EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister may not have the detailed information before him.
However, I will provide it to him after the sitting.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister commit that he will direct his officials to look into this matter to resolve it once and for all?
Mr. Speaker, I didn’t quite hear the member’s question.
Please rephrase your question, Mr. Mikkungwak.
One of my constituents has approached me regarding a longstanding and unresolved invoicing dispute that they have with the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
This has been ongoing now for nearly five years and proper documentation has been provided.
My question here is: once I provide that information to the minister, can he resolve the matter once and for all?
Mr. Speaker, yes, once I see it and find out exactly what the question pertains to, I’ll look into it.
Question 470 – 4(2): Fuel Delivery in Gjoa Haven (Akoak)
My question is to CGS.
I have a concern coming from our community where the fuel delivery is handled from a tanker to the tank in the community. What they do is the tanker comes in, but they don’t go right to the shore.
They have a really long hose that spans from the tanker into the tanks.
In the past, they had problems with bad gas and they don’t want to see that happening over in Gjoa Haven.
My question is: is there a procedure for the tanker on how to deliver gas or P50 from the tanker to the tanks, from the government?
The delivery of fuel from the tanker to the tank is the responsibility of the contractor.
As a department, we don’t have control of how they are going to do that delivery.
That is their method of delivery and they use that in every community in Nunavut, using a hose from the tanker to the tanks. (interpretation) Thank you.
Mr. Akoak: Thank you Mr. Speaker.
When does it become the GN’s problem?
Is it only when it becomes bad gas where gasoline and P50 are mixed together and dispensed from the tanks?
I’m not sure if I could answer a hypothetical question like that.
However, we do try to ensure that fuel that is delivered, for example, P50s are not mixed with any gas.
However, again, that is the responsibility of the contractor. (interpretation) Thank you.
Reply to Opening Address 001 – 4(2): Ms. Pat Angnakak (Angnakak)
As we approach the end of our current winter sitting, I am honoured to have this opportunity to rise today in order to provide a reply to the Opening Address.
Mr. Speaker, as the House will recall, the Commissioner’s Opening Address to mark the beginning of the Second Session of the current Assembly was delivered on March 20, 2014, almost a year ago.
As the House will also recall, one of the statements in the Commissioner’s Opening Address noted that, and I quote, “Food security includes the promotion of community-focused solutions to enhance access to nutritious foods.
It is essential for our government to continue advocating for adequate policy and legislative measures that support this access at affordable prices.”
Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my remarks today on a specific issue that relates to food security: the Nutrition North Canada Program.
Mr. Speaker, in May of 2013, the members of the previous Legislative Assembly unanimously voted in favour of calling on the Auditor General of Canada to undertake a comprehensive performance audit of the Nutrition North Canada Program and to report his findings to Parliament.
This motion followed on work that was undertaken by members, including a number of members who are in this House today, to publicly examine the Nutrition North Canada Program and to hear directly from stakeholders.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s report was tabled in Parliament last fall and his findings have been the subject of extensive discussion here in Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, the Nutrition North Canada Program is one of the federal programs with the most significant impact on the day-to-day lives of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s recent report to Parliament pointed out that the average annual household expenditure on food in Nunavut is over 100 percent higher than the national average.
Put simply, it costs our families twice as much to feed their children than it does in much of the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s report does note that many factors contribute to food insecurity in the north, including “poverty, unemployment, limited infrastructure…” It also notes that while the Nutrition North Canada Program is “intended to make nutritious foods more accessible and affordable, it is not designed to address these factors or make the price of food in the North equal to the prices elsewhere.”
Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong and vocal supporter of our government taking actions that fall within its jurisdiction to address food security and a number of its underlying causes.
However, it is important to emphasize that the Nutrition North Canada Program is administered by the federal government and can only be changed by the federal government.
This is why it is so important that we who live in the north clearly and emphatically provide our perspective on the issues and problems that we see with the program.
Mr. Speaker, let me move on to commenting on two recent and positive developments.
As I noted earlier, the Auditor General’s report on the Nutrition North Canada Program was tabled in Parliament last fall.
It is my understanding that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee will be holding its hearings on the Auditor General’s report within the next few weeks.
Mr. Speaker, these upcoming hearings, which will be held in public, will be critical in ensuring that our federal parliamentarians have a clear understanding of why it is so vital that action be taken to address the problems with this federal program.
