EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, the minister was out in Cambridge Bay, it was a very good meeting, I was able to attend and I heard a lot of concerns. Some of the concerns I heard from the Kitikmeot DEA was that principals can override the suspensions of students, and then there were concerns that long suspensions can result in losing students from the school system. I’m not sure if the minister was able to answer those questions clearly at that time.
My question for the minister today: can the minister explain how the use of suspensions under Bill 21 will encourage kids to stay in school and continue their education through to grade 12?
There are a lot of good things happening in our schools.
When we look at the graduation rates, as an example, when we track our kids through school, the children who attend 80 percent of the time from K-12 are graduating, they’re successful.
We have to help the kids when it gets to grades 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. If the kids are only showing up for a day and a half or two days a week, they start to fail. That would be no different than any other jurisdiction.
It’s about time, I think, Mr. Speaker, and the member heard me say at the meeting in Cambridge Bay and when I was at the NAM meeting, as leaders, as elected people in this room, we have to start talking about issues around teenage pregnancy, we have to talk about gambling, and we have to talk about drug and alcohol abuse.
It’s not nice out there and the end result is that a lot of our children are having issues, so that’s outside of what the Nunavut Education Act can do.
The member is correct; there is a new disciplinary policy in the Act and what the new disciplinary policy says in the Act is this: instead of taking a child who is suspended and kicking him out of school for a week, or two weeks, or three weeks, in the new Act, we have allowed for, and in legislation, in-school suspensions.
So instead of asking little Eddy that will be kicked out of school for a week, and where he would have to go home, and maybe at home there wouldn’t be parental support because the parents might be working, for example, and wouldn’t have an opportunity to do homework, and so on, little Eddy would be disciplined in the school where he would do an in-school suspension, he wouldn’t be allowed any extracurricular activities, he would actually have homework to do from nine to three during the day, and he would be supervised by the school itself.
There would be extra resources for the DEA to be able to do those types of in-school suspensions.
We believe that’s a more proactive and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit way to deal with a child, instead of just telling him to go home and come back in a week.
Question 597 – 2(4): Date Proposals Were Received for Medical Travel Contracts (Tootoo)
It just caught my interest during my colleague’s exchange with the Minister of Health when she outlined the airlines listed of choice now.
Mr. Speaker, I believe, from the tabled document, it listed three different airlines - First Air, Nunasi Canadian North, and Kivalliq Air.
So my question to the Minister responsible for Community and Government Services is: when the proposals were initially received by the department, were those the only names that were on the proposals?
The last time we had a sitting, the same question arose and I’m sure I answered that question before where there were so many airlines or proponents that were asking for their contract to be reviewed.
So I believe there was more than that number that the member asked about.
My question was: were the names that were there that are listed on the tabled document, were they the names that were on the initial proposals that were received by the department from them?
I recognize some of those that were on the contract list. There were a few others, I don’t have them in front of me and I can’t recall them all, but those were the airlines.
Can the minister confirm that no changes in the names of the proposals that they came in under were made after they were initially received?
In regard to your question, I responded to those questions last fall and we dealt with them last fall. I don’t have any information in front of me, I apologize.
If you want all that information, I can table that information because we try to work openly and be transparent, and keep the public involved because this is public information.
I appreciate the minister’s response and I look forward to getting confirmation that all the names that were listed as proponents of the contracts were, in fact, the names that were on the proposals when they were first received and that there were no changes.
So would the minister commit to providing all the names under which the proposals were received and also if there’s any difference between the names that the contracts were issued under?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I remember being asked those questions and they were tabled last fall during the session. And in regard to your question, yes, I can provide that information, especially to the member asking.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Members, Question Period is now over.
We will move on with our Orders of the Day. Item 7. Written Questions.
Member from Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
Committee Report 003 – 2(4): Report on the Review of the 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation (Tootoo)
My fellow committee members and I will be making this presentation and it isn’t the shortest one.
We have the honour today of presenting the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability’s Report on its review of the 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly on the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the permanent public record, I would like to begin today by providing the House and the listening public with a comprehensive chronology of critical events related to this report and the standing committee hearings and activities in relation to it.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, you tabled the Auditor General’s Report on the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation on November 5, 2007.
