EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Again, what types of things… ? Obviously, if the review is not completed yet, you can’t tell us what the results are, but if a contractor was contracted to do the job of performing the functional review, you must have gave them some type of marching orders to tell them what to look at and what they should be working towards.
What did you actually tell this consulting firm to do and look at as part of the functional review?
This government received its advice through the consultations with the general public on the Qanukkanniq Report Card process. We asked for the comments from the public as to what this government ought to be working on and to see what other services the public wanted offered.
We also canvassed the decentralized communities to find out what was working, what required improvement, and what needed to be revised.
That is what we requested from our residents.
The questions posed by the Qanukkanniq Report Card revealed what the public wanted in terms of the programs and services offered by this government.
These recommendations will be similar to some of the comments made here, but it identifies what priorities this government should be working towards to improve government operations and which areas of programs and services need to be improved or changed.
We’re going to be working on that review this spring.
So does this functional review actually look at the structure of the different departments of the Government of Nunavut?
Some of the things that were suggested over the past couple of weeks were the idea of the separation of Health and Social Services to have Health in one department and Social Services in another department, as well as there was the idea of CLEY being divided up, and if you’re looking at Education, maybe the Income Support Division being put somewhere else.
Is this part of it as well or is that a totally separate issue?
All of them are within the review.
The functional review is to improve the programs and services of the Nunavut government, especially in decentralized communities. As Iqaluit is the capital, we’re going to be reviewing everything that is in reference to the capital. After the functional review, we will understand what needs to be changed.
The Premier talked about everything being in the capital.
My understanding is that possibly what the review could have done is look at positions and where the positions are, and whether they’re scattered across the territory or centralized, like what the Nunavut Housing Corporation has already done in terms of announcing that seven positions were being removed from Arviat to be brought here to Iqaluit. Is that part of the review as well?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) That is the case.
I was talking about decentralization. What is working? What is not working?
Decentralization is very much in line with what Qanukkanniq report was requesting for the government to do.
We have initiated Oliver Wyman Limited as the consulting group.
I will be happy to provide updates to the House as progress occurs. (interpretation) Thank you.
The GN has approximately 459 decentralized positions. I would like to know how many of these positions are vacant as of today.
We don’t have the information that the member is requesting. I’m sorry.
In January of this year, the government announced that NHC’s finance division will be relocated from the corporation headquarters in Arviat to its directorate here in Iqaluit. I would like to know how many positions are currently filled by Arviat beneficiaries.
Will the government transfer new positions to Arviat from other departments to compensate for this move?
It’s also included in the transfer of positions to anywhere.
They will be included in the functional review of decentralization review.
I can tell you now that the decentralized positions in the communities have gone beyond the number of positions.
Once the decentralization review has been completed, it will become clear as to how many positions are vacant.
I hope I’m coming across, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Premier. I have no more names on my list.
B-6. Policy and Communications. Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. $2,929,000.
Nunavut Cabinet. $4,698,000. Do you agree?
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. Commissioner of Nunavut. $292,000. Do you agree?
We will go to B-9. Intergovernmental Affairs. $5,730,000.
When Mr. Ningark was questioning the Premier on the GLO and MLO positions in the communities, she didn’t fully answer his question.
He asked if the GLO positions were replacing the MLO positions in the community.
Can the Premier confirm which way it will be?
It’s going to be at the discretion of the municipality.
With regard to this issue, I believe there are four communities that would like to change that.
Markus Weber can make a supplementary response as to how many they are.
The community gets to make the decision as to whether they want to keep the municipal liaison officer in addition to the government liaison officer or whether they want to give up the MLO position in favour of the GLO.
We have a director of the Government Liaison program who is actively going to communities, meeting with the hamlet councils, and providing further information.
To date, we have received four letters from four communities that have confirmed that their councils have resolved to not keep the municipal liaison officer, but that’s four communities so far out of all of them and we don’t have a decision yet from the other councils.
Which four communities have confirmed that they will remove their MLO positions?
The four communities that have confirmed so far are the communities of Qikiqtarjuaq, Repulse Bay, Coral Harbour, and Kugaaruk.
I know when your department first introduced the idea of GLOs back in the communities, one of the concerns we had was the fact that we did not want to lose any positions from our communities.
I thought at the time you reassured us that we would not be losing any positions in our communities and the GLO would be an additional job in our communities.
So now, in reality, we are actually losing a half-time position that the municipalities already have.
So I’m wondering if the Premier can explain why this has changed.
We have left it at the discretion of the community hamlets and each municipality has the opportunity to set it up in that manner, but the recommendations just state what the wishes were.
So if a community is giving up the position of their MLOs and replacing them with the GLOs, are you taking away the funding from the municipality that they presently have for the MLOs or is the municipality allowed to keep that funding?
If the duties are parallel to those of the GLO, as listed in the job descriptions, then they would assume those duties.
Based on what I know, this is the case.
If Mr. Weber wishes to supplement my response, I welcome him to do so.
Mr. Weber, would you like to make a supplementary?
Our position has been throughout that the community would decide whether to keep the municipal liaison officer or have both positions.
It really does vary by community because the amount of funding is varied as well. I don’t have the exact numbers, but it’s in the range of $30,000 to $70,000 per community that was being provided for the municipal liaison officer position.
The duties of that individual have also varied, as has the person who was in the position, and because of that, this really is a decision for the community to make.
We have enough services for government liaison officers to deliver in addition to an MLO. It’s just that the duties of an MLO really do vary by community as well. In most communities, the issuance of driver’s licences is part of those duties, but other than that, it really does vary.
Some are doing duties primarily for the hamlet and less Government of Nunavut work, so that is the reason that this decision has been left with them.
We can provide the job description for the government liaison officer to the members if they’re interested to see the difference between the two, but ultimately the decision has been left with the community.
I’m not sure if I got the answer or if I missed it. I’m sorry if I did miss it, but I asked if the communities will be keeping the dollars for the MLO position if they decide to go with the GLO only.
Markus will respond to that question.
The funding to the communities is not provided through the Government Liaison Office, it’s provided through the Department of Community and Government Services.
Our understanding when the question was being proposed to the hamlets was that the funding would be given up if they decided not keep the municipal liaison officer.
Not in these four communities that I mentioned but in at least one other one, that decision had been made before the government liaison officer position was proposed simply because there were some difficulties as well with the administration of a position that was providing primarily Government of Nunavut services being administered by the hamlet and they had chosen, in any event, to give up the MLO.
We haven’t looked behind the hamlet’s decision on this, but essentially yes, the funding would be given up at the time that they decide to give up the position.
Being from a non-decentralized community where every job counts in your community, it’s probably in our best interest to just advise your department that we don’t want to give up our MLO and that way, it keeps another half-time job in our communities, the way we originally thought this program was going to work.
So I’ll be advising my municipality to make an additional position.
That wasn’t a question, it was just a comment, but I’ll give you an opportunity to make a comment, Madam Premier.
The concern expressed by the member is quite relevant in this situation.
We are concerned about the smaller, non-decentralized communities and every job that can be created in them ought to be looked at, especially when we have a number of positions.
The communities would be able to retain the MLO positions, but again, it is at their discretion.
We are also interested in increasing the number of positions in the communities.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Premier. Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt.
With regard to these four hamlets that have already identified that they will be giving up their MLO positions, were they apprised of the job description of the GLO position?
Similar to Mr. Rumbolt’s comments, I thought that the GLO position was a GN position and separate from the hamlet.
That is what I thought I understood with respect to this position when we first started hearing about the GLO positions.
The reason why I was satisfied with the creation of this position was because this would create a GN position that would benefit the non-decentralized communities. Even a half-time position really benefits the smaller communities.
It makes me wonder whether or not the municipalities totally comprehended the status of the GLO position. It raises some questions. Since the GLO position will be established by the GN, it is set to be the liaison between the GN and the communities, and it would also be the basis for communicating information to the communities.
That is how we envisioned the position, that it would be a liaison between the GN and the communities and this was based upon the information we were given.
Did you ensure that the communities had a copy of the job description for the GLO position prior to them removing their MLO positions?
The person I mentioned who had been hired as the director is already working at their position. As I mentioned, that person is quite busy and he will be touring the communities to divulge the information related to this process.
The director will negotiate with the communities in order to come to a complete understanding on the position and the job description.
As I stated, the job description for the director as well as the regional supervisor positions have been completed.
The director will be bringing the GLO job description to the communities to facilitate the discussions and to meet with municipal officials and their councils.
That was the reason why I raised that question.
With four communities already confirming their decision to remove their MLO position, isn’t it a bit late to be sending the director to explain the GLO position to the communities? That doesn’t seem sensible to me.
In my estimation, it would have been better for the communities to fully grasp the job description of the GLO prior to making their decision to remove the MLO, especially when they are debating how the position will be structured in their community.
The entire matter is becoming more confusing since one of the hamlets I represent within my constituency was mentioned. I’m not questioning the judgement of the hamlet council and of their decision to remove their MLO position.
However, it raises a red flag and more questions. I wonder if the hamlets were hoodwinked into making their decision to remove the MLO positions without actually reviewing the GLO job description. It seems that so far, only a paper exercise has been undertaken, without any real debate or discussion on the matter.
It makes me wonder whether or not they made a fully informed decision with respect to this issue. Was that indeed the case?
As we continue to maintain, this government takes the position that communication is the most important aspect of our work. The director of GLO positions continues to discuss this matter with the municipalities. I believe that the director for GLO positions has discussed the issue with the four communities that you referred to.
I’m sure he has already communicated with them.
With respect to the member’s concern about whether the municipalities made a well-informed decision on this matter, as per his previous assessment, I will have to look into that to see if that was the case.
However, based on my belief, I know that the director has started communicating with the communities.
With respect to the discussions with the hamlets, they had confirmed to remove the MLOs.
I will have my officials look into it to make sure that the community understood fully and hat they have the full information.
Just like the member, I do want to find that out too.
One other thing that I don’t fully understand right now too has to do with Mr. Weber mentioning that it will vary community by community.
My original understanding of the GLO position was to be equal to all communities, having the same job description to serve for the purpose of being a communicator between the community and the government.
Why would they vary in pay and job description when they’re mandated to be the communicator?
I just don’t get it.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The pay level will not vary.
The main functions will be the same, but because of unique circumstances in each community, we have allowed some sort of custom need services to address the needs of the community. The main functions and the pay levels will be the same.
I have indicated to all of the members before that that’s how it was going to be, that it will be tailored to each community. I have mentioned that before. This is to make sure that the needs of the communities are met through the GLO. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, can the Premier tell me that this GLO position will be a government position, not a hamlet position?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) It will be 100 percent Government of Nunavut employee. (interpretation) Thank you.
On that basis, I was one of the ones who were heavily supporting this concept believing that was a new position for the community without deleting any other positions that would be affecting the community that it’s going to serve.
So my belief the moment the Premier introduced this job, the GLO position concept, had been that, believing no position was going to be eliminated, and then this position would be put in place.
So I’m hoping that the communities that we serve would have that understanding as well and make adjustments, if necessary, to properly incorporate this position into the community.
I didn’t hear a question, but if you wish to respond, Madam Premier.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As I said before, the decisions were made by the hamlets. We did not ask them to delete the half-time position.
It was the decision by the hamlet and if the hamlet wishes to reconsider their decision on that, they’re more than welcome to do so as well. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Premier. Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan.
With the idea of reintroducing MLOs to the communities, I was very reluctant to take part in it and I think Mr. Ningeongan knows about that. When I finally understood what was happening, to me, it meant a new position, an extra job in the community.
It sounded like a good idea at the time, but today, I feel used and mislead. If my language is inappropriate, I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman.
We were never told that the decision would be up to each community. We knew at the time the decision and the idea was coming from Intergovernmental Affairs. Today I don’t know.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. I didn’t hear a question and it was just a comment, but I give you the floor if you want to make a comment, Madam Premier.
Maybe I ought to try to provide more information so that it can be clearer.
The GLO position was expressly recommended as part of the Qanukkanniq Report Card process and based on that, the GN moved to create the GLO position in every community.
However, in following the principles of collaboration, cooperation, and partnership, we provide the municipalities with a voice on issues that impact them.
We don’t arbitrarily force anything on the hamlets and we don’t want to impose this position on them. We are working in partnership with the hamlets; at least that is our goal and intention. Based on what I have heard from the municipalities, some of them are very grateful for the creation of the GLO position.
Based on my expectations, we will continue to push forward the partnership with the municipalities.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): I’m not trying to belittle the hamlets that have made their decision on this matter as they operate in the best interests of their residents.
If our esteemed Madam Premier had bothered to inform us on the details that she has provided today when this issue first surfaced, it would have led to less misunderstanding and everyone would have been on the same page. I wonder why the Premier didn’t speak to these issues when the GLO position was first debated with the information she has provided today to the members.
I would hope that the member recalls my previous remarks about how the process would be laid out. I stated that we would work closely with the hamlet councils and that the hamlets would have full discretion with respect to this position. I have stated that in the past and I continue to voice my position that we have to work with the hamlet councils.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank Madam Premier.
I recall the statements that this new position would be created, but not at the expense of the MLO position. We were told that the MLO would not be removed, that their offices would not be taken over, but that the GLO was a new position that would work alongside the MLO position.
That is how the regular members recall the previous information that was provided to them.
I don’t believe you raised a question in your comment, but I give you the discretion to respond if you wish, Madam Premier.
With respect to the concern expressed by the member, I’m trying hard to understand the basis for the concern.
In the communities, every position in their municipality is an important one.
With the four communities that have expressed their desire to remove their MLO position, it was left at their discretion and I would like to note that all the rest did not take that position.
The communities have decided that they will get that one position to look after the duties of the liaison officer. This still stands at this time.
However, each hamlet council had to make their own decisions based on their negotiations with the GN, and that is how they arrived at their decisions.
As I stated earlier, these communities can rescind their earlier decision if they wish to do so. They have full discretion on the decision.
I certainly hope that my message is coming across. If the member would like a more detailed response, I can meet with the member outside of the session.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): If I understood it in the beginning when it was first introduced, I would be in a better position to accept it.
I have a question in regard to the Northwest Passage. Taloyoak is right on the Northwest Passage and we hear that the Northwest Passage is in international waters. Is that true?
If the Northwest Passage was in international waters and we are informed that they would analyze the seabed to make sure where the boundaries are… .
I think it was last year that Pond Inlet residents were very much in opposition to the seismic testing.
Do you know if they are going to do any seismic testing for looking at the seabed?
Hon. Eva Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to this issue, many Nunavummiut have been concerned about these initiatives. However, the question arises as to who owns the oceans as it is under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The issue relates to the proposed research on seabed geology, especially the boundary that delineates the Nunavut territory.
We know that the Northwest Passage belongs to Canadians, but the international position is that the Northwest Passage is international waters. Even Russia and the European Union are interested in the Northwest Passage.
So I just wanted to get that clarification.
The Canadian government really wants ownership of the waters, but it’s up to the federal government how they deal with sovereignty in the Northwest Passage.
That is an ongoing discussion.
Do you have discussions with the federal government? Is there going to be any seismic testing going on to see how far the seabed goes or how it is connected to our land?
I’m wondering what you’re talking about, the seabed.
Can you clarify what your question is? I didn’t quite understand what you’re saying.
Can you rephrase your question, Ms. Ugyuk.
What I understand from the media or that they need to do mapping of the seabed and how it’s attached to Canada.
They want to do some seismic testing.
Again, it is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government.
Again, it’s under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government.
They are responsible for the testing, if they have to. Ms. Ugyuk.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you. I want to be a Canadian as well as a Nunavummiuq. Since they are fighting over the Northwest Passage, we want to stay in Canada.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for the clarification. We will get more information as it evolves. That wasn’t a question.
Ms. Ugyuk, anything else?
Ms. Ugyuk, go ahead.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My other question is on devolution.
Chairman (interpretation): We are not yet on the devolution page. We’re going to talk about devolution on page B-11.
We’re now under (interpretation ends) Intergovernmental Affairs, B-9. (interpretation) You can ask your question on devolution when we get to that page.
We’re now dealing with (interpretation ends) Intergovernmental Affairs. (interpretation) Is that it, Ms. Ugyuk?
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): I apologize. I made a mistake since I seem to be ahead of everyone.
Chairman (interpretation): Indeed, everyone has to go through a learning process as a member and only by participating can you learn, so you don’t have to apologize. I wanted to tell you that, Ms Ugyuk.
Mr. Schell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to these MLO positions that Mr. Rumbolt and Mr. Ningeongan brought up.