal values and to develop and expand our economy.
The Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs has several components to its mission.
These include providing advice and administrative support to cabinet and all government departments and agencies, overseeing the overall coordination of the executive branch and the development of the senior public service, overseeing coordinating the intergovernmental circumpolar and aboriginal activities for the Government of Nunavut and most importantly, working to ensure that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is honored.
The Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs plays a leadership role in coordinating and planning the government’s mandate.
It seeks political direction and then assists departments with the planning, coordination and implementation of the many objectives set out in Pinasuaqtavut.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs is also responsible for communicating the accomplishments, the objectives and policies of the government both within the government itself and to Nunavummiut.
Our mandate for the second term is an ambitious one.
I’m confident that Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs will serve as a catalyst for all departments as they strive to work together to meet the priorities that we have set out for 2004 to 2009.
I’m proud of the territory’s accomplishments to date, yet much more has to be done.
These main estimate represent the financial direction for Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for 2005/06, a direction which will enable us to meet our challenges.
The total budget for 2005/06 is $10 million 69 thousand.
This represents an increase $672 thousand for 2004/05.
Of that, an increase of $484 thousand is a result of the new collective agreement.
Any of the salary increases in the department are due to step increases for longer term employees.
In addition there is also a 2 percent increase of $188 thousand to the overall departmental budget to address inflation increased costs.
This amount is distributed throughout the department to address increased costs for travel, ministerial accommodations and supplies and services.
Even after these increases, Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs has the smallest operation operations and maintenance budget.
The executive branch of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs is responsible for corporate services, statistics and communications, policy, planning and evaluation.
This branch also provides support for cabinet and Minister’s offices.
The budget for the Utility Rate Review Council is also included within this budget.
The executive branch provides overall management and direction and is responsible for bringing forward the cabinet agenda under the direction of the premier, supporting cabinet and communicating cabinet direction to the public service.
This government will focus on economic development and opportunities for Nunavummiut.
In this regard, we have begun discussions with the Federal Government about devolution so that Nunavummiut can more fully utilize the benefits from their abundant natural resources.
At the same time, I will continue to lobby at the national level for additional funding for housing and infrastructure and lifting of various barriers to the development of our economy, especially in the case of our fisheries.
These efforts will be complimented by the participation of Nunavut in the Northern Strategy that was announced in December 2004.
I will be assisting this by the intergovernmental affairs branch which is responsible for the management and development of intergovernmental strategies, policies and initiatives related to federal, provincial, territorial, circumpolar and aboriginal affairs through establishing and fostering strong working relationships with other governments, coordinating Government of Nunavut activities related to Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., guided by Iqanaijaqatigit Regional Inuit Organizations and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
As I stated earlier, in advancing devolution, my department will need additional financial resources.
This budget was finalized prior to the agreement with Canada to proceed with negotiations.
Later in the year when we have a better estimate of the costs involved, I will seek your support for additional funding.
These are the highlights of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs’ mandate for 2005/06 and we’ll begin to build our progress to date and advance our priorities as government to create stronger cultural foundations based on Inuit societal values and to develop and expand our economy.
I would be pleased to answer questions and to address comments.
Does the chair of the committee have any opening comments?
Mr. Tootoo: I apologize ahead of time to the interpreters for reading fast.
I have a lengthy report here.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability has reviewed the proposed main estimates and business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for the 2005-2006 fiscal year, and I am pleased to provide you with the Committee's comments.
The Committee notes that the department's proposed 2005-2006 budget of $10 million 69 thousand has increased approximately 30 percent from its initial allocation of $7.734 million in 1999/2000.
The department’s proposed 2005/06 budget is approximately 7 percent higher than its 2004/05 main estimates.
In the past, a number of concerns were raised during the review of the department’s main estimates and business plans.
That’s right, Mr. Chairman, progress and performance.
Generally the performance of ministers and their departments and in meeting their statutory tabling requirements has improved notably since the first few years of the Government of Nunavut’s operation.
EIA has an important role to play in enforcing discipline in the area with respect to line departments.
However, EIA must lead by example and the recent late tabling of the 2003, 2004 annual report of utility rate review council was disappointing.
Although the URRC’s annual report was submitted to the minister responsible, minister on June 21, 2004, it was not tabled in this house until February 28, 2005. Over eight months after submissions.
Members can only speculate as to why it was not tabled during the fall of 2004 sitting.