Subsequent to it being tabled, the report was referred to this standing committee for review. On November 6, 2007, the standing committee announced that its public hearings on the report would begin on November 27, 2007.
On November 6, 2007, the former Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Mr. Simailak, announced a number of measures in response to the observations and recommendations contained in the report.
A suspension of the NBCC’s lending activities;
The acceptance of the resignation of three members of the Corporation’s Board of Directors, including its chairperson;
The issuing of ministerial directives under the Financial Administration Act to require the NBCC to provide monthly management and financial reports to the Department of Finance;
The preparation of a comprehensive action plan to address the recommendations in the Auditor General’s report; and
The referral of matters of financial records and controls to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for consideration
On November 9, 2007, the former minister announced the appointments of four serving deputy ministers of the Government of Nunavut to the Corporation’s Board of Directors for one-year terms.
This announcement also indicated that the corporation would resume its lending activities, and I would note that the fifth deputy minister was subsequently appointed to the board in February of 2008, following the departure from the board of one of its members.
The standing committee held its first round of public hearings on the Auditor General’s report from November 27 to 29, 2008.
A number of witnesses appeared before the standing committee, including the Auditor General and her staff, senior government officials with current and past responsibilities and relation to the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the corporation and the Vice-Chair of its Board of Directors.
The committee’s hearings were televised and open to the public to observe. Transcripts from the hearings were subsequently posted to the Legislative Assembly’s website on December 17, 2007.
In light of the Auditor General’s unprecedented denial of opinion on the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation’s 2005-06 financial statements, the standing committee was of the view that a ministerial appearance was warranted and appropriate. Invitations to ministers to appear before a standing committee in the course of its review of an audit report are not customary, but they are not without precedent.
The standing committee had the opportunity to pose questions to the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation during his appearance before the standing committee on November 29, 2007.
Prior to the convening of its hearings, the standing committee had written to the responsible minister in order to request a number of items for the committee’s review, including a comprehensive listing of the companies and individuals that had received loans from the Business Credit Corporation.
This information was provided to the standing committee on the morning of November 27, 2007.
The GN’s draft action plan in response to the Auditor General’s report was also provided to the standing committee at the beginning of its hearings.
A number of developments occurred during the period of time between the standing committee’s two rounds of public hearings.
During his testimony before the standing committee on November 29, 2007, the minister indicated that three of the companies in which he had an interest appeared on the list of Nunavut Business Credit Corporation loans that was provided to the standing committee at the beginning of its hearings.
On December 6, the standing committee approved a formal motion to issue a subpoena, pursuant to its authority under the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, for copies of certain records in relation to the entities listed in the disclosure statements of the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation. A formal subpoena was issued on December 7, 2007.
On December 11, 2007, the Premier announced his acceptance of the minister’s resignation.
On December 17, 2007, the NBCC’s Comptroller and former Acting Chief Executive Officer, who appeared before the standing committee at its November hearings, commenced a period of leave without pay.
Subsequent to the committee’s hearings, news media reports indicated that the individual was facing charges under the Criminal Code in relation to incidents alleged to have occurred in the course of his former employment with a private company.
On December 19, 2007, the former Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut, the Honourable Robert Stanbury, exercised his authority under the Integrity Act to commence a review of the former Minister of Economic Development and Transportation’s actions in relation to his testimony before the standing committee and his disclosure statements filed under the Act.
On December 27, 2007, the Secretary to Cabinet provided materials in response to the standing committee’s subpoena. Later today, at the appropriate time, I will be tabling a copy of the subpoena and the materials received.
I would note that these items were initially entered into the committee’s record and publicly released on February 7, 2008, following the passage of a formal motion during the committee’s deliberations.
On January 14, 2008, the new Chief Executive Officer of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation, Mr. Phillip Bhagoutie, commenced his duties.
On January 18, 2008, the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation’s Board of Directors announced its approval of the action plan to address the recommendations in the Auditor General’s report and its consideration of the NBCC’s 2008-2011 Corporate Plan.
On January 28, 2008, the standing committee announced that its second round of public hearings on the Auditor General’s report would begin on February 5, 2008.
The standing committee’s announcement indicated its hope that the testimony of former Credit Corporation office-holders, including the former chairperson of the board of directors and former senior managers, would assist the standing committee in clarifying for the public record the reasons for the breakdown in the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation’s financial management and lending practices that ultimately led to the Auditor General’s denial of opinion.