These hearings will be also be critical in ensuring that the federal department which is responsible for administering the program is held to its commitments to act on the Auditor General’s five key recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, I will be following the work of our federal counterparts with great care and attention, as do I hope will all Members of this House and our friends in the northern news media.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to publicly call on the members of the parliamentary committee who are undertaking this important work to do so in a cooperative spirit and to rise above partisanship. The challenge of improving food security in Nunavut and throughout the northern regions of Canada will not be met if opportunities such as these hearings simply become yet another occasion for name-calling and partisan accusations.
Mr. Speaker, hungry children in Iqaluit, Grise Fiord, Repulse Bay, and Kugluktuk don’t care about pre-election polls or political point-scoring, and neither should we.
Mr. Speaker, the second positive development that I want to speak about is the recent announcement that the Nutrition North Canada Advisory Board will be holding a public meeting on March 26 here in Iqaluit.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to attending this meeting, and I encourage all of my colleagues who are available to join me.
Mr. Speaker, this upcoming meeting will be the sixth such public event that the Nutrition North Canada Advisory Board has held since its establishment in 2011.
As the House will be aware, the mandate of the Nutrition North Canada Advisory Board is to “provide advice to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to help guide the direction and activities of the program and to ensure that Northerners receive its full benefit.”
I strongly encourage the board to significantly increase its visibility and activity in the months to come, and I strongly encourage the federal government to publicly release the board’s outstanding annual reports on the activities and actions that it undertook in the years 2013 and 2014.
Sorry, I have a sore throat and it’s coming through in all my reading.
Mr. Speaker, I want to turn now to some specific issues with the Nutrition North Canada Program that I want to see addressed.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most revealing observations in the Auditor General’s report was that, and I quote, “The northern retailers have attested to the Department that they do pass on the full subsidy to consumers.
If the Department was able to verify that this was the case, some of the public scepticism surrounding the Program could be lessened. This would benefit both the Department and northern retailers.
We found that the contribution agreements specified that the full subsidy be passed on to consumers. However, the Department did not specify in the agreements that data on profit margins must be provided.
This data is necessary to determine whether the full subsidy is passed on.”
Mr. Speaker, in its response to the Auditor General’s report, the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development committed to addressing this issue through amendments to its compliance review process.
It is essential that our federal parliamentarians closely monitor the department’s progress in this area.
Mr. Speaker, another revealing observation in the Auditor General’s report was that, and I quote, “When the [Nutrition North Canada] Program was introduced in 2011, subsidy rates for each eligible community were based on freight rates at that time.
Under the contribution agreements, retailers are expected to use the most effective and cost-efficient supply chain arrangements and routes, in order to reduce the price of eligible items as much as possible and to provide the best quality for consumers.
Some northern retailers publicly reported that they were able to lower their freight rates.
The Department also told us that the subsidy rate is now higher than the freight rate in some communities.”
Mr. Speaker, I have heard it suggested that retailers have been able to negotiate cargo rates with the airlines that are sufficiently low as to result in the retailers actually making a profit on the difference between what they pay to ship food and what they receive from the federal government through the Nutrition North Canada Program.
This could result in the full value of the subsidy not being passed on to the consumer.
It is essential that the federal government’s compliance reviews and audits of the program require retailers to disclose their actual negotiated cargo rates with the airlines, and that this information clarify any differences between cargo rates for food and cargo rates for other goods.
Mr. Speaker, shortly after the Auditor General’s report was released, the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development posted a request for proposals on January 26, 2015.
This RFP called for proposals to “develop subsidy models and support an engagement with communities for the Nutrition North Canada Program in 2015-2016.”
Mr. Speaker, when officials from the department appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts later this month to respond to the Auditor General’s report, it will be important that they be asked to clarify in detail whether the federal government is considering introducing an entirely different approach to addressing the issue of the cost of food in the north and other remote regions.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard it suggested that we would be better off going back to system of subsidization that was in place under the old Food Mail Program. As we know, that program was not without its problems and shortcomings, as was evidenced in the findings of the Auditor General’s 2002 report concerning entry points.
Mr. Speaker, although nobody wants to go back to the days of trucking food to Val-d’Or or subsidizing the flying into Iqaluit of truck tires, I think that the current Nutrition North Canada Program should re-examine at least two areas that I have been told were addressed better under the Food Mail Program.
Firstly, the federal government needs to re-examine the issue of essential non-food items that are eligible for subsidy under the program.
As a mother and grandmother, the very first things that come to mind are diapers and wipes. I would also favour more support to ensure year-round, affordable access to items which contribute to health and wellness.
