EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Yesterday, the Minister of Health and Social Services stated that there are currently 46 social workers’ positions filled.
Of these, I believe 12 were said to be Inuit.
I would like to ask the minister why two people from my community, who attended Arctic College to take the social service program and successfully completed the program, have not been able to get jobs yet.
This question is for the (interpretation ends) Hon. Daniel Shewchuk, Minister of Human Resources. (interpretation) I would like to know if his staff have received orientation in light of the fact that they don’t seem to want to hire Inuit.
There are always aboriginal people applying for jobs, particularly these two from my community.
What exactly is the government’s hiring policy for social workers?
It seems no one prefers to hire Inuit beneficiaries but would rather fly in outsiders, some of whom don’t know us.
Is this how it is?
I thank the member for that question and the concern he has.
I can assure the member that we do have processes in place in Human Resources in our hiring procedure that would absolutely look at what he states.
I think if these two people who he’s talking about have the qualifications and have applied for the positions, I think they should be considered and I will look into that.
I don’t know the facts of what the member is stating to me, but I would very much like to know the facts and I would look into it.
I’ll look forward to hearing back from you.
Looking at some numbers here, since the creation of Nunavut, there have been only 12 social workers who are Inuit beneficiaries.
Social work includes healing programs, which we depend on a great deal in Nunavut.
The social workers, in fact, sometimes work with the entire families. It seems that at times, there should be more cultural components in some of the programs.
It’s quite obvious that we need to increase the number of Inuit social workers as there are only 12 in Nunavut.
I would like to know if there are any plans to set up social worker programs such as the one currently being offered in Cambridge Bay.
I would just like to say to the member that we will offer programs that are initiated by communities, what the community interests are and the needs are in specific communities. So yes, we will look at that opportunity and we will listen to what communities would like to see.
Question 312 – 3(2): Respite for Medical Escorts (Ningark)
Since my question does not violate any confidential issues, I will ask it directly.
Some patients from my Kitikmeot riding have to go to Edmonton for medical treatment and require a medical escort.
Mr. Speaker, some patients require all-day care.
I have been told on more than one occasion that it’s very hard on escorts to stay with patients in the hospital without relief for an entire day.
One question that I was asked is if there was a possibility of having two medical escorts under certain circumstances.
Is there anything in the escort policy that makes this possible?
I want him to know that elders especially or patients who require long-term care really do need medical escorts, especially if they are going to be down south for a long time.
The coordinator responsible for this is currently working out of Cambridge Bay.
We could probably get more details from this individual, but I do want you to know that when an escort needs to be relieved after being away for far too long, that can be done.
On the question of whether two escorts is possible, that is something I will have to check into.
I do want you to know that this issue is taken seriously.
Question 313 – 3(2): Collective Bargaining Process – Housing Allowance (Schell)
It’s a question that I asked him a couple of days ago in regard to the $400 subsidy for individuals who own their own homes.
At the time, he had mentioned that the collective agreement negotiations are in progress and that probably something would be done with that.
That’s fine, but my understanding is that housing has nothing to do with the collective agreement and if it does, I’m sure that the NEU would be very happy to hear that.
So my question to the minister is: is this $400 subsidy part of the collective agreement negotiations?
I applaud Mr. Schell for continuing his efforts to get a break for the folks who rent houses.
It is expensive to rent housing in Nunavut.
As I indicated the other day, if folks are interested in increasing the household allowance, it can be part of the collective bargaining process.
But as the Minister of Finance, it’s not our plan to increase the amount to a level that, after taxation, nets $400 for people.
Also, in his comments, he had mentioned that it’s a CRA rule that this $400 has to be subsidized.
The part that I don’t understand is that the $1,500 free subsidy that employees are living in units is not taxed.
I’m sure if you’re taxing one, the other one should be taxed whether it is actually in a subsidy, actually paid, or it’s in cash, or it’s in-kind.
So that’s my question: why is this taxed? That’s the rules. You have the $1,500 subsidy that people get that are actually living in staff housing and don’t have to pay tax on that.
The last time I checked, I was the Minister of Finance for Nunavut, not the Minister of Taxation for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency considers $400 a taxable benefit because it’s not a universal benefit to all people in Nunavut.
Mr. Schell: I do agree that it’s not for everybody, but at the same time, anybody who lives in staff housing… like the government pays probably $3,300 or $3,500 a month for that unit and yet, the people who rent it only pay like $1,500.
So there is a subsidy there, a difference, and that’s why I’m questioning it. If the CRA makes a point of taxing that $400, how come that subsidy, from what the renter is paying and what the government is actually paying, is not taxable?
If the Government of Canada taxed people who live in social housing, there’s a $22,000 benefit there and most people in social housing are paying $65 a month, so you can imagine the taxes that they would have to pay if they had to pay full rent on the benefit they received from the Government of Nunavut.
Of course, I understand why they don’t do it.
My argument is: why are you taxing the $400?
As far as I’m concerned, that should be exempt also.
I again thank Mr. Schell for that comment and I appreciate what his concern is.
But Mr. Speaker, we don’t tax the homeowners, it’s the Canada Revenue Agency that taxes. They decided that it’s a taxable benefit.
Obviously, as a Government of Nunavut, we would like to see them get the full $400 benefit, but we don’t make the national taxation rules.
Question 314 – 3(2): Child and Youth Representative (Elliott)
On Monday, March 8, I asked questions to the Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Hon. Eva Aariak, in regard to the child and youth representative.
And in her response, she had said that the Minister of Health and Social Services is working very hard on this issue.
I was wondering if the minister could outline how his department is working hard on this issue.
I believe our Premier stated that our mandate comes from the action plan stemming from Tamapta.
The priority is to assist those residents who are most vulnerable, or at risk, or facing difficulty in their lives.
As per the practices of the government, April 1 is the crucial date as that is the start of the new fiscal year and many of the contents of the main estimates that are currently under review will be appropriated towards some of the action items.
As the Minister of Finance affirmed, the mandate of the department revolves around the Family Abuse Intervention Act; this forms the mandate for the social services branches.
We will be undertaking a comprehensive review of the legislation and our mandate as outlined therein.
With respect to the some of the items that have to be dealt with, such as child advocacy, these are under the mandates of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs as well as the Department of Justice.
Our department is not the lead on this responsibility, but whenever they require information, we have discussed this on an interdepartmental basis that we will send it as it is required. However, my main responsibility is health and social services.
I held a conference last fall in December and the report outlining our meeting is now completed.
The report is still being evaluated and this may take all winter.
When April 1 arrives, we will be continuing our consultations with the communities as per the action plan.
With respect to the details of that, I now have them in our office and they speak to regional initiatives and funds once the new fiscal year has commenced on April 1.
The questions were specifically on the independent child and youth representative, and the Premier did say that the Minister of Health and Social Services is working very hard on this issue and they have already met.
In terms of the meeting that you were talking about and the report that is coming out that you just spoke about, is that an action plan in creating this independent child and youth representative?
It is usually quite clear when I respond to questions in Inuktitut in detail.
We have two main languages.
With respect to the public advocacy group in the NWT, it is for all of the NWT and they also deal with child issues.
The advocacy group is an independent office from government but has links to the Premier’s Office and EIA. If anyone wants to get support, they can get it from that department.
As I said before, our department is going to be providing assistance.
The Department of Social Services is mandated by the Child and Family Services Act, which directs our actions and policies.
We met this year to deal with the action plan for the first time.
Starting in the new fiscal year, we will start again for the whole year.
Before that, I can provide an update on the progress of each region.
The final report on the legislation will be done some time in the future.
It was leading up to one of my other questions because I want clarification. It’s sort of in line with the same questions I was asking about in terms of the Nunavut Housing Corporation and the apprentices who are being trained and being bounced around between department and department.
I know, in some of the answers that the Premier gave, she mentioned Health and Social Services, she mentioned CLEY, she also mentioned Education, and she also mentioned Justice, so I’ll ask that question next.
Just for clarification, your department’s role in assisting with the youth and child representative is to handle and work with the legislation of the Child and Family Services Act. Is that correct?
Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure whether I want to answer that with “correct” or this kind of terminology. I think the member should know that the mandate of Health and Social Services, one, that it’s responsible for broad medical and health issues in Nunavut.
Specifically for social services, our mandate is to continually implement the Child and Family Services Act.
We’re going through a review process and my department is the lead department in that area.
In terms of the advocacy role, it’s not only for youth but for others. That is the responsibility of my colleague, the Premier.
The justice minister, no doubt, gets a critical role in providing legal advice, and so on, to all of the legislation that we’re carrying on.
I am not the lead minister on the work of the youth advocacy stuff.
I told the member that we will provide all of the information necessary that my colleagues require, that we’re committed to and will continue to do so.
That clears up all of the questions I had and thank you.
I want to get the terminology right because we’re not going with child and youth advocate anymore, we’re going with child and youth representative.
My final question, Mr. Speaker: in regard to issues concerning the child and youth representative, you would like me to ask the Premier, the Minister responsible for EIA. Correct, yes or no?
Hon. Tagak Curley: No, Mr. Speaker.
Question 315 – 3(2): $2 Million Farming Equipment (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I would like to follow up on the question from my colleague from Baffin South to the Minister responsible for Housing.
Yesterday, we learned that the Housing Corporation had purchased farming equipment that will be inoperable in our territory and that $2 million worth of potential money for housing is now being used to try and find ways to get equipment that will actually work in our territory.
How can the minister assure us that these new units that my colleague for South Baffin is asking about will actually be certified and possible to be accommodated in our territory?
It seems like we’re going from one bad thing to another bad thing.
How can he assure the House that these will actually work in our territory?
I just want to clarify for the record.
The member keeps saying that this equipment is inoperable in Nunavut, that’s actually not true, Mr. Speaker. As I had indicated yesterday, you know the five that we have right now will perform just fine.
Given the geography of some of the lots, as I had indicated, when we found out that it wouldn’t have access, the only instance where it wouldn’t work is if it wouldn’t have the boom length required to get over the peak of the roof.
There is a big difference between that and a piece of equipment being inoperable.
So I just want to set the record straight on that, that it’s an operable piece of equipment in Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated to my colleague from South Baffin when he asked these questions of me last week that I would look into it, I did.
I have been assured that the manufacturer has had the design and the panels, everything about the units reviewed and approved by a structural engineer.
So Mr. Speaker, in the event that they don’t work, then the liability would fall on that structural engineer and that firm, not the Housing Corporation.
So hopefully that gives him the assurances that he is looking for, that it has been reviewed and approved by a certified, bona fide structural engineer.
I don’t know what else we can look for from that to assure the member.
I think, to me, these individuals’ certification and their professionalism is on the line, so they’re going to make sure, before they agree and say that everything is fine, that they’re pretty comfortable that it is fine.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I recall last year that the minister was assuring us that these telehandlers would work and be fine in Nunavut just to realize $2 million later that we can’t really use them.
So how can we be assured when the minister is making comments such as, “They will be okay. They will be fine once again,” that they will actually do the job?
That’s why I’m asking the minister: how can he reassure us after this $2 million boondoggle that it will not happen again?
I would like to also note that the member is the only one who calls this a boondoggle, it’s not a $2 million boondoggle.
Mr. Speaker, if you go to a lawyer, for example, to sign as a notary for a public thing that they witnessed you signing something, do you question that stamp of approval on there?
The structural engineer has approved the design and they’re certified. What else can you ask for from that?
Do you question a lawyer when they sign something saying that it’s certified by someone that’s a lawyer?
These are professionals, Mr. Speaker, they have the certification, same as accountants.
They’re not going to sign off on something that they don’t believe is accurate because part of their associations with those individuals would be liable if they did, in fact, make a mistake.
So at some point, Mr. Speaker, we have to trust these professionals that they know what they’re doing.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I would not be questioning this matter if we hadn’t learned that we’re stuck with farming equipment that we can’t really do much about.
We hope to get the best deal and we hope that the Housing Corporation can resell these things.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, when someone buys a car, as soon as it leaves the lot, 10 percent of it is gone; it’s depreciated.
So I hope that with this $2 million worth of farming equipment, we will do better than that and that we can get our money back.
We had been assured by this minister that these were fine, they would work, and they would be okay.
We asked the minister, “Can you hold off on making a major commitment to make sure that this equipment will actually work in our territory?”
And we realize today that we’re stuck with $2 million worth of equipment that we hope we can get the best deal and get our money back.
That is my issue. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Much like cars, I think that in some cases, words lose their value when they leave someone’s mouth as well.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, and the member keeps saying, “We’re stuck with these,” we aren’t stuck with these.
As I indicated, the corporation has taken steps to mitigate the loss and a request for proposals has been issued.
We’re looking for a credit for these units. I want to make it clear that we’re not stuck with $2 million worth of equipment.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I assured and I pointed out yesterday is that the equipment, in all cases, except for where we found out in December, when we found out what our lots were, would work.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to my colleague from South Baffin yesterday, both of the pieces of equipment that we were looking at and received quotes on last year, given all of the information that we knew at the time, taking into account everything that we could think of at that time, neither of those pieces of equipment would have had the sufficient boom length required to overcome this obstacle that we just found out about in late December.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) It’s unfortunate that I have to repeat myself.
I’m not trying to demean the situation in any way. We’re short of housing throughout the territory.
To see the precious dollars that could go towards housing be used for projects that are questionable and then to realize that it was a mistake, the minister should at least admit that they made a mistake and be upfront with the Assembly, that when the Assembly asks, “Is this going to work?”
And the minister assures you that, “It will work.”
Perhaps it would be easier if the minister at least admits to the House that they made a mistake and that we will not repeat this in the future.
It would be a bit more assuring for the Members of this House, but the minister is just pretending, “We will fix it somehow.”
Hopefully, we will get the best deal, but we fail to see that to this point. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that if the member reviews the Hansard from yesterday, he will find that answer there. We did say that we tried, at the time, to think of everything. A circumstance arose after the fact that, unfortunately, without a crystal ball, I think is the term I used yesterday, we couldn’t foresee.
To me, that is saying, “At the time, based on the information that we had and everything that we could think of, it would have been fine.” But like I pointed out yesterday, and you can review the Hansard from yesterday and you will see it, you cannot always think of everything. I said that here in the House, unlike other governments that never want to admit they made a mistake.
I’m saying that based on the information that we had and everything that we could think of, it was determined that piece of equipment would have worked.
When new information came along that was discovered that it wouldn’t work in certain circumstances, we acted on that.
So I don’t know what more the member is looking for. I’ve got no problem… he can review the Hansard and I’m sure he will find the answer he’s looking for in there from yesterday.
Question 316 – 3(2): Contract for Panellized Housing Units (Schell)
Mr. Schell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the hon. member of the Housing Corporation.
In regard to these SIP panels, he had mentioned that they had been reviewed and stamped by a structural engineer.
My question is: was this done before the contract was signed with this company or was it done after?
I don’t know exactly when, but I said that we were assured by the company that had the contract that the design was reviewed and approved by their structural engineer.
That’s the information that the member was asking for last week and that’s the information that I got. If he would like me to find out exactly when that structural engineer reviewed the design and approved it, I would be more than happy to do that if that’s what he wants.
Yes, I would like to have that information just to make sure that this was stamped and approved before the Housing Corporation got into a contract with the company.
Just to make sure that they were prudent, as the finance minister always says, in regard to this contract… .
If they signed a contract prior to it being stamped, I don’t think that’s a very wise decision. That’s the reason I’m asking that.
As a businessman himself, the member knows that you have to be prudent and you have to be careful and take steps to mitigate and make sure that you’re making good investments. I can assure you that our design team and technical division were prudent and looked at the lot and everything in there.
As I had indicated to the member, I have faith in my staff and our technical team, the design team that put together this proposal, and I will provide the member with the information of exactly when the design was approved by the structural engineer.
Given also, Mr. Speaker, the fact that part of the proposal, prior to the contract being awarded, there was a requirement, as I had indicated yesterday, for proof of demonstration and that happened this fall.
As I said, there were contractors and technical people from the north to go down there and ensure that… .
You know, we always hear these southern ideas are great but they never work up north.
We wanted to make sure and ensure that those ideas, if there were any possible challenges faced by knowledgeable northern contractors, who know the environment that they have to work in, were addressed before the final design being approved.
My next question for the minister is: are all of these housing units going to be manufactured this year and shipped out to the communities; all of the units this year or some are going to be for next year?
As the member knows, part of the funding, the $100 million that we received for this was two-year funding that expires.
We have to have our commitments in place for these units this year. Like I said, some of the work that was done on that funding last year was site development, piles, pads, and things like that.
This year, all of the units will be shipped in and constructed. Because of our shipping season, Mr. Speaker, all of the units will be shipped this year and we have the next construction season to complete those projects as well.
All of the material and all of those units will be landed in the communities this shipping season.
Are these panelled units going to be shipped directly from the supplier or are they going to be going through the marshalling company?
I don’t have the answer to that question right now, but I would be more than happy to follow up with my staff and see exactly what the process is for those particular panels and advise the member.
Tabled Document 139 – 3(2): Letter from Constituent – Mould in Workplace (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Today, I wish to table a letter from a courageous Iqalummiuq who has been employed with the GN for a very long time and who has become quite ill because of exposure to mould in a GN building and has no longer been able to work.
There are other employees who have been very badly harmed, but due to no whistle-blower legislation, they have been scared to table any letters, so I applaud this individual. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabling of Documents. Mr. Ningark.
Tabled Document 140 – 3(2): Copy of Correspondence from the Hamlet of Kugaaruk (Ningark)