EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Some of the impacts we believe, I should add for the record, of the living increased allowance amount…. We saw a decline in dropout rates from 18 percent to less than 10 percent.
We’re seeing students are staying in programs longer, and we’re also seeing a 31 percent increase in the number of students accessing the grants program, during the fall of last year, of 2003.
So, I think that point is important to note: we’ve probably noticed around the same time, between 2002-03, an increase of about 3.5 percent of students.
Another question just to have on the record for clarity reasons….
I know earlier this month it was mentioned that all of the money was distributed equally to all of the students, and I think that is what my colleague, Mr. Peterson, was trying to get at from the minister…. Under the supplementary grant that the minister indicated is available for beneficiary students….
The amount that they qualify for, unless it has changed, my understanding is…. For books, they get up to $400 a month and anywhere from $825 to over $1,500, depending on a number of different factors: whether they live on their own or have any other dependents.
That is the additional amount under the supplementary grant that beneficiaries receive over non-beneficiaries under the program.
No, the member is correct.
What the member is saying is correct.
Just on another note, on some of the differences in allowance for Inuit students, or for beneficiary students….
The supplementary grant, which is only provided to students who are Inuit, is an initiative of Article 23, and we are mandated under the Land Claims to do that.
I think that helps us facilitate some of the training options that we have heard from our constituents, to be able to increase those numbers.
We cannot increase a lot of the Inuit employment numbers if people are not finishing some of their post-secondary schooling.
So, having a program like the supplementary grant in place falls under the category of Article 23, and I think that is a good initiative of the government.
For the record, for some of my colleagues across the floor there, I think it is a good initiative too.
But, over the last couple of weeks, some of the comments that have been made, that I actually heard from constituents…. It was not clear to people that…. Some comments were made that seemed like everyone is treated equally.
We know that is not the case, for all of the other reasons that the minister talked about.
So, I am just asking, for the record, to have some clarity so that everyone understands how the program works and why it is in place.
I just wanted to raise that question for the information of some of the people across the floor that seem to have a problem with it.
Mr. Chairman, the other question I have is under the Northwest Territories program, before division, and that is, again, something that Mr. Peterson brought up.
I will also use myself as an example. I was eligible for the supplementary grant because I was born in the territory.
My brother, the same blood as me, same mother, same father, was not eligible because he was not born in the territory.
I also know that there are people who were under that program under the Northwest Territories that were…. I believe the clause in that allowed for a long-term non-native northerner, you know that…. There might be some people that are non-beneficiaries that lived up here all their life, more than one generation, who were not able to access additional funding and got penalized like just off a plane; they have been here a few years and are trying to access funding.
I am just wondering if the ministers were aware that was in place under the old regime.
Would they look at trying to look at doing something for some of those people that find themselves in the same boat here in Nunavut, after division?
I want to make it perfectly clear.
You know the Government of Nunavut is a public government and we are here to represent all residents of Nunavut.
Now, after saying that, under Article 23 there is a mandate for this government to be able to fill some of the employment requirements, and having the supplementary program in place is a good one, like the member is saying.
So, I think it is a good program to have in place.
In the second part, every student in Nunavut who goes on to post-secondary education is entitled to some support from the Financial Assistance for Nunavut Students program, making a loan or in the case of beneficiary students you can get extra support that we just talked about.
Eighty percent of the Financial Assistance for Nunavut Students is taken up by Inuit students, beneficiary students.
Eighty percent of the people receiving financial assistance for Nunavut students are Inuit, 80 percent.
If you return….if you are not an aboriginal student and you go south and you receive $50,000 worth of loans from the Government of Nunavut to continue your studies in the south, you come back to Nunavut and you put in “x” number of years, it could be three or five, depending what the situation is, and your grant, your loan, is completely written off.
Very few jurisdictions in this country do that.
That is something that we should keep in mind.
I know, for example, that if a person who has brothers and sisters…. Putting children through school and university in the south, they have got loans in the sixties, seventies, and eighty thousands of dollars.
Every person here has…. Our Premier talks about coming back from doing his legal studies and having to pay off his student loans.
He didn’t get everything free.
He had to work for it.
And it is the same with many of our Inuit students in the south.
They do get an extra leg-up, under Article 23 with the supplementary basic grant.
But lots of students like the Premier, and he could speak for himself, have to pay back loans.
So, I think it is very important to raise that point. There are some issues as the member has stated and Mr. Tootoo has stated.
There are some issues around what is available and what is not available.
What I can say on that is the new start on April 1, 1999…. I know going back 17 years ago, when I was an adult educator starting in 1987, I used to facilitate and do applications for students who wanted to take the supplementary program and grants under the old Northwest Territories system that the member asked about. I can tell you right now, it wasn’t as lucrative as what we have in Nunavut, but the basic concept and premise was in place then, and it is still what we have in Nunavut today.
