EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Perhaps you can’t respond to this now. Nonetheless, I ask: are there any communities that have no local emergency plans?
This would apply to local emergencies.
Are there any communities that have no emergency plans in place here in Nunavut?
I believe there are only two communities that have not finalized their emergency plan and they’re just about done but they’re not finalized.
I can’t name which two communities they are right now, but all but two have emergency plans.
We’re at Branch Summary.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me again.
On that very page of J-5, second paragraph, “Community Planning and Lands provides technical and financial support to communities for land-use planning.”
Will that continue?
As the minister has indicated from time to time in the House, the land referendum will take place.
Once the land referendum is completed, will the financial supports still continue whether it’s a yes or no vote for our community?
The land referendum has very little to do, if anything at all, with the land use planning.
The land use planning will still carry on as it is because the zoning by-laws that municipalities pass will still be in effect because the land referendum does not have a bearing on land use planning.
They are two separate issues.
I thank the minister for his very clear and precise response.
Moving on, on that very same page again, last paragraph, “…Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee to support the identification of community capital infrastructure plans and priorities and supports communities in developing and maintaining Integrated Community Sustainability Plans.”
In reference to that, are all the programs up to date for each and every community across Nunavut?
All the municipalities do put stuff in asking for infrastructure.
There’s still a lot of infrastructure that they want and that they need, but there’s only so much dollars to go around.
I don’t know what he means by “Are the plans in place?”
Everybody plans to get funding, but there’s only so much funding.
I’m not sure how to answer that other than to say that the system is working, but it will not meet the needs of all the communities.
I’ll try to be clearer with my question.
It’s evident that the Liberal government was elected and I know that all Members of the Legislative Assembly are representing the communities, but there are plans for huge infrastructure, whether community infrastructure or capital infrastructure.
It’s evident that the federal government has the (interpretation ends) Gas Tax Fund and the Building Canada Fund. (interpretation) The issue that we keep hearing from the media is that the federal government infrastructure funding has changed.
Do you provide the information to the communities if there was a change to infrastructure funding?
Right now, we’re dealing with O&M. I believe my comrade is talking about the capital costs.
We’re just dealing with O&M. We’re not talking about capital right now.
I’ll just rephrase my question then.
How many times do you visit the communities per year to consult with them in regard to this issue? Your department is responsible for this issue.
I think the member is still asking about capital, about what the hamlets want for infrastructure.
The hamlets update their infrastructure needs whenever they want or as often as they want to say what is a priority. Maybe I just don’t understand the member’s question.
If he can rephrase it, then I will do my best to answer it.
I’ll rephrase.
Seeing that the Department of Community and Government Services oversees this under the operations and maintenance budget, as we’re doing that right now, the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee under the Department of Community and Government Services, my question here is: as there are 25 communities across Nunavut, how many visits are conducted in one fiscal year to each and every community to ensure they’re up to date?
I believe my counterpart is talking about what is on the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP).
Someone goes in and talks about it once a year to figure out the needs. I don’t know if you call it a training session, but it’s an exchange of information and maybe to update the information on there.
There is no actual time set for training.
I might not understand the member’s question. I’m doing my best to answer it, but I’m just not getting it.
I’ll rephrase…re-rephrase.
That last paragraph on J-5, the last sentence, “The division is directly responsible for the implementation, management and reporting required…” My question is: when your department and this committee assist communities in the implementation, management, and reporting, how many community visits are happening for each respective community, considering that there are 25 communities, in a fiscal year?
Let’s try this again. It says that the division is responsible for implementation, management, and reporting requirements of the Gas Tax Fund. I believe what that’s talking about is any infrastructure projects that are funded through the federal government through the gas tax.
It’s a project that is overseen by CG&S, for example. This is capital, but I will answer it because we’re talking about management, reporting, and implementation.
A new hamlet office in a municipality could be funded through the Gas Tax Fund.
CGS would manage the project. They would report on the funds and they would manage the project.
That’s what that is talking about.
The money from the federal government is funnelled through CG&S to the municipalities to fund their projects and the municipalities get their infrastructure, but CG&S manages the project and makes sure that the project is run right and the reporting requirements by the federal government are met.
I think that’s what you want.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I’ll try for the last time.
It’s very clear and understandable that your department is responsible for these things.
I’m just asking this. There are 25 communities in the entire territory of Nunavut.
For example, as I represent Baker Lake, how many times within a fiscal year do you visit the community to update them on your activities? You know what assets you have in Baker Lake.