The committee would again suggest that the annual performance bonuses awarded to senior departmental and crown corporation managers be tide in part to their actual performance in meeting legally required tabling requirements.
The committee would also like to reiterate its call for the premier to formally table in the house policies that are approved by the executive council under his signature as head of the executive branch of government.
Although the committee is aware that the Government of Nunavut’s policies are made available to the public through such means as posting on the Government of Nunavut’s website we ask that formally tabling such items in the Legislative Assembly would serve to recognize and amplify the principle of the government’s accountability to the Legislature.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the regular tabling of new revised Government of Nunavut policies would serve to provide all ministers that the opportunity to make formal statements in the house on the merits of such policies for the benefit of the house and the listening public and the government.
In the past, members have stressed the need for department to improve communications with communities.
Members are pleased note the departments continued commitment to using community radio to disseminate information of interest to Nunavutmiut.
Members have been pleased that Nunavut’s recent success in working with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon on the tri-lateral priorities.
The recently announced Nunavut Strategy is an important milestone on our journey towards acquiring the devolution agreement and province like powers.
Members look forward to making a positive contribution that the upcoming fiscal planning which need to determine our collective priorities with respect to Nunavut’s share of the $120,000,000 allocated to the three territories as part of this northern strategy.
However, the committee would urge the minister to be more proactive in keeping this house and the public readily informed about the ongoing intergovernmental initiatives and developments.
For example, on November 2, 2004 the three premiers joined the three northern premiers and jointly wrote to the Prime Minister on the ballistic missile defense issue and its potential consequences to the north.
Members only found out about this praiseworthy initiative when one of our Premier’s counterparts tabled this letter and the Premier’s reply in the neighbouring legislature for the benefit of this Members of the Legislative Assembly.
Members do not understand why our government so often appears to be extremely reluctant to make such items public on its own initiative especially when the information actually reflects well on the government as in this case.
The government also needs to be significantly more proactive in keeping members of this house and the public informed of the developments which respect to the Trans boundary issues that effects such communities as Nunavik communities as Arviat and Sanikiluaq.
Members would also want the government to periodically approve public updates on the statutes and the status of such ongoing matters of the dispute with Ottawa over fishing quotas or lack of them and a court challenge involving the firearms registry.
Members would also be interested in learning what the Government of Nunavut’s formal positions is with respect to the Kiviuk case given its potential impact on status of Inuit within Canada.
Members would wish to see the premier and his ministerial colleagues account more frequently and formally for the house under activities and achievements that the numerous Federal, Provincial, and Territorial meetings in which they participate.  While members are aware of the formal communiqués that emanate from such gatherings, our ministers should report back to the House more frequently and openly on their success in advancing Nunavut’s specific priorities at such meetings.
As a start, the government should periodically table ministerial travel reports so that members need not feel obligated to pose written questions on the matter.
Members have consistently supported the government’s efforts to impress upon our federal partners the need for funding agreements that are not based on rigid and inadequate per capita formulas, but on real needs of this jurisdiction.
In turn, the members have urged the government to be consistent and credible by dealing with the needs of our own communities, schools, and other institutions in a manner that’s not based solely on population numbers.
The committee looks forward to a productive working relationship with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated while urging the government to be candid with members with respect to its rationale for its position in areas where the two parties have honest disagreements on specific issues.
The committee supports the efforts of the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to work together on such issues as pushing the federal government for a new implementation contract that will provide meaningful tools with which to make progress in such areas as Inuit employment and training.
The Government of Nunavut’s obligations with respect to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act are coordinated by the department.
The committee recognizes that a degree of progress has been made to act on recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the committee itself.
The committee looks forward to continuing its work in this area.
Although the government frequently pays rhetorical tribute to the values of transparency and accountability, it often appears that we are falling further and further behind the rest of the country with respect to disclosing information to our public.
At the national level, progress has been achieved in bringing the lens of public scrutiny to bear on such items as the travel and hospitality expenses of senior officials, as evidenced by the fact that even federal Cabinet Ministers have their expenses publicly posted on departmental websites.
The federal government’s formal policy of “proactive disclosure” in relation to departmental contracts above a certain dollar amount is worth emulating, especially in light of the frustrations faced by Members here in bringing scrutiny to bear on the Government of Nunavut’s contracting practices.
Mr. Chairman, it ought to be perfectly self-evident that making such information public on a routine basis serves as a powerful deterrent against wasteful spending and abuse of process.