And so, for parents and people that have been in Nunavut for 15 or 20 years, and have children that are taught in school or whatever their background was…. Many of them were familiar with that program because it is the same program we have now; the only difference is, there are some extra incentives in there for Nunavut residents.
I’d still like an answer to my last question.
Chairman: He would like an answer to his last question, Mr. Picco.
Hon. Ed Picco: Do we want to do that, Mr. Chairman?
I think I started off by saying that the member is correct.
I agree with him, yes.
Chairman (interpretation): He answered your question, Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: He went off on his little rant and he forgot my question, I guess, Mr. Chairman.
I guess what I asked the minister is if they decided on looking at providing additional support to recognize students that have lived here all their lives, and were born here, raised here, and this is their home, at providing additional support for them as opposed to whether they are beneficiary or non-beneficiary students.
That was what my question was, Mr. Chairman, and that the one I’d like an answer for.
As I said earlier, under the Department of Education, we’re reviewing all the programs and services under the department, and that is something that I would take into consideration.
Mr. Tootoo do you have further questions?
Mr. Tootoo: No, thank you, that’s it.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask this question clearly.
This program does not discriminate against non-Inuit?
Hon. Ed Picco: No, Mr. Chairman, I don’t see how you would say that it discriminates.
There are extra incentives, the supplementary amount that is available to beneficiaries, but that helps us meet the requirement of Article 23.
Chairman: Moving right along here, finally.
Education branch summary, G-11. Adult learning and post-secondary services.
Total, operations and maintenance: $23,359,000.
G-14.
Education branch summary. I’m sorry. $34,339,000.
Total, operations and maintenance: $34,339,000.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to ask….
It’s part of income support program delivery in all of the three regions, the issue that was brought up in regards to child tax credits, because that was part of the claw-back from the income support.
I think the new minister had stated that there will be no more claw-backs.
I was wondering if that’s going to be the case.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Picco.
If I may, with permission of the Chair….
I would ask that Mr. Clendenning, I thank him very much for his assistance on the Nunavut Arctic College file, and the director of income support for the Government of Nunavut, Ms. Sandy Teiman, that many of the members recognize and know, join me at the table so that we’ll be able to facilitate some of the questions under income support.
We’ve already dealt with income support, just earlier.
We’ve already dealt with the income support portion, back on G-10; you’ve already approved it.
I’m sorry. Okay.
I would just like to take this opportunity to welcome Ms. Teiman to the table.
Under the question on the claw-back from the member, that is discussion that we’re having right now with the Department of Finance, how we look at the issue around the National Child Benefit.
I know it’s an issue that the member has, I think, raised in the past, and it’s something that we’re looking into.
Ms. Teiman. Mr. Curley. I’m sorry.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I just wanted that on the record because it’s in the delivery, I was unable to speak to that issue.
Chairman (interpretation): We are practising.
Please bear with us.
I know that the minister is intimately aware of some of the challenges faced by our daycare system, our childcare and early childhood development system.
I would just like to ask the minister if he could explain why there is a decrease from the initial main estimates last year, of $300,000, roughly, in early childhood programs and daycare contributions.
While there is a small decrease in that line item, the same budgets that the facilities across Nunavut receive will not decrease.
There is no decrease in the amount of funding allocated to the member daycares.
In the line there is a small reduction, but it does not impact on the daycares themselves.
Chairman: “Qujannamiik.”
It says it is for daycare contributions so I am just wondering, if that is not what it is, what it is used for?
Based on the closures of some of the facilities that were being funded before. That recorded some of those facilities as well as the restructuring of some of the childcare spaces.
There is a reduction that will not have an impact on our member daycares, and we will be able to maintain the grants and contributions budget for 2004-05 for those daycares.
Does the daycare feel that that is enough? In its initial year the daycare raised concerns over the lack of funding.
They are saying that they need more funding. Or, is this enough?
I would like to ask the minister.
A daycare is not a…. I do not know of any daycare that has a profit-making price.
Daycares are very high on overhead, and the core contribution that the daycare receives in operations and maintenance funding from the Department Education, in this case, like every other jurisdiction in this country, is usually done enough. Most daycares had to be able to move in a position where they do fundraising and so on.
I do not think we are any different from any other jurisdiction when we look at that.
However, after saying that, the concern being raised by some of the daycares and by the member is correct…. Is that the amount of the operations and maintenance funding….
One of the things that we have talked about when I met with the member daycares, for example, here, was a look at the way we are funding for the formula that we put in place for the operations and maintenance for the daycares.
Should it be based on the number of students that they have in place, and so on? Should it be based on the actual cost of running the facility?
So, those are the type of things that I would be hoping to put into play in the coming months when we look at our budget for our next fiscal equation, or fiscal year.
I am sure the daycares look forward to that next year.
In the meantime, I know, as the minister had indicated, that some of them are facing some very difficult times and just struggling to keep the doors open. I know at times they have had to close and send the children home because they do not have the staff to be able to look after the children that are there. And, the minister said that it is a very small decrease.
Could there not have been an effort to at least leave it the same as it was, and then increase the…. If it has been given out by formula, at least leave the funding the same as the previous year, of the seventeen-seventy-three, and increase that $300,000 to daycares who might need it in a matter of keeping their doors open or closed a few days a week, which you know in any case could affect anywhere from 10 to 30 from going home.
So, I am just wondering if there is an effort to look at doing that on behalf of the minister and the department.
I appreciate the member’s comment.
It is a $188,000 reduction, in the line item. It will not impact the member daycares. They will not receive less funding than they received last year.
That is a guarantee.
What I am saying is that we need to be able to look at the overall budget of the department.
There are some reductions in some areas.
But there are some increases in other areas.
I would hope to be able to even these out and be able to restructure and restate the budget requirements for member daycares funded under the allocation process.
That is, how do we allocate the monies and how do we do the formula.
We’ve spoken a little bit about that.
So, there is a reduction, or there is less money in the grants and contributions area, but there is no impact on the member daycares.
Moving onto the next line item, again there is a decrease in funding of $400,000 in the early childhood programs and Healthy Children Initiatives.
I would just like to ask the minister if he could explain why that decrease is there.
There was no requirement for that money? Or, is it just fiscal restraints that led to the cuts?
It is a result of some of the issues we’re dealing with within the department, the $400,000 reduction in that line item.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Tootoo.
I would just like to ask, is it due to fiscal restraints, of having to take some across-the-board cuts, that that amount is decreased?
Is that what the minister is indicating?
Hon. Ed Picco: Yes.
Chairman: Yes, Mr. Tootoo.
That’s good.
I just wanted to have that on the record.
On page G-14, look at line item “Fees and payments: $23,621,000.”
I’m wondering if the minister could give us a breakdown of how much of that is income support and if he could tell us by region.
The social assistance payments, or income support payments, are $22,814,000.
In other income support programs, if I may, under “Daycare user subsidies: $505,000,” “Community capacity building,” which is $1.5 million.
“Senior fossil-fuel subsidy: $130,000,” and the “Building codes and compliance” issue area of $889,000.
Under the social assistance administration is $1.6 million.
On a regional breakdown, for Qikiqtani social assistance payments, is $12.825 million.
Kivalliq, social assistance payments of $5.653 million, and the Kitikmeot is $4.336 million, for a total of $22.814 million in direct social assistance payments.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Peterson.
I’m wondering if the minister could tell us when you increased the budget for income support by 10 percent. Did your department go region by region, community by community and calculate what the cost of living is in each community?
Did you do the food survey in the Co-op Stores and the Northern Stores?
Did that kind of work go on?
Chairman: That’s a good point.
No, it wasn’t done that way.
Under the income support program, under the food supplement amount, the money for food, we do it by zone, and we have five zones in Nunavut. At the same time, we also get it by the food scale allowance. So, we have a revised food allowance table based on the five zones and based on the amount of family members in a community.
So, under Zone 1, for the member’s interest, as an example, there is Bathurst Inlet, Sanikiluaq, and Umingmaktuq.
Under Zone 2 there is Arviat, Iqaluit, Kugluktuk, Pangnirtung, Qikiqtarjuaq, and Rankin Inlet.
In Zone 3 there is Cambridge Bay, Cape Dorset, Clyde River, Gjoa Haven, Hall Beach, Nanisivik, Pond Inlet, and Whale Cove.
In Zone 4, Arctic Bay, Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, Coral Harbour, Igloolik, Kimmirut, Repulse Bay, Resolute Bay, Taloyoak.
And under Zone 5 there is Grise Fiord and Kugaaruk.
The reason I am asking…. It seems like a lot of money, I guess it is.
In Cambridge Bay in the year 2000, we had to open up the food bank for the first time in the history of our community.
And it gets a lot of use.
Last year we had a lot of volunteers.
One particular week they raised $18,000 for food for the food bank in our community, and it gets a lot of use.
I am wondering…. If we have a food bank in Cambridge Bay, we have income support, then you would think that there should be enough. Income support should be enough to offset the cost of food without having to open up a food bank.
I am wondering, does every community have a food bank?
Or is it just three communities in Nunavut?
I know that there is the Nunavut food bank.
Mr. Curley: I thought the Chairman ruled that the item was not up for discussion.
It was on a separate page. As a result of that I had only one question with respect to income support.