How many times do you visit the communities such as Baker Lake to talk about this issue so that they can have full consultation and information?
I believe they’re visited once every two years, but in terms of stuff that the hamlets want, I’m sure there’s someone from CG&S when they’re having their NAMA meetings and their NAM meetings and there’s an exchange of information then.
When they meet, they prioritize what they want on their Integrated Community Sustainability Plan and the actual website that you can just go on to see what’s on there is buildingnunavut.com.
If the hamlets want any information, they can call CGS at any time, but the hamlets are in control of what they want to put on their ICSP and they prioritize what they feel is their priority for what they want for their community.
Thank you very much for clarifying that for me; it’s now clear.
Your elder has revived.
I am deliriously happy and have no problem meeting until midnight.
While we are still on this page and we have yet to approve it, I wish to return to another subject that brought about more questions based on one of my colleague’s questions.
Our minister also spoke about surplus equipment disposal, such as snowmobiles and Hondas, which are the kind people usually own.
The government usually has a tendering process to dispose of surplus equipment. When the tender is sent out, people submit bids and the successful bidder is the one with the highest bid.
Since I seem to comprehend that process, I am asking another question about the surplus equipment and whether it can be donated instead to local SAR groups, perhaps with needed repairs, since SAR groups can’t purchase equipment with cash.
I know of surplus equipment, which is why I am asking you now. There is a Honda currently sitting unused that is owned by public works.
It has never been tendered and if you won’t be donating it to the SAR group, I will definitely submit a bid when I return.
What are your intentions towards this old surplus equipment in Arctic Bay?
Hon. Joe Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) As per my earlier statement, yes, when surplus equipment owned by government is no longer utilized, it may be tendered or if the equipment is too antiquated or broken down, it is thrown out.
We have reviewed the process initially and we will be reviewing ways to improve this process related to equipment for the local SAR groups and whether they can be donated to those groups.
I know that prior to donating the equipment, we would check the equipment to see if it is in working order.
The government department owning the equipment has to approve of that first. If we were to donate equipment, we would only be able to donate equipment approved by the department owners.
Perhaps some of the equipment is rarely used. However, without departmental approval to donate the equipment, I am unsure how it would work and we don’t have any control over it as CGS.
I know that unused equipment has to first be inventoried and for some equipment, even if it hasn’t been used for some time, because it is still owned by the government, it will retain ownership of the equipment.
Now, with respect to that Honda you referred to, I have no idea if it has been approved for sale or if plans to use it still exist. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
The reason I asked about that Honda is because it has sat unused for many years in the old DPW facilities. It is also taking up space we could use.
Personally, my background is as a mechanic and, if you won’t be donating it to the SAR group, I found that only the braking system is compromised in the back.
There is also no emergency stop button.
I would ask that this be looked into, if it can be tendered out or if it will be donated to the SAR group.
If it will be categorized as surplus, I would like to retain that old Honda for myself and I wanted you to look into that matter.
We’re on Branch Summary. (interpretation) Mr. Shooyook, are you done? (interpretation ends) We’re on Branch Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $85,405,000.
Since our esteemed elder has declared himself revived and is willing to work until midnight, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to take pity on us younger members as he may outpace us.
Therefore, I move to report progress.
Iqsuqtii, escort the witnesses out.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, March 2, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 17:54 Appendix – March 1, 2016
Response to the Report on the Review of the 2013-2014 Annual Report, 2015-2016 Business Plan of Nunavut Tourism
Chair, Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts
Legislative Assembly of Nunavut  P.O. Box 1200
Dear Ms. Angnakak:
Pursuant to Rule 91(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government of Nunavut to the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts November 2, 2015 Report on the Review of the 2013-2014 Annual Report, 2015-2016 Business Plan and 2012-2017 Strategic Plan of Nunavut Tourism (Standing Committee Report).
The Government commends the members of the Standing Committee for their critical role and valuable examination of the publications produced by the Nunavut Tourism.
The Government has reviewed and given careful consideration to the Standing Committee Report as a whole and to the Standing Committee’s recommendations.
The Government finds these recommendations consistent with the work of advancing our Government’s mandate under Sivumut Abluqta to “encourage and support economic development initiatives that build on and add value to identified areas of potential, including the harvesting, arts and tourism sectors”.
The Government of Nunavut thanks the members of the Standing Committee for providing the impetus to assess how the Tourism sector is being addressed within the Territory and the relationship between Nunavut Tourism and the Government of Nunavut.
This process has helped to re-align our efforts going forward.
The responses to the Standing Committee’s recommendations have been set out below: Recommendation #1:
The standing committee recommends that the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation table in the Legislative Assembly, on an annual basis, as applicable, beginning with materials prepared in respect to the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the following items:
Response to Recommendation #1:
The Minister of Economic Development and Transportation is committed to tabling Nunavut’s operating and financial reporting beginning with the 2014-2015 fiscal year to enhance transparency as per standing committee’s recommendation.
With the full cooperation of Nunavut Tourism, a reporting package has been prepared and will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.
(A list of Nunavut Tourism documents is attached.)
It is important to note that while Nunavut Tourism reports through the Department of Economic Development and Transportation and is accountable to the Department for the majority of its funding, it also operates under the direction of a Board of Directors, is accountable to its membership and is audited annually.
Under the terms of the partnership agreement between the Department and Nunavut Tourism, annual core funding is paid quarterly and each payment is dependent on the submission of accounting, activity and progress reports and a quarterly Board presentation to the Department on the performance of the previous quarter.
As part of its audited financial statements, Nunavut Tourism also discloses separately how its core funding and its project funding from other sources have been spent.
This level of reporting meets the accountability requirements of its funding partners including the Government of Nunavut and CanNor.
With respect to standing committee’s request for Memoranda of Understanding, Nunavut Tourism maintains that there are no formal agreements currently in place.
However, Nunavut  Tourism continues to work closely and cooperatively with other Nunavut entities such as the Nunavut Arts and Crafts Association and Nunavut Film to promote the arts and tourism sectors in the territory consistent with the Government mandate under Sivumut Abluqta.
The standing committee recommends that the annual contribution/partnership agreement between Nunavut Tourism and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation explicitly require Nunavut Tourism’s annual reports to contain the following information:
Response to Recommendation #2:
With the full cooperation of Nunavut Tourism, an initial reporting package has been prepared and will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity. (see the attached list of Nunavut Tourism documents.)
Nunavut Tourism strives to continually improve its reporting.
For the 2014-2015 Annual Report, a new Schedule on CEO Travel was added.
More detailed information may be disclosed on a timely basis as it becomes part of the regular reporting processes.
Any information that is not available for 2014-2015 will be made available for 2015-2016 onward.
The standing committee recommends that the annual contribution/partnership agreement between Nunavut Tourism and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation explicitly require Nunavut Tourism to conform to the provisions of the Government of Nunavut’s Financial Administration Manual with respect to travel and hospitality expenditures, and the Government of Nunavut’s Human Resource Manual with respect to employment practice
Response to Recommendation #3:
The Minister of Economic Development and Transportation will ensure these provisions are included in the partnership agreement to the extent practicable, keeping in mind that Nunavut Tourism employees are not members of the Government of Nunavut public service.
The department will also ensure Directive 810 Duty Travel of the Financial Administration Act and the Human Resource Manual are provided to Nunavut Tourism’s CEO who bears overriding responsibility to ensure compliance.
The standing committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut, in its response to this report, provide a detailed breakdown of all Nunavut Tourism expenditures incurred during the first six months of the 2015-2016 fiscal year (April 1, 2015-September 30, 2015).
Response to Recommendation #4:
A detailed listing of Nunavut Tourism’s expenditures for the first six months of 2015-2016 has been provided. (see attached list of Nunavut Tourism documents.)
Recommendation #5:
The standing committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut, in its response to this report, clarify, in detail, the status of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s development of a new “Marine Tourism Management Plan,” including the timetable for tabling the Plan in the Legislative Assembly.
Response to Recommendation #5:
The delivery of a Marine Tourism Management Plan is a key priority in the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s Business Plan for 2016-2017.
The Department is confident it will achieve this deliverable in the new fiscal year.
Recommendation #6:
The standing committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut, in its response to this report, clarify, in detail, the status of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s planned 2015 Visitor Exit Survey.
Response to Recommendation #6:
The results of the 2015 Visitor Exit Survey are being reviewed and analyzed by the Department of Economic Development and Transportation. There are some concerns about the quality of the data overall.
Having reliable data is essential for developing the Tourism sector and monitoring the effectiveness of new initiatives.
The department is the process of assessing data collection requirements overall and determining where this capability may best be handled.
Recommendation #7:
The standing committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut, in its response to this report, clarify, in detail, the status of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s plan to “initiate an economic impact study on tourism to determine the impact of tourism activities on the Nunavut economy and the impact of external economic factors on tourism in Nunavut.
Response to Recommendation #7:
The department’s plan to initiate an economic impact study to determine the impact of tourist activities on Nunavut as well as the impact of external economic factors on tourism in Nunavut is dependent on solid high quality baseline data.
The department laid the groundwork for this initiative in 2015-2016 by developing an economic and statistical model for tourism, and this work will continue in 2016-2017.
Recent concerns over the data from the Visitor Exit Survey highlight the need to establish better data management practices as well as quality control.
The department is considering its options in building this capacity particularly in view of this and other developments such as the Marine Tourism Management Plan which itself imposes additional data management requirements, as well as the proposed amendments to the Travel and Tourism Act, which present an opportunity to collect high quality tourism data directly from tourism operators.
Recommendation #8:
The standing committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut, in its response to this report, clarify, in detail, the status of Nunavut Arctic College’s Nunavut Tourism Training Program.
Response to Recommendation #8:
Nunavut Tourism worked closely with Nunavut Arctic College (NAC) to develop the Nunavut Tourism Training Program, a multi-course certificate program.
The responsibility for managing and delivering the program resides with NAC.
The funding secured by NAC to offer the program lapsed.
In the interim, Nunavut Tourism has been offering short one to two day courses that tour operators require such as Wildness First Aid.
Recommendation #9:
The standing committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut, in its response to this report, clarify, in detail, the status of the following initiatives that have been undertaken by Nunavut Tourism:
Response to Recommendation #9:
The 2014-2015 Annual Report has been finalized and has been provided.
(See attached list of Nunavut Tourism documents.)
Nunavut Tourism’s Inuit Employment Plan is set out under Appendix E of the 2014-2015 Annual Report. Currently 1/3 of the organization’s staff is Inuit.
Nunavut Tourism maintains that its website was developed primarily to attract tourists from outside the Territory. The languages available on the website are English, French and German. Under the Members section, however, information is presented in Inuktitut and English.
Since the development of the website, the Inuit Language Protection Act has been enacted recognizing a stronger commitment to the protecting the Inuit language. In support of this, Nunavut Tourism has set out its commitment in an Inuit Language Plan under Appendix D of the 2014-2015 Annual Report. This overall approach has been approved by its Board of Directors.
To incorporate Inuktut into the existing fully-functioning website could be prohibitive. Therefore Nunavut Tourism is seeking a clarification from the Language Commissioner on this matter given the objectives and intentions for its website as set out above. As part of its advocacy role, Nunavut Tourism works closely with Federal parties such as Transport Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service to keep its membership advised of changing regulations and to ensure there is adequate understanding of the Nunavut environment.
This is an ongoing activity.
As stated in the Response to Recommendation #1, Nunavut Tourism maintains that there are no Memoranda of Understanding currently in place.
However, Nunavut Tourism continues to work closely and cooperatively with other Nunavut entities such as the Nunavut Arts and Crafts Association and Nunavut Film to promote the arts and tourism sectors in the territory consistent with the Government mandate under Sivumut Abluqta.
Recommendation #10:
The standing committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut’s current “Operational Audit” initiative explicitly consider the advisability of the Tourism and Cultural Industries Division of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation assuming some or all of the functions that are presently managed by Nunavut Tourism, and that this analysis consider what adjustments would be required to each entity’s financial and human resources.
Response to Recommendation #10:
The Government of Nunavut acknowledges the Standing Committee’s direction to critically review how the Tourism sector is being addressed within the Territory and the relationship between Nunavut Tourism and the Government of Nunavut.
The Government has included the analysis proposed by the committee into the second phase of the Operational Audit. However, the department has already begun this examination to identify opportunities to better align functions and responsibilities respecting the territorial wide mandate of the department to development the Tourism sector and the critical role that Nunavut Tourism plays as a member association, serving its members’ interests.
Certain areas of responsibility demand a strategic focus that addresses the Territory as a whole such as market research and promotion of the territory as a tourist destination. As well, there are increasing demands for reliable data to support new initiatives and strategies. The Marine Tourism Management Plan, as an example, contains a significant requirement for accurate data capture and management capabilities.
At the same time, the development of the Tourism sector requires operators who are market ready and capable of delivering products to meet tourist demands.
This is a critical aspect that can be best fulfilled through the member association, Nunavut Tourism.