Mr. Speaker, it has also been suggested to me that another one of the problems with the Nutrition North Canada Program is that the volume of administrative requirements for retailers to register with the program are such that smaller retailers are unwilling or unable to register with the program.
This, in turn, further entrenches the power of the larger retailers.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government itself acknowledges the benefits of flexibility and choice.
Information published by the Nutrition North Canada Program states that, and I quote, “If a customer (in an eligible community) wishes to purchase perishable nutritious food directly from a Southern supplier instead of a Northern retailer, they can place a direct order.
These are a useful option for individuals, schools, restaurants and even small retailers.
This option helps preserve competition among Northern retailers and provides consumers with flexibility related to special dietary needs.”
However, the reality is that there is currently only one Ottawa-based registered southern supplier that takes direct or personal orders from Nunavummiut.
This limits personal choice and does not contribute to a truly competitive environment.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude on a hopeful and positive note by reflecting on the words in the Commissioner’s Opening Address that called on us as MLAs to work together for a territory that no longer suffers from food insecurity.
Mr. Speaker, the successful implementation of improvements to the Nutrition North Canada Program will help to achieve this goal, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity today to make small contribution to this important process.
I apologize for my throat kind of giving out on me.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Item 10. (interpretation) Petitions (interpretation ends) Item 11.
Tabled Document 126 – 4(2): F/P/T Report - Ministers of Justice and Public Safety October 17, 2014 (Okalik)
I am pleased to table the Report on the Meeting of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Justice and Public Safety in Banff, Alberta, October 17, 2014.
Tabled Document 127– 4(2): Nunavut Housing Corporation Collection Policy (Kuksuk)
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to table the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s Collection Policy.
The Hon. Minister of Community and Government Services, Mr. Sammurtok.
Tabled Document 128 – 4(2): Contract Activity Report Fiscal Year 2013-2014 (Sammurtok)
Tabled Document 129 – 4(2): Procurement Activity Report Fiscal Year 2013-2014 (Sammurtok)
Tabled Document 130 – 4(2): Lease Activity Report Fiscal Year 2013-2014 (Sammurtok)
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I have three documents that I want to table.
I am pleased to table the contract, procurement, and lease activity reports for 2013-14. (interpretation) Thank you.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Item 13. (interpretation) Tabling of Documents.
Tabled Document 131 – 4(2): Priorities of the Francophone Community of Nunavut Regarding French Services, March 2015 (Kuksuk)
Hon. George Kuksuk: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to table the Priorities of the Francophone Community of Nunavut Regarding French Services.
Tabled Document 132 – 4(2): Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy Progress Report 2013-2014 (Okalik)
Tabled Document 133 – 4(2): F/P/T Report on the Second Global Action Against Dementia, September 11 to 12, 2014 (Okalik)
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to table the following documents:
The Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy Progress Report 2013-2014; and further
The F/P/T Report on the Second Global Action Against Dementia Event held in Ottawa, September 11 to 12, 2014.
Tabled Document 134 – 4(2): Nunavut Economic Developers Association’s 2013-2014 Annual Report (Ell)
I am pleased to table the Nunavut [Economic] Developers Association’s 2013-14 annual report.
The Hon. Minister responsible for the Liquor Licensing Board, Mr. Kuksuk.
Tabled Document 135 – 4(2): Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board Annual Report 2012-2013 (Kuksuk)
Tabled Document 136 – 4(2): Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board Annual Report 2013-2014 (Kuksuk)
I am pleased to table the Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board’s 2012-13 as well as the 2013-14 annual reports.
Tabling of Documents. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Minister of Health, Mr. Okalik. (interpretation) Thank you.
Tabling of Documents. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Minister of Finance, Mr. Peterson.
Tabled Document 137 – 4(2): Towards a Representative Public Service, Statistics as of September 30, 2014 (Peterson)
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table Towards a Representative Public Service, Statistics as of September 30, 2014.
Tabled Document 138 – 4(2): Record of Members’ Absences - October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (Speaker)
(interpretation ends) I wish to table the recording of members’ absences from sittings of the House and meetings of the committee and caucuses for the period October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.
I have no more left.
Motion 021 – 4(2): Establishment of Standing Committee on Inuit Societal Values and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit – Notice (Shooyook)
I give notice that on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Uqqummiut, that the Legislative Assembly establish a Standing Committee on Inuit Societal Values and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
Item 18: Second Reading
Bill 21 – An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act to allow the Management and Service Board to establish policies and provide benefits to regular members.