What was the point of order, and what was your ruling with respect to my question on income support?
So, I would say that should apply to this question.
Chairman: Mr. Curley is right.
Mr. Curley is right, so we will re-write the question.
So, I can still ask a question on income support?
Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
On this page, for the delivery of income support.
I am on G-14.
I am rookie, so you guys have to help.
We are going to go to 6:00 tonight, right?
So, we have opened a food bank in Cambridge Bay, and we have got three or four, probably, across Nunavut.
That tells me that maybe the cost of living went up in the communities. We had to find more money to put the income support to help people to purchase the food, if the cost of living is increased in our communities.
I am just wondering if the minister could comment on that.
Chairman: Would you please comment on that, Mr. Picco.
Hon. Ed Picco: Just very quickly.
I don’t think we’re, I think the government made a good move when we put the 10 percent in.
I’d like to be able to put in another 10 percent.
Just for example, for the record….
In the member’s community of Cambridge Bay, a family of four only received $980 a month for groceries. For food, $985.
That’s $200 a week for a family four.
I don’t know how they are doing it.
So, I would disagree with you.
I think we really need to be able to look at that.
In some of our communities where there are no job opportunities, in the smaller communities, then you’ll see the amounts more.
And I’ll give you another good example.
In Arctic Bay, for example, for a family of four, they only receive $1,037.
Divide that by four, members in the family are getting about $230 each.
That is not very much.
How would you buy a grocery for a family of four for $200 bucks. I can’t see it.
So, I would suggest the member is correct: it is probably a bigger need for food banks and so on in our communities.
Thank God that a lot of our communities rely on country foods, because if you had to rely on just $200 on foods you’d never make a go of it.
So, I would expect support from the members in the next budget to look at a bigger increase in the area of income support, and support meaning in doing that, and so on.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Peterson.
The problem we have in our community, the elders told me this, has to do with the firearms legislation.
People are having a hard time getting their rifles registered, buying ammunition.
They are telling me that they can’t.
The younger folks can’t get out to hunting so that they can bring home country foods.
So, it’s a bigger issue.
The elders, again, are too old to go out. And, it’s getting too expensive to buy snowmobiles. It takes $11- 12,000 alone just to buy a snowmobile to get out and do some hunting.
But our community has banded together and helped them with the food bank.
I think that we should keep in mind that the cost of living is not going to decrease in Nunavut.
It is only going to increase.
We have to find ways to help people buy food. And, that’s why the income support….
Or, as I mentioned the other day, that the department could work some legislation in there and take some of the income support money and help under right to travel to remote worksites.
The folks can get out there, come to the mines that move to arctic communities on a temporary basis, work, bring back some more disposable income to the communities, and then they could purchase food for their families.
I already indicated in the House that the plan would be this fall that I would be bringing in some of the changes I’d like to see in the income support program.
I would take the member’s advice under consideration to see if that is something that we could work on.
I agree that the minister said that in the House, but he also asked me to bring this up for discussion under page G-14.
So, for the record, we have discussed it.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Curley.
Chairman (interpretation): I think the minister…. Would you like to reply?
Hon. Ed Picco: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe the member was referring to page G-18 and the issue that he has already dealt with. Thank you.
I believe it is their federal budget from which there is going to be support for the early childhood and daycares.
Do you have communications with the federal government on the early childhood and daycares?
Indeed, over the last five-and-a-half years, I’ve been the representative for the Nunavut government under SUFA, which is the Social Union Framework Agreement. When we actually did the discussions, for example, on the National Child Benefit, when that was put into play….
So, I have had an opportunity at that table to talk about issues on a national level when it comes to issues around the children, the daycares, and so on.
What answers did you get from that federal government?
Do you believe that they will be giving you money?
Have they made any suggestions that they will be giving more support on this?
When these issues were on the SUFA table…. It is something similar that the Premier has been speaking about on numerous occasions as well as the finance minister.
That any of the monies that came out of that special envelope from the federal government are per capita….
A good example, again, is when they introduce money, $50 million under FAS- FAE programs. When I extrapolate the number from the Government of Nunavut I get about $50,000.
So, those are the kinds of discussions we have brought forward. We are trying to advocate on behalf and for Nunavut, to do it outside of the per capita envelope.
So, that is some of the discussions that we have had.
Yes, that is good that we heard that the federal government made an announcement on these programs.
We will be expecting that to come here to Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is almost 6 o’clock.
Can you kindly sing for us again?
(Interpretation ends.) We have no more names on the list.
So, maybe we can quickly do the J-14 before we shut down for the day.
Chairman: Okay.
Education grant summary. Career and early childhood services. Total, operations and maintenance: $34,339,000, agreed?
We have exactly two minutes.