The standing committee was also motivated by the belief that learning from the mistakes of the past helps to ensure that they are not repeated in the future.
The standing committee held its second round of public hearings on the Auditor General’s report from February 5 to 8, 2008. A number of witnesses appeared before the standing committee, including staff from the Office of the Auditor General, senior GN officials, the newly-appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation and six former Credit Corporation office-holders.
An updated GN action plan in response to the report of the Auditor General was provided to the standing committee on February 6, 2008.
I would like to note that five of the six former office-holders who appeared before the standing committee did so voluntarily. In only one case was the standing committee required to exercise its legal authority to compel the appearance of a witness.
All former office-holders who appeared before the standing committee were formally sworn-in before providing testimony.
The standing committee’s February hearings were televised and open to the public to observe.
All transcripts from the four days of hearings were posted to the Legislative Assembly’s website by February 18, 2008.
A total of over 800 pages of transcript from the standing committee’s seven days of public hearings have now been produced and made available for public scrutiny.
On February 5, 2008, the standing committee approved a formal motion to issue a subpoena for copies of additional records in relation to the entities listed in the disclosure statements of the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation. A formal subpoena was issued on February 6, 2008.
On February 6, 2008, the NBCC announced the resignation of their Comptroller and former Acting Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Allan McDowell, following his conviction on charges of fraud.
On February 8, 2008, the standing committee approved a motion to publicly release and enter into the committee’s record a package of information that had been received by the standing committee in response to requests made during its November 2007 hearings. I would note that certain references in the documents that referred to individuals unconnected with the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation were removed from the package prior to its release in order to safeguard their privacy.
Later today, at the appropriate time, again, I will also be tabling this package.
On February 19, 2008, the Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut concerning Mr. David Simailak was tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
On February 20, 2008, the Government of Nunavut’s 2008-09 main estimates and business plans were presented to the Legislative Assembly. This documentation included the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation’s 2008-2011 corporate plan.
On February 21, 2008, the Secretary to Cabinet provided materials in response to the standing committee’s second subpoena for documents. Later today, again at the appropriate time, I will be tabling a copy of that subpoena and the materials received in response to it.
I will also have further comments to make on this issue later in this report.
On February 28, 2008, the Legislative Assembly approved without opposition a formal motion to accept the report of the Integrity Commissioner and its recommendations.
On February 29, 2008, Mr. Simailak formally apologized to the House for his conduct.
On March 10, 2008, the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation’s 2005-06 Annual Report was formally tabled in the Legislative Assembly by the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation.
I would note that the corporation’s annual reports for 2006-07 and 2007-08 have not yet been tabled.
On March 12, 2008, the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation tabled the GN’s Interdepartmental Working Group’s February 2008 Report on the Future of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation and the Nunavut Development Corporation, as well as the April 2007 Crown Agencies Assessment report, which was prepared by a private consulting company, RT & Associates.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this time to ask Mr. Alagalak, my committee member, to continue with my report.
I would like Mr. Alagalak, Member for Arviat, to proceed. Mr. Alagalak.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) On March 13, 2008, the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation rose in his place in this House to deliver Minister’s Statement 172 – 2(4), in which he announced that the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation’s offices would be relocated from Cape Dorset to Iqaluit.
The minister’s announcement indicated that three unspecified positions from the Department of Community and Government Services would be relocated to Cape Dorset, as well as a position associated with the Department of Justice’s Corrections Branch.
The Minister’s Statement also indicated that other options concerning the future of the NBCC could be considered following the implementation of the Auditor General’s recommendations.
The GN’s Interdepartmental Working Group’s report recommended that the GN “undertake the development of a model for a new ‘made-in-Nunavut’ economic development corporation, to be located in Rankin Inlet.
This new corporation will replace the NBCC and the Nunavut Development Corporation.
The recommended design for the new economic development corporation should be prepared in consultation with the public, the Inuit organizations, the board[s] of directors of the territorial corporations, the Nunavut business community and the federal government.”
The report recommended that this work be “presented to the third Government of Nunavut for review and decision in April 2009.”
Mr. Speaker, this brings us to the present day. I would now like to highlight the observations and recommendations of the standing committee.
As members will appreciate, the unprecedented denial of opinion on the NBCC’s 2005-06 financial statements necessitated an unprecedented degree of scrutiny on the part of the standing committee.
The standing committee was pleased to have had the opportunity to review in detail the Auditor General’s findings and recommendations concerning this important Crown agency.
The standing committee was pleased to note that the government formally agreed with the report and its recommendations.
I would, however, also note that the quality of the government’s responses to various reports of the Auditor General and the standing committee has varied considerably over the years, as has its performance in taking action to fully implement accepted recommendations.
This practice will continue in the future, as required.
The standing committee was gravely disappointed at the failure of the government to take decisive action at an earlier time.
Past reports of the Auditor General to the Legislative Assembly clearly revealed serious problems with the NBCC and provided warnings with respect to the risks of error and fraud associated with weaknesses in the GN’s overall financial management system.
In June of 2004 and April of 2006, this standing committee held public hearings, questioned witnesses and subsequently tabled its own reports and recommendations.
Despite the assurances given to the standing committee by GN and NBCC witnesses at the time that action would be taken to address the Auditor General’s concerns and warnings, the problems at the NBCC were allowed to worsen until it was too late to avoid the denial of opinion on the corporation’s financial statements.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s 2007 Report on the NBCC contained 15 specific sets of recommendations and government responses for improvements to the management of the corporation. These recommendations addressed a number of thematic areas, including:
Management and monitoring of loan files and documentation;
Evaluation of loan applications;
Control over disbursements;
Compliance with laws and regulations;
Adequacy of information technology and data storage;
Corporate governance; and
Training of employees and Board members.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, the standing committee formally concurs with the recommendations in the Auditor General’s report.
Mr. Speaker, a number of themes and priorities for future action have emerged during the standing committee’s review of the issues raised in the Auditor General’s report. The standing committee’s recommendations are as follows:
Implementation of the Government of Nunavut Action Plan in Response to the Report of the Auditor General
As I noted earlier, the GN has formally agreed with the Auditor General’s report and recommendations. The Government of Nunavut’s action plan in response to the Auditor General’s report sets out a number of short-, medium- and long-term actions. A number of these actions involve the creation of new manuals, procedures and other documents to address identified deficiencies in the NBCC’s operations, including the lack of due diligence in its review of loan applications.
The Standing Committee recommends that the GN table a status report on the implementation of its action plan during the fall 2008 sitting of the House, prior to the dissolution of the Second Legislative Assembly.
Enhancement of Performance Measurement and Fulfillment of Corporate Mandate
The Nunavut Business Credit Corporation Act establishes the Crown corporation and sets out its mandate and powers. Section 5 of this legislation provides that the corporation “may, for the purpose of stimulating economic development and employment in Nunavut, make loans to business enterprises, guarantee loans made by financial institutions to business enterprises, provide bonds to resident business enterprises and indemnify bonds provided by bonding companies to resident business enterprises.”
The NBCC’s 2008-2011 corporate plan, which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly earlier this year, states that its mandate “is to function as an agent of the Government of Nunavut to stimulate economic development and employment in Nunavut by supporting, financing, and investing in resident business enterprises.”
During its scrutiny of the Auditor General’s report and related materials, the standing committee was disturbed by the lack of data to indicate whether or not the NBCC is actually fulfilling its fundamental function of “stimulating economic development and employment in Nunavut.”
The GN’s Interdepartmental Working Group’s February 2008 Report on the Future of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation and the Nunavut Development Corporation cites an important observation in the Crown Agencies Assessment Final Report.
This report indicated that the “NBCC has provided a significant level of loan capital to Nunavut businesses since 1999, but its true effectiveness as an agent of economic growth cannot be determined due to a lack of performance measurement data.”
The report concluded that the “NBCC does not track the jobs created or maintained as a result of its loans, nor does it track other measures such as other capital leveraged, or wealth created.
As a consequence, NBCC’s effectiveness cannot be measured.”
The standing committee is of the view that the NBCC’s lack of success to date in quantifying such key performance measures as the number of jobs for Nunavummiut that have been created as a result of its loan activities is unacceptable. The NBCC does not exist to simply assist companies in need or generate a return for the government. It has a clearly-defined mandate to contribute to broader socio-economic goals.