EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If the members want to talk with me, I can work with them to make amendments to the Act.
I was supposed to welcome the Premier and his officials. I will do that now.
(interpretation ends) I would like to ask about the Utility Rate Review Council.
This body was established by a statute during the First Legislative Assembly to replace the Public Utilities Board.
It provides formal advice regarding rate applications and other utility rated matters to the responsible minister as required under the Utility Rates Review Council Act.
Its proposed budget for 2005/06 is $219,000.
Its 2004/05 budget was $225,000.
How much has the Utility Rate Review Council spent to date in its review of the Qulliq Energy Corporation’s general rate application?
Will it require supplementary funding to complete its work?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amount of money that we put in last year, and the Utility Rates Review Council did community consultations, they spent over that and they managed to find some more within the department to cover those costs.
Mr. Barnabas: Who actually writes the Utility Rate Review Council Report to Cabinet? Council members, the consultants or Government of Nunavut officials.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you Chairman.
Yes the Report has been produced already and we tabled it in the House.
Under Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
In my opening comments I mentioned about Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs’ is the department in ensuring that the departments meet the statutory tabling requirements.
I think it was this summer, June 21st I think it was, one of the things that, we were having meetings with the Auditor General.
One of the concerns there that this Standing Committee reviews is the public accounts.
The reason given at the time for that delay not being able to table those on a timelier manner was one of the big excuses or the reason at the time was the different year end for Nunavut Arctic College.
At the time, the Deputy Minister of Finance had indicated that he said it would be a good idea if it was the same, if the year end was switched to the same year end as the government.
In the document that was tabled this morning, the government’s response to that recommendation to change the year end of the Nunavut College indicated they do not believe that the change would be beneficial.
So, I’m just wondering if I can get a comment on that; if it would help make the Statutory Tabling requirements at a Public Accounts; if it would have expedited that purpose.
I’m just wondering if the minister could respond to that somehow.
The explanation I have on the Arctic College situation is that it’s difficult to carry that out in the middle of the school year, with the resources that they have.
It would be quite problematic doing a year end reviews as well as the students are still in the midst of their exams and studying.
The best method is for them to complete their studies and then the staff could focus on their finances by June.
So, that’s the explanation I have for the different dates for the College.
I believe that’s quite tangible but, we do have an obligation to table those.
Unfortunately it would be a different date, but, Members would still get the report.
But at the same time we do not want to hamper the College’s operations in the process.
I won’t get into hampering things at the College.
Reviewing that Executive Summary that the minister tabled.
You have enough on your plate to worry about.
I think one of the things, I don’t know if I’m going to address it here or I’ll wait until we come back next month and ask the Minister of Education on their financial capacity at the College to be able to handle that.
It should be the administrative staff doing that and not the instructors.
I’ll ask the appropriate minister questions on that in April.
I’ll do it then.
That is just a comment, Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I have nobody else on the list.
We are on B-5.
Operations and Maintenance. $1,660,000.
B-6, Mr. Peterson.
I thank the minister and his officials.
I just had a short question on B-5.
I understand in the First Assembly there was a major Program Review of all government departments.
So I am wondering: will there be a major Program Review of the government departments in the Second Assembly?
You agreed to B-5.
Do you wish to go back to B-5 to refer to our colleague’s question?
Chairman: Repeat your question please.
Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I thought I had my hand up before you guys moved on, but in the First Assembly there was a major Program Review of all government departments and programs.
I am wondering if the minister could tell us if he is planning a major Program Review of all government departments anytime in the second term.
I would appreciate it if you could raise your hand while we are on that page before I ask the, Mr. Tootoo, had his hand up, just a perfect example right there.
I just answered this, so I will just repeat my answer as I answered it to one of the members, that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is doing a fiscal retreat with all members on setting our priorities financial-wise.
So I think that task in itself will accomplish the same objective.
We have to review our financial situation and the mandate that we have set for ourselves and see how we can accomplish that.
So I think that’s something that will happen this spring or early this fall.
So I look forward to taking more work with all of my colleagues.
Again, in my opening comments, I talked about the federal government and its policy on proactive disclosure.
That they make public, on a regular basis, the hospitality and travel expenses of senior federal public servants.
I am just wondering if the Premier would commit to tabling that information in the House on Senior Government of Nunavut Public Servants that fall under the Senior Personnel Secretariat.
I am more than willing to review the suggestion and see how we can accomplish it.
So I can review it and see what we can do about it.
So give me a shout in April and I will come out with a suggestion perhaps that will be acceptable to members.
We all know the information about our salaries that are tabled here in the House every year, but those of the Senior Public Servants are not.
I know the Ontario Government has a Salary Disclosure Law with names and the exact re-numeration of all of the public servants that were paid more than $100,000 a year and it’s published annually.
I am just wondering if the Premier would look at doing something similar here in Nunavut.
The member suggests that there be an Act and then I am open to it.
I am not opposed to it.
I would like to see if there’s strong consensus, then we could review such legislation here in Nunavut.
I am sure that we have consensus from at least ten members here that would like to see that information.
My next question; I am just wondering if the Government of Nunavut would voluntarily disclose how much it paid in performance bonuses for 2003/04 and 2004/05 or would the Members of the Legislative Assembly have to submit more written questions to get this information publicly revealed?
We can provide the amounts that were paid out in bonuses and disclose them.
I know that the Minister of Energy and the Auditor General pointed out some facts of the exorbitant performance bonuses that were paid out at the Power Corporation to the select few people that could get away with it; I guess anywhere from 15 to 25 percent or 30 percent.
I know that within the rest of the civil services there are performance bonuses and it’s based on a much lower amount.
I am just wondering if the people that are running the departments; when they are evaluating for the performance bonuses, if the department overspends the budget for what they have allowed for, does that affect what the performance bonus would be?
Each case is different.
In cases like health where there’s an emergency in health there’s no way of stopping overspending in some cases, we don’t want anybody to die.
So, in those cases, we have to judge accordingly.
Yes; it forms part of my decisions when I am determining bonuses.
At the same time, I don’t want to put anyone at risk.
So I will continue to make sure that that forms a large part of the bonus reviews, but that’s not the sole factor.
After each situation where circumstances may dictate that a particular department may have to go over what was budgeted for in any given year.
So each case is different.
This question is more following up on a question I asked earlier during the sitting to the minister, and it was in regards to providing members with the official ministerial travel and other information that was tabled here in the House before.
The minister committed to providing that information to the House.
I am just wondering if that’s something that he would consider doing voluntarily on an annual or bi-annual basis, so that we don’t have to always ask questions to get information out there, that it’s more voluntarily disclosed.
I could probably provide it on an annual basis.
Bi-annual would require additional resources.
So annually would be a lot more doable than bi-annually.
So I am more than willing to provide this on an annual basis.
My question is related page B-9 of the Business Plan for the department.
I have a question on there’s a blurb here called a deputy minister’s subcommittee will coordinate the cost of the department’s land management issues arising as a result of economic development proposals.
I am wondering if the minister could explain what that subcommittee does in terms of helping issues arising from land management in the Kitikmeot.
Can you indicate what page you are at?
We are looking at B-9 and it doesn’t seem to be there.
Chairman: Mr. Peterson, could you direct the minister to where you are.
Mr. Peterson: I have B-9, the second bullet from the top here.
Chairman (interpretation): Do you get it now, Premier?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): As government we have to try and treat everybody the same and we want to support the mining industry.
So we also want to treat them the same and we don’t want to slow them down.
So, that was why that Committee was set up.
Perhaps the minister could explain who sits on the deputy minister’s sub-committee and who chairs it?
There are deputy ministers from Environment, Economic Development, and Justice.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, minister for that response and the minister could explain to me how they work together with their mandate is in terms of arriving at a decision.
Who takes the lead role in sorting out the land management issues and then advising the ministers?
It depends we work whenever a proposal comes forward to our government to for us to have a role.
We want to make sure that is coordinated so it depends on any given situation.
We want to come out with a coordinated approach so that’s why we set this up.
So, I’m neglected to make some Department of Community and Government Services also a part of this Committee.
So, each situation varies but at the same time we do not want to hamper developments to take place so that’s why we formed this committee to try and facilitate our regulatory roles as government.
Thank you, minister for that response.
So, we did run into some conflicts last summer as the minister well knows what the two departments on the hearings, Cambridge Bay public hearings for the Nunavut Impact Review Board with Miramar and it caused a lot of problems locally people didn’t know who’s taking the lead role.
I believe the minister said that Economic Development or the Department of Environment would take the lead role on behalf of the government.
I have been in contact with Miramar Mining and they advised recently that they’re proceeding quite well.
They are going to request a part five public hearing with NIRB.
I hope that the problems that we had last summer are sorted out so that when we get these public hearings that we are very clear on which government department is taking lead and which ones we should be supporting helping the mining company.
I believe that’s the reason that the Department of Sustainable Development was split last year so that the Environment would be taking the environmental side, protecting the environment, and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation would be supporting and helping the mining companies and so there is some clarity.
I hope that this subcommittee will be able to report to the two ministers and support the Kitikmeot, and the other regions as a go forward.
That’s more of a comment.
We are on B6.
Communications and policy and planning and evaluation.
Total operations and maintenance. $2,258,000.
I’m going to ask this question under Policy and Planning and Evaluation, it does kind of tie into the next stage as statistics too.
It’s just a branch of the department that is supposed to be carrying out the evaluation end of things on behalf of the government.
I’m just wondering how many positions, out of those ones that they have there, are filled right now.
From what I understand in the Evaluation section, there is one so far and advertising for our Director at this point.
So is one of those people a local long term resident, or is it someone that was brought in from outside.
How many vacant positions are there?
There are positions for Evaluations and one is filled so far by a local Inuk.
I wish the department luck in filling those other positions locally with Inuit.
One of the other areas that I talked about and I know the Premier is quite aware is something that I’ve talked about for a number of years now, and I still can’t stress enough the value in doing it for the government and for this assembly, for providing vital information on assessing what we’re doing and that’s in the area of Performance Measurement.
I’m just wondering what areas of government activity the government sees as being priority areas to be looked at first for Performance Measurement.
To date we’ve done it by invitation from any given department.
Once we get it staffed up, I’m sure we’ll be in a better capacity to evaluate additional programs that we have.
Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
Operations and Maintenance. $2,258,000.
Onto B-7.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I wanted to ask a question on the other page.
Chairman (interpretation): Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Statistical Service.
Operations and Maintenance $453,000.
Onto B-8.
I believe the Premier was having a meeting with the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to discuss various issues and I think we know that there is approximately $600,000 in all the line items that he’s identified.
I don’t believe the Premier had an opportunity to talk to the people about what they discussed at that time on behalf of the people of Nunavut.
Can the Premier give us a brief outline of what Andy Scott thought, and for exactly what purpose he came up here to Nunavut for.
The minister is directed by the Prime Minister to identify the needs of Nunavut and what we can do as a government to work together.
There is Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
We have had opportunities to meet together to talk about the needs of Nunavummiut; this is the reason why he came here.
He also went to Cambridge Bay and Yellowknife.
We had brief meetings.
I had a brief meeting with him to give him an overview of what we are trying to do as a territory and how we can progress.
There was the issue of housing that’s an ongoing concern of this government, and especially Inuit housing.
As you know, there are aboriginal peoples in Canada who have access to housing funds.
I tried to tell him that we could benefit from getting monies from this pot of money and he stated that he would meet with the Minister responsible for Housing and discuss what they can do so that they might help us up here.
We are going to keep discussing this as long as it’s an ongoing concern.
We are progressing and I have told him exactly what we have been doing up here.
We will be available to meet with him again in the beginning of December and we are also planning for those meetings.
Again, all the agreements are going to have an affect on Nunavummiut.
We want to be a part and to cooperate.
I told him that the issue of fishing is a major concern and I also told him that we should get our fair share quota for deep sea fishing.
In regards to an agreement, and especially about Article 23, what can we do as a government to be a part of those discussions and also to increase Inuit employment within our government; we wanted to see what we can do further as a government.
This is just a brief outline of the discussions that took place between me and the minister.
It seems like we’ve got a better working relationship because quite a few years ago they were not even listening to us.
It seemed like he was more than willing to help us out.
I would like to thank the Premier and I would also like to remind him that when we meet with other jurisdictions, I would like him, as long as he has an opportunity, to inform the public out there; there would be more support shown, especially in this house, to lobby the government we can table a motion.
We were able to make a motion on the dog slaughter and I’m sure that if we work together and if we make announcements to the public that we could get more support.
At times, we need to get an update because of course, as Members of the Assembly, not all of us can meet with the Minister of the Department Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
I have heard that there is going to be $5 million through the lobbying of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
We are opposed to this and what was his response?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Well, I told him that we should just go ahead.
Of course, as Inuit they don’t even think about us.
I don’t know what the amount would be, but they are their own government and because like myself, I don’t want to be told by other jurisdictions what to do.
As Inuit, we are waiting and there are other aboriginal people who are getting all of those benefits and dollars and we want to be treated the same as Inuit.
I heard the Premier say that Andy Scott was more receptive and he also went to Cambridge Bay.
The Premier stated he was more open and more receptive.
So can you anticipate a better working relationship or a better cooperation between our government and the federal government?
And if so, I think it should not be hard to get Nunavut more self-reliant and we need development to get us going.
Could you elaborate on that further?
These ministers have gone up here, and for quite some time, the federal government representatives were not very receptive with meeting the needs of our government, but he stated that he would be willing to review and to take into consideration, and he was more than willing to work together with us.
Chairman (interpretation): Are you done?
Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Mr. Peterson.
I thank the minister for those comments to my colleague.
I just want to follow-up on those comments a little bit as the Minister Scott was in Cambridge Bay last weekend and one of the big issues we have had in our region for many, many years is lack of a federal government presence with respect to the Department of Indian and Northern Development and we raised it again with the minister.
I mentioned a story I read in the newspaper from last November where the acting regional director for Department of Indian and Northern Development said that there were going to be some more positions placed in the Kitikmeot at some point in time, and I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier has had a chance to have discussions with the federal minister to put more federal positions into places like the Kitikmeot.
We are part of Nunavut, but it seems like we have to come to Iqaluit where we have to be the federal government, and yet I hear there are anywhere between 400 and 500 federal government positions here, and outside the RCMP I think we only have one Department of Indian and Northern Development official in the Kitikmeot and that’s based in Kugluktuk.
So with the increasing activity over in the Kitikmeot with mining and other resource management, we think that the time is right to start thinking about moving some Department of Indian and Northern Development positions to the Kitikmeot, and I wonder if the Premier has had a chance to talk to the minister about that.
The only discussion I have in relation to mining is that I don’t want federal bureaucrats running our mining sector.
I want our government to run that department.
So that has been the focus of my intention is trying to push along devolution.
So that will continue to be my message that I don’t want Department of Indian and Northern Development running the mining sector.
So that’s only discussions that I have had with the minister in this area; that our focus is on devolution and devolving this authority to our government so that we can run it ourselves.
In that context that has been the only real discussion on trying to get presence in terms of the mining sector.
In terms of other presence I have mentioned to various ministers and said; ‘Look, we don’t have federal presence in Nunavut period.
In terms of the military; we have one Captain and we could sure use some search and rescue capacity that is provided for elsewhere in the country.’ So I have been pressing the issue of federal presence throughout Nunavut in that context.
I thank the Premier for those comments.
I agree with the Premier with respect to Department of Indian and Northern Development, we don’t want them running our show for us up here.
The problems over the years in getting approvals out of Ottawa, more recently in the last few months, it’s evident that we have to move a lot of decision making from Ottawa to Nunavut.
In the meantime, I know it is going to take a while, we have to deal with Department of Indian and Northern Development officials, and most of them are based here in Iqaluit or Ottawa, in the continuing effort to streamline the process to speed up the paperwork.
We feel that we need a presence in the Kitikmeot for some of these officials because it’s just too difficult for us to commute over here to meet with their officials or commute to Ottawa.
It’ extremely difficult and I feel that we should have a presence in recognition of the tremendous mineral potential that we have in the Kitikmeot.
On the other comments that the Premier made about more federal presence in all areas in Nunavut, I am aware of an organization or a committee called Nunavut Federal Council made up of a lot of the federal government departments; it could be 25 or 30 of them.
I am not sure what their rule or mandate is up here, but they travel around once per year to some part of Nunavut and meet on different initiatives or ideas.
I talked to local people and I never seem to see any results that come out of those Nunavut Federal Council meetings.
I am sure that they report to their deputy ministers and their ministers in Ottawa.
I am wondering if the Premier could shed some light on what the Nunavut Federal Council’s role is in terms of helping us access federal programs and services here in all of Nunavut.
The problem that we have is that it’s a Federal Council, so we don’t have all the information and we don’t seem to know what they really do.
So we sometimes get invited to them to present, but other than that that’s a federal institution that we have no way of controlling.
So I am at a loss, like the member, of what really takes place.
I thank the Premier for the candid comments.
I am at a loss, but I have heard of stories where ministers have been invited to attend the Nunavut Federal Council meetings and it seems odd that the ministers of our government or senior officials have to appear before the Nunavut Federal Council.
It makes you wonder who is reporting to whom up here.
Nunavut is run by elected officials such as ourselves, and the people of Nunavut look to us for leadership and guidance. So we should be having those folks come and meet with us when we have meetings.