This Act also amends the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act to limit elections related to the transfer of allowances payable under the Act.
This bill further amends the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act to provide for greater clarity in the division of benefits between members and former spouses following family breakdowns.
To the principle of the bill. All those in favour. (interpretation) Thank you. (interpretation ends) Opposed.
Pursuant to Rule 67 (4), Bill 21 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Bills 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 21 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:13 and Committee resumed at 15:45
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): We can proceed with our committee meeting. First of all, I would like to welcome the people of Nunavut who are watching the televised proceedings and listening to the radio broadcast.
While I have the opportunity, as Chair of the Committee of the Whole, I would like to welcome the Mayor of Pond Inlet, Charlie Enuarak. Welcome to the Chamber.
I would like to call the committee meeting to order. In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 21.
We have quite a long wish list today and I’m not sure if we will get through them all or not.
Nonetheless, we wish to review the following supplementary appropriation bills and budget documents: Bills 14, 15, and 18 and, if time permits, we will proceed to review the following in this order: Bill 12, Bill 17, Bill 19, Bill 11, Bill 13, and Bill 21.
Do we agree that we first deal with the supplementary appropriation, Bill 14?
Bill 14 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2014-2015 – Consideration in Committee
Minister Peterson, welcome.
Let me first ask if you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table.
Yes, I have a couple of witnesses.
Minister Peterson, for the record, please introduce your officials.
To my right is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of Finance, and to my left is Camilius Egeni, Director of Expenditure Management.
Welcome to the House, Mr. D’Arcy and Mr. Egeni.
Minister Peterson, if you have opening comments, I will give you the opportunity at this time.
I am here to present Bill 14, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2014-2015.
Bill 14 is for capital supplementary appropriations for 2014-15 totalling $20 million.
An interdepartmental transfer of $210,000 from the Department of Health to the Department of Family Services to complete renovations to the adult group home in Iqaluit; and
$20 million for the Nunavut Housing Corporation to fund the construction of additional staff housing.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to take questions on Bill 14.
We are dealing with Bill 14.
Go to page 4 in the Inuktitut and in the English, it’s the same page.
As a reminder to my colleagues, everything that was covered in the opening comments is broken down in the various pages.
Please make sure you ask your questions at the appropriate page.
At this time, I would like to ask if anyone has any general comments.
Since there are none, we will then proceed to page 4. If anyone has questions, please raise your hand. I will read it.
Family Services. Capital. Not Previously Authorized.
Total Corporate Management. $210,000. Not Previously Authorized. Total Department. $210,000.
Page 5. Health. Capital.
Directorate. Total Directorate. -$210,000. Total Department. -$210,000.
Turn the page. Page 6.
First I should thank the minister for getting the information that we previously requested regarding the $20 million for additional staff housing units throughout Nunavut.
In the response that we got, it stated that staff housing would be going to non-decentralized communities like Kugaaruk, Kimmirut, Grise Fiord, Coral Harbour, Sanikiluaq, Hall Beach, Resolute Bay, and decentralized communities of Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet, and Gjoa Haven.
Again I thank you for recognizing that Sanikiluaq does need additional staff housing in the community.
However, I would like to draw your attention to Pond Inlet.
I know, over the years, the member has brought up on numerous occasions that they have a lot of staff housing there that is not being used and now we see that they want to put more staff housing in Pond Inlet.
It makes a person wonder if you are planning to put more government departments into Pond Inlet.
I’m wondering if you can explain why there are additional staff housing units allocated to Pond Inlet.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) Are we getting another department in Pond Inlet?
I thank Mr. Rumbolt for the praise for getting this information.
Just to clarify, NHC anticipates being able to fund new staff housing in some or all of the following communities, so I don’t think there is any final conclusion on that.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation does have a process for determining how to allocate staff housing and they have indicated in their report that Pond Inlet has that demand.
You would have to ask them how they arrived at that calculation.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that this list is not finalized, but to even have Pond Inlet on the list, considering the questions over the years by the member on the abundance of staff housing in Pond Inlet, I wonder if you could redirect the question to the Minister of Housing and if he can explain why they are putting additional staff housing into Pond Inlet.
Again, I have to express caution that this is just preliminary information.
There is no final determination that Pond Inlet will get housing.
It’s just based on a formula of need as a percentage of stock and that Pond Inlet ranked number four out of ten in decentralized communities.
Based on the formula, that’s the ranking they got. Again, it is not final.