Indeed, while every Member of this House must publicly disclose significant amounts of information regarding their personal affairs, the situation is not the same for the Government of Nunavut’s bureaucracy.
In Ontario, by contrast, the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act allows the public to know the names, positions, salaries and total taxable benefits of public employees paid $100,000 or more in a year.
Members here are forced to pose written questions in order to reveal the amounts paid each year in performance bonuses to senior Government of Nunavut officials.
The bottom line is this: the public has a right to know, in detail, where its dollars are being spent.
Mr. Chairman, one of our collective goals at the Arviat Caucus Retreat was to explore overarching legislation to govern the accountability of public bodies across the territory.
Issues of transparency and disclosure need to be a part of this initiative, which should be led by Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee has noted that although the department announced on June 30, 2003, the decentralization of six of its positions to Panniqtuuq, it is unclear if these have actually ever been filled, given that the Government of Nunavut’s quarterly IEP report for the department does not include any information on these positions.
It is disappointing to the Committee that the department’s business plan makes the questionable claim that no major disruption of government programs and services has occurred during the decentralization process, when all members are well aware of problems in such areas as filling positions in the Department of Environment’s Iglulik office, where more than half of the positions remain vacant.
One area where the Committee could see value in the government’s engaging a genuinely independent review is with respect to the costs, successes and challenges of the decentralization initiative.
I’m getting there, Mr. Chairman.
On a related issue, Members have noted with surprise, Mr. Chairman, that while the department’s main estimates and business plan claim that only 2.6 PY’s are located in the Government of Nunavut’s Ottawa liaison office, Members understand that no fewer than five people are actually working there.
I’m sure that they will be asked for clarification at some point during the main estimates on that.
Indeed, it is puzzling to the Committee that the Government of Nunavut operates an office with a significantly larger staff complement than those maintained in the very same building by the governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon, both of which have a comparable range of responsibilities and relationships with the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, the final area that I wish to touch on is performance measurement.
Members have noted with support the department’s stated business plan goal to establish a GN performance measurement program.
The Committee would wish to see departmental business plans begin to explicitly incorporate performance measures that look at actual results and outcomes, and not just activities and outputs.
For example, one of the stated priorities of the Department of Education in 2005/06 is to undertake the development of initiatives to address drop-out rates.
We need to be able to honestly, rigorously and accurately measure our own success in actually achieving such important goals, and be prepared to re-evaluate our expenditures and approaches if they do not produce results that genuinely benefit our communities and constituents.
Mr. Chairman, I think that concludes my opening comments.
I’m sure that individual members of the committee might have their own concerns and comments as we proceed.
We are going for a half hour break.
>>Committee recessed at 15:04 and resumed at 15:37
If there are no general comments from the members, I would like to welcome the Premier first of all.
If you want to have your officials with you, you can do so right now.
Mr. Premier, if you can introduce your officials for the record.
With me today is my Deputy Minister from Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, John Walsh, and Terry Rogers.
When we are doing the other part of our budget, Mr. David Omilgoitok will be our Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Chairman (interpretation): Welcome Mr. Rogers and Mr. Walsh.
The members have 10-minutes for general comments in regards to Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
We will go to page B-5.
I have a question in regards to the Program Review. (interpretation ends) The first Government of Nunavut undertook a major Program Review exercise in the Fall of 2003.
Members of the Legislative Assembly received an update on the Program Review including potential options for major changes to the government’s operation such as the elimination of stand alone Human Resources department and reducing funding for Tele-health.
Government reorganization occurred in March 2004.
My question: is the Government of Nunavut considering undertaking another major Program Review exercise during the second mandate; why or why not?
This Program Review was very helpful to us at that time.
We can implement this to the items that we have identified.
Government of Nunavut-wide responsibilities in relation to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for the past several years, recommendations have been made by both the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the ruling Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly for amendments to the Act.
The department’s business plan indicates that it will research potential amendments to the Act and introduce the privacy impact assessment process to the Government of Nunavut public bodies.
What specific amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is the government considering for 2005/06?
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Premier.
We have been talking about this item for quite some time and we have been considering changing or making an amending to the legislation, but if we can work together, we would like to work with the members to make the amendments to this Act.
I can talk with members of the legislature and I want to work with them to make those amendments.
What will be the proposed privacy impact assessment process for the departments and other public Government of Nunavut bodies involved?
We have not looked at it again.