EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
That is, indeed, how it is laid out, from the conservation officer to the HTO board, which make their recommendation on whether this application should be approved or rejected. Although they may recommend approval, the final decision lies with the regional manager.
It goes from the regional manager onto the headquarters level.
My time is fast approaching its zenith.
Prior to asking another question, I want our hunters to completely understand this process. I’m not just trying to delay this process, but perhaps the minister and his employee first agree on an answer prior to my asking another question.
Which answer is correct? The first response indicated the application going from the conservation officer to the HTO and then to the regional manager or from the conservation officer directly to the regional manager.
Can the witnesses first agree on the answer before providing it to me?
I will give some time for them to come to an agreement.
As per the last response I provided, the hunter submits his application to the conservation officer along with his comments and then it goes from the conservation officer to the HTO board, which makes their recommendation on whether this application should be approved or rejected. When it reaches the regional manager, then it goes to the headquarters.
If that’s not clear, I can put it in writing so that you will know exactly how the process goes.
Thank you for giving them time to reach agreement on an answer.
Now it’s understandable and clear. I appreciate that.
How much influence or ability are HTO boards given over the application?
They submit their recommendation on the application. They can also recommend whether they are in support of or against any particular application in writing appended to the application.
So I understand that, let’s say, in Pond Inlet, actually in every community in Nunavut, our HTO boards that manage all wildlife and harvesting issues within our communities aren’t able to dictate the direction, especially since they are the foremost authority on all wildlife issues in our communities.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the member is correct in his comprehension of the matter. When the application goes through the process, any written concerns or recommendations from the community would also be reviewed.
We are responsible for these funds, which is why it has to go to the headquarters for the final step. The decision is made to accept or deny the application, but any comments from the communities have some weight.
I urge all hunters to submit their applications when they have to fill out applications for this program under the Department of Environment, even if the application is going to be approved or not.
Now, when the HTO board submits their recommendation to either approve or deny an application, how many applications follow these recommendations?
Which way does it trend? Are half or a majority or less than half of recommendations followed?
I don’t have that particular information, but if Mr. Pinksen were to have that information in his mental notes, maybe he can answer the question.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. (interpretation ends) Mr. Pinksen, do you have it in your head?
They’re not all approved, they’re not all rejected, but I’m afraid I do not have the exact figures in my head today.
If I can ask the minister this question, I would like to see if we can be provided with five years of statistics on the actual figures related to the approval or rejection, especially how communities’ recommendations were either followed or not. It would be very interesting to see those numbers and I will now expect that information.
This is my last question. Once the regional manager sees the application, I believe the regional manager is the one who accepts or declines the approval for continuing to the highest level.
If he declines the application, is that the end of the process and I have no recourse?
No, even if the application is denied, they can resubmit their application. When it reaches the deputy ministerial level and if it is rejected at that stage, then the person has no other recourse in the matter.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): So the minister never even has a chance to review the rejected applications?
For the rejected applications, if they have resubmitted their applications and it reaches the deputy ministerial level, this is the final decision regarding that application, but I can be provided with reports on what happened with those applications.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. (interpretation) Mr. Enook, you have one second.
That was my final question.
Thank you very much, minister, for clarifying a lot of these issues.
I tend to ask a lot of questions so that the listening public can obtain valuable information.
What I have gained when it comes to enlightenment is in determining who is eligible for what.
If I’m wrong in drawing to that conclusion, I would be pleased if the minister could carefully go through the report.
The contents of the report seem to raise a great deal of expectations among hunters when it comes to accidents.
Let me repeat that even though I can’t tell the minister on what he should do, the report’s conclusions deserve another look because they may deserve a response.
As it stands, the public now has expectations and it is only right that there should be expectations. I think those findings need further study and, if I have to, I am willing to be the lone voice on this.
I have always believed that even the highest levels of authority should be accessible right up to the ministerial level. This issue is very important to hunters and many Nunavummiut, yet the minister doesn’t have the time to bother for it. Once he says no, that’s the end of it.
I am gravely concerned about that. If the occasion rises again to ask questions about it, I will not hesitate to do so.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving me another opportunity.
I don’t believe there was a question in that. We will continue. I have no more names on my list for I-5. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary.
Environment. Program Management. Total Operations and Maintenance. $19,669,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): All of you couldn’t wait to agree.
Moving on to I-3. (interpretation ends) Department Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $23,994,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Are we agreed that we are concluded with the Department of Environment?
Minister Arreak, you now have the floor for final comments.
Thank you very much for approving our budget requests for our O&M for the year as well as for the questions and comments which we can now follow up further.
With respect to the final comment that was made about reaching the ministerial level for a decision, I want to make it clear that in any political forum, disagreements can arise. As minister, there are rules and regulations to guide the way I make decisions.
Your concerns and questions are not ignored or forgotten. We can now work with them and any outstanding matter will be dealt with by correspondence whenever possible.
I thank my officials, my deputy minister, and assistant deputy minister, Joanne Parker, Niki Nweze, our Corporate Director, and other valuable staff from the office for being available.
I also thank your officials. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out as we will now be dealing with another item.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) I would like to ask the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to go to the witness table to make his opening remarks.
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Legislative Assembly – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to appear before you this evening to present the 2013-14 main estimates and 2013-16 business plan of the Office of the Legislative Assembly.
The proposed 2013-14 operations and maintenance budget for the Office of the Legislative Assembly is $21,025,000.
As members will recall, Bill 22 was passed by the Legislative Assembly in October of 2011.
This legislation implemented the recommendations of the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission.
As a consequence, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly will increase from 19 to 22 after the next general election, which will be held on October 28 of this year.
The Legislative Assembly’s budget for the upcoming 2013-14 fiscal year reflects the new resources that will be required to support the expanded Assembly.
The budget also takes into account the transfer of responsibility for the administration of ministerial indemnities from the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs to the Legislative Assembly itself.
I would also note that the funding to reflect the addition of three new members is prorated for the 2013-14 fiscal year in recognition of the timing of the next general election, which takes place midway through the fiscal year.
The 2014-15 budget will reflect a full year’s worth of funding.
The investiture ceremonies honouring the 2012 recipients of the Order of Nunavut have been successfully held in Iqaluit and Cape Dorset.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the recipients and their families.  This year’s nominations to the Order of Nunavut have recently opened and I look forward to inviting all members to attend the investiture ceremony for the next recipients later this year.
The most recent investiture ceremony in Cape Dorset again allowed local students to have the experience of seeing our Legislative Assembly’s Mace and to learn about our system of democratic government.
I look forward to bringing the Mace to a number of communities during the upcoming months, including Arctic Bay, Hall Beach, Igloolik, Taloyoak, and Gjoa Haven.
The fourth Speaker’s Youth Parliament was held in November of last year. This event, which is held every two years, brings together high school students from across the territory for a week of learning and fun.
Information concerning our Youth Parliaments is available on the Legislative Assembly’s website.
As members are aware, the budgets for the operations of our independent officers are funded through the appropriation of the Legislative Assembly itself. The largest increase this year is for Elections Nunavut to allow for the administration of the general election.
I would like to thank my colleagues for their support and I welcome their comments, suggestions, and questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Speaker Tootoo. Do you have any of your witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Speaker: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, with the committee’s indulgence.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my right is no stranger to this House, he usually looks at it from your point of view as our Clerk, Mr. John Quirke, and to my left is our Director of Corporate Services, Mr. Mike Rafter.
I would like to ask members if they have any general comments pertaining to the opening comments from Mr. Speaker. I don’t see any. We will move on to A-4 in the main estimates.
A-4. Office of the Legislative Assembly.
Branch Summary. Assembly Operations. Total Operations and Maintenance. $7,680,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to A-5. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. Office of the Legislative Assembly. Expenditures on Behalf of Members.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $9,465,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to A-6. (interpretation ends) Office of the Legislative Assembly.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $3,880,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to page A-3. (interpretation ends) Department Summary.
Office of the Legislative Assembly. Detail of Expenditures. Total Operations and Maintenance. $21,025,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Is the committee agreed that we have concluded with the main estimates for the Legislative Assembly?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, do you have closing remarks?
Speaker: With an invitation like that, Mr. Chairman, how could I resist?
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say “thanks” to all the staff at the Legislative Assembly. We always strive to improve and continue to provide a high level of service to all members and to ensure that the smooth operations go on here.
That goes right from our table officers to our interpreters and our technical people, and everyone else working behind the scenes upstairs on the third floor.
I would like to thank them very much. Thank you, members.
At this time, (interpretation ends) committee members, (interpretation) we will proceed with the next item on our agenda. I will have Mr. Enook take the Chair.
We will be proceeding with (interpretation ends) Bill 49 in your legislation binder.
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Good evening, my colleagues.
At this time, I will first ask if we can now proceed with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 49. Do you agree?
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): I believe all of you have a copy of the bill. Bill 49, Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014.
Chairman (interpretation): We will go to page 2.
Schedule. Operations and Maintenance.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $1,325,079,000.
We will go back to clause 4.
Chairman (interpretation): Do you agree to Bill 49 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), does the committee agree that Bill 49 can now immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Before we proceed, we will take a short five-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 20:19 and resumed at 20:28
We can now proceed with our agenda.
I would now like to ask the Minister of Finance, Minister Peterson, to go to the witness table to make his opening remarks.
Minister Peterson, I would like to ask if you would like to make your opening remarks on both Bill 47 and Bill 48.
Bill 47 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2012-2013 – Consideration in Committee
Bill 48 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2013-2014 – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to present two supplementary appropriation bills today:
Bill 47, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2012-2013; and
Bill 48, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2013-2014.
Bill 47 will provide a total supplementary appropriation of $34,798,000 for operations and maintenance in 2012-13. It consists of the following items:
$290,000 for the Office of the Legislative Assembly for the expenses related to the integrity review;
$2,214,000 for the Department of Finance to recognize expenses relating to the Nunavut Child Tax Benefit of $2,055,000 and tobacco tax commissions of $159,000 due to changes in the public sector accounting standards;
$645,000 for the Department of Education for increased compensation and benefits costs for school support staff as a result of the new four-year collective agreement with the Nunavut Employees Union;
$24,900,000 for the Department of Health and Social Services to fund anticipated cost pressures in various health and social services programs;
$3 million for the Department of Community and Government Services to address communications and data transfer costs in the Informatics Division;
$3,749,000 for the Nunavut Housing Corporