EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Earlier this year, on a few different occasions, but here in the House, I raised the issue of ensuring that the design of the new airport included a jet walk or bridge to assist people with disabilities in boarding and deplaning aircraft with dignity.
Mr. Speaker, at that time, the House was informed that this issue was still under consideration.
Can the minister indicate if the final design of the new airport will include this important feature?
That’s a good question. When I have the answer, I will get back to the member.
Question 097 – 4(2): The Loss of Federal Funding for Search and Rescue in Nunavut (Mikkungwak)
Last week, I asked a question about search and rescue organizations to see how we can provide more assistance to them. We exchanged letters afterwards.
According to the minister’s response, he said that the funding for search and rescue from the federal government was cut.
Can you explain it a little more?
As I said last year, we get funding for emergency services from the federal government for search and rescues. However, the funding we get from the federal government was clawed back.
The program was cut, so the GN funds it on its own now.
With the fact that search and rescue funding is run by the government, can the minister work to make the funding whole again or lobby to get the funding reinstated to Nunavut?
Minister of Community and Government Services, Mr. Sammurtok.
We have been in talks with the federal government about the matter.
Last week, when you were answering questions and giving some good news to the search and rescue groups in Nunavut, it was real good to hear.
However, search and rescue groups need more funding and your department will be looking more into it.
Are you going to see if the federal government can reinstate the funding?
Dealing with emergency measures and search and rescues is very important.
It’s my responsibility and I want it to run better. That’s why we have requested additional funding of $250,000 to the program and the total budget is now $800,000.
Question 098 – 4(2): Status of the Nunavut Development Corporation (Angnakak)
My questions are directed to the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Development Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the statutory mandate of the corporation is to provide employment to Nunavut residents through its nine subsidiary companies.
While it is important to assist the growth of Nunavut businesses, it is also important that government’s investments promote self-sufficient operation.
In its 2013-14 corporate business plan, the Nunavut Development Corporation indicated that one of its priorities is to “critically assess the performance of any existing subsidiary company from a cost per job creation position and take corrective action necessary for those companies deemed ineffective according to the Corporation’s own investment guidelines.”
Can the minister describe what actions the corporation is currently taking to assess the performance of its nine subsidiary companies?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Minister responsible for the Nunavut Development Corporation, Mr. Kuksuk.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for asking that question.
Mr. Speaker, as we have always indicated as a government and as the department, the Nunavut Development Corporation falls under my department.
From the cabinet retreat in Kugluktuk when we came up with Sivumut Abluqta, we are supposed to look at what runs well and what doesn’t run well.
We are supposed to review the companies and make sure that they run well. If there are any companies that don’t run well and make revenue, then they should be closed down if necessary. We should look for other businesses that can run well and make money.
That is what we’re doing as a department.
It is important to recognize that operating costs for businesses in Nunavut is very high.
As a result, it is not easy for subsidiary companies to operate at a profit.
Can the minister indicate how the corporation is addressing the issue of high operating costs among its subsidiary companies?
As I said, the companies have to be able to run properly and they have to spend the money properly. This is the job of our business, including NDC.
Mr. Speaker, I can say that last week, the NDC board of directors had a meeting here in Iqaluit. I met with them and we discussed all the things that the member is asking about.
They have to be operating properly. If there are any problems, if the operation is not running properly, or if there are any other problems, NDC will have to look at all of those things. That’s what we talked about when we had a meeting, for NDC to be able to assess each of those problems in each region.
The corporation’s business plan also indicates that it may offer “mentoring and business aftercare” to its subsidiary companies, which would support businesses in becoming commercially viable.
Can the minister describe what kind of training, if any, the companies are offered as a part of this mentoring and aftercare?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, NDC has various kinds of companies, such as commercial fisheries and meat, carvings, arts and crafts within Nunavut.
Various training is provided in each community, depending on the community, and they will be mentoring or giving training to those companies after finding out which companies need training and mentoring.
Question 099 – 4(2): Municipal Contribution Agreements (Mapsalak)
Mr. Speaker, I know that the hamlets and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation have contribution agreements for the hamlets to use in their community.
In the contribution agreement, the $90,000 is set aside to be used in the communities. Can that $90,000 be used for access roads in and outside the community?
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Mr. Kuksuk.
With respect to the member’s question, the money is set aside to be given to hamlets for access roads outside or in the community, whether it be a small business, that money is set aside.
Each hamlet likes having money for access roads and the member is asking if the $90,000 could be used for access roads. Mr. Speaker, communities have different needs. That’s all I can say.
Can the minister commit to find that out? I know that his staff know what I’m talking about and the question that I’m asking. I want to know whether we would be able to access the $90,000 to be used for making access roads in a community.
We provide money to the hamlets for economic development and various things. The other one is a little bit different because we set aside some money for economic development and the other one is for access roads.
Just to let the member know and to be clear, I will look into the question that he’s asking.
If I understand his question properly, I could let the member know what I can do about that.
Item 8. (interpretation ends) Returns to Written Questions. (interpretation) Item 9. (interpretation ends) Replies to Opening Address.
Committee Report 001 – 4(2): Report on the Review of the 2013 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on Education in Nunavut and Safety of Schools and Childcare Facilities in Nunavut (Hickes)
I have the honour of presenting the report of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the 2013 reports of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on education in Nunavut and safety of schools and child care facilities in Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, the Auditor General’s reports were tabled in the House on November 19, 2013.
As with other reports presented to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut by the Auditor General, this report was subsequently considered by the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts, which was established by way of motion on March 6, 2014.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee held its hearings on the Auditor General’s reports from April 1 to 3, 2014.
The hearings were open to the public and news media to observe. The hearings were televised live across Nunavut.
Transcripts of the hearings are being made available for downloading from the Legislative Assembly’s website.
Mr. Speaker, the presentation of these reports marked Mr. Michael Ferguson’s second formal appearance before a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
I would note, however, that this was not the first time that the Office of the Auditor General has reported to the Legislative Assembly on the Government of Nunavut’s education system.
In 2007, the Auditor General presented a report on the Financial Assistance for Nunavut Students Program.
Mr. Speaker, it was noted during our hearings that the Office of the Auditor General had initially begun a single comprehensive audit of education in Nunavut.
However, during the initial phases of the audit, a number of observations raised concerns directly relating to the safety and security of educational facilities.
Consequently, the Office of the Auditor General undertook an additional audit focusing specifically on safety and security issues, with an extended focus on child care facilities as well as schools.
The comprehensive audit resulted in two reports.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee greatly appreciates the Auditor General’s timely focus on issues relating to safety and security and in bringing those findings to the immediate attention of government officials in order that they could be addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the participation of witnesses from the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Education and Department of Community and Government Services during our April hearings.
As noted by staff from the Office of the Auditor General, departmental witnesses answered the majority of the questions posed by members and provided a significant amount of additional information relating to Nunavut’s educational system and the resources and procedures that are in place to ensure that schools and child care facilities across Nunavut are safe and secure.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee was pleased to receive copies of the Department of Education’s five-year work plans outlining its short-term, medium-term, and long-term objectives to address the issues raised in the Auditor General’s reports and looks forwards to regular updates on progress made towards achieving the stated objectives.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to note further that the Auditor General’s report will be of significant value during the Legislative Assembly’s upcoming review of the Education Act.
Nunavut’s Education Act came into force on July 1, 2009.
Section 202.1 provides that the Legislative Assembly shall review the provisions and operations of the Act.
The Auditor General’s reports not only provide important and informed insights, but the deliberations during our April hearings allowed members to gain additional perspectives on various issues that may be brought forward for consideration during the Legislative Assembly’s detailed review of the Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s report on education in Nunavut presented eight specific recommendations. These recommendations addressed the following thematic areas:
Progress on implementing Nunavut’s Education Act;
Bilingual education;
Inclusive education;
Development of teaching resources; and
Collecting, analyzing, and reporting on information related to the government’s progress in implementing the Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s report on safety in schools and child care facilities also presented eight specific recommendations.
Frequency of facility inspections;
The lack of follow-up with respect to deficiencies identified in inspections;
Procedures, guidelines, and protocols to ensure safety in all facilities;
Training of education and early child care education staff; and
Interdepartmental communication and cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee concurs with the recommendations of the Auditor General and notes that the government itself formally agreed with all of the Auditor General’s recommendations.
Mr. Speaker, during the committee’s proceedings, members raised many important issues and questions concerning the government’s policies and practices relating to Nunavut’s education system, and a number of themes and issues emerged during the standing committee’s review of the Auditor General’s most recent reports to the Legislative Assembly.
As the House is aware, Nunavut’s Education Act, which was passed in 2008 and came into force on July 1, 2009, lays out a number of specific requirements which, in many respects, determine how the education system is structured and delivered.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the hearings, it was clear that several factors are contributing to delaying progress towards achieving the specified objectives by the legislated timelines.
That the Government of Nunavut, as a whole and with the collaboration of its key departments and agencies, put a higher priority on developing strong and clear directives relating to the use of the Inuit language across Nunavut with specific focus on the writing system, terminology, and the role of dialects.
Mr. Speaker, during the standing committee’s hearings, many issues relating to language were raised with respect to the Department of Education’s overall success in implementing Nunavut’s Education Act.
From the historic impact of language of instruction regimes in the past to the current variations in language abilities of students, as well as from region to region, to the widely divergent literacy skills and linguistic abilities of individuals within Nunavut’s school system, and the struggles to develop Inuit language curriculum and resource materials for all grade levels, these factors and others pose significant challenges to delivering an education system consistently across the territory.
Members of the standing committee have expressed concern that the Department of Education’s current activities to develop Inuit language materials and to deliver a standard level of language instruction are inconsistent across the territory.
Having a solid foundation upon which to base Inuit language policies, including clear direction with respect to writing systems and the use of dialects, could provide much needed support for strengthening Inuit language use across Nunavut’s schools.
If this issue is not addressed as a priority, the Department of Education risks further delays in its ability to deliver a successful education system in accordance with the Education Act.
That the Department of Education, in response to the report and recommendations of the Auditor General, immediately establish its database to collect data on educators’ training and language skill sets, analyze the data, and prepare a report on the current status of its educators’ training and language skill sets.
Mr. Speaker, during the standing committee’s hearings, it was noted that in order to meet the required levels of language instruction, individuals with varying levels of language expertise and teaching experience are being employed to teach across Nunavut’s schools.
In addition, it is not clear how the department assesses, evaluates, and monitors the delivery of Inuit language instruction across schools.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee is of the view that establishing a baseline of educator training and language skills will allow for improved allocation of resources, personnel, and training programs.
That the Government of Nunavut consider ways to ensure that graduates from Nunavut Arctic College’s Nunavut Teacher Education Program remain committed to working as teachers in Nunavut following graduation.
Mr. Speaker, during the standing committee’s hearings, testimony from the Deputy Minister of Education indicated that a significant number of individuals who are trained and qualified through the Nunavut Teacher Education Program, or NTEP, are hired by other government departments and agencies.
This “poaching” of trained and certified Inuit teachers has long been an issue, but has never been formally addressed.
While it is a testament to the excellent educational standards of the NTEP program that its graduates are highly sought after across government departments and agencies, this practice does little to advance the development of bilingual education.
Mr. Speaker, some suggested examples of ways to encourage teachers to remain committed to staying in teaching positions could include such measures as terms of service or conditions upon graduation, contractual agreements linked to financial and other supports or the provision of additional incentives.
That the Department of Education take immediate steps to determine the number of bilingual educators that will be need to be employed, in both the short term and the long term, in order to deliver bilingual education as required by the Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, during the standing committee’s hearings, it was clear that a key factor in the department’s ability to deliver bilingual education is the availability of bilingual educators.
A number of studies and reports have highlighted the need for concentrated efforts to train and graduate bilingual teachers.
It is not clear that sufficient success has been achieved in this area.
Mr. Speaker, a realistic estimate of how many bilingual educators will need to be employed to teach in Nunavut’s schools will assist legislators in determining whether the bilingual education requirements contained in the current legislation are realistic and achievable.
That the Department of Education re-evaluate the policy of inclusive education, complete its cost analysis for developing and offering differentiated instruction training workshops for educators, and be prepared to present its findings during the Legislative Assembly’s review of the Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, during the course of its hearings, the standing committee focused on a number of critical areas that impact the successful delivery of education across Nunavut.
Although policies and practices relating to inclusive education have been in place in Nunavut’s education system since the creation of the territory, they were not entrenched within legislation until being included in Part 6 of the current Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, similar to the requirements to deliver bilingual education, in order for inclusive education to be successful within Nunavut’s education system, significant investments in training, resources, and personnel will also be necessary in order to be able to realistically achieve the requirements established in the legislation.
The Legislative Assembly’s upcoming review of the Education Act will be an opportunity to give full consideration to the costs, benefits, and challenges posed by including inclusive education requirements within the legislation.
That the Department of Education ensure that its annual reports, as required under section 126 of the Education Act, are tabled in a timely manner and, further, that the Department of Education’s annual reports specifically address progress on the implementation of the Education Act.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of the timely preparation and tabling of reports is an ongoing concern.
Section 126 (1) of the Education Act provides that the minister shall, within 12 months after the end of each school year, prepare a report on the education system in Nunavut.
The 2009-2010 annual report on the education system in Nunavut was tabled on February 26, 2013.
The 2010-11 and 2011-12 annual reports were tabled on September 13, 2013.
As noted by the Office of the Auditor General, timely reporting is important to ensure that problem areas be identified as soon as possible so that steps can be taken to address them sooner rather than later.
Mr. Speaker, reviewing the department’s annual reports in a timely manner will allow Members of the Legislative Assembly to monitor progress in all areas of the education system and to provide support to the department in its efforts.
That the departments of Education and Community and Government Services continue to work together to establish a monitoring system to ensure that inspections and procedures necessary for the safety and security of schools and child care facilities are conducted on a regular basis and that identified deficiencies are addressed in a timely manner.
Mr. Speaker, during the standing committee’s hearings, committee members learned that many inspections of schools and child care facilities had not been carried out on a timely basis and that even when deficiencies were identified, follow-up mechanisms did not ensure that they were addressed.
Mr. Speaker, while it was recognized that a lack of qualified personnel and other capacity issues played a role in creating this situation, it was stressed that the safety of children and staff is of paramount importance, and any shortcomings in this area should be immediately flagged for attention.
The standing committee acknowledges that immediate action was taken to address the situation when the deputy ministers of both the departments of Education and Community and Government Services were notified by the Office of the Auditor General prior to the tabling of the Auditor General’s reports.
That the Department of Community and Government Services, through its Protection Services and Facilities Management divisions, and in conjunction with the Office of the Fire Marshal, work to strengthen systems and procedures, such as clearly establishing the necessary frequency of inspections, to ensure the safety and security of school and child care facilities and to provide regular updates on efforts in this area.
Mr. Speaker, during the standing committee’s hearings, it was noted that although requirements for safety and other inspections are established in legislation, the frequency of those inspections are not specifically prescribed.
Further clarification of roles and responsibilities, as well as clear direction on the processes to follow up on addressing safety issues must be provided to all parties involved.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the standing committee be received by this House.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The member has moved that the report of the standing committee be received by the House.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The report has been received by the House.
The Hon. Minister of Justice, Mr. Okalik.
Tabled Document 016 – 4(2): Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit Annual Report 2009-2010 (Okalik)
I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit for 2009-2010.
Tabled Document 017 – 4(2): Speaker’s List of Outstanding Statutory Tabling Requirements (Speaker)
Thank you, members. I wish to table today a list of outstanding statutory tabling requirements. This list is current as of the end of the May 30, 2014 sitting of the House. (interpretation) Thank you.
(interpretation ends) Item 15. Notices of Motions.
The Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, Mr. Peterson.
Motion 004 – 4(2): Appointment of the Representative for Children and Youth – Notice (Peterson)
I give notice that on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Iqaluit-Niaqunnguu, that the Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner of Nunavut that Ms. Sherry McNeil-Mulak be appointed as Representative for Children and Youth, effective June 16, 2014.
Speaker: The member is seeking unanimous… . I’m sorry.
The Hon. Minister of Cambridge Bay, Mr. Peterson.
Speaker: The member is seeking unanimous consent to deal with his motion today. Are there any nays?
Motion 004 – 4(2): Appointment of the Representative for Children and Youth (Peterson)
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues.
WHEREAS section 2 of the Representative for Children and Youth Act provides that the representative for children and youth is appointed by the Commissioner of Nunavut on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly to hold office for a term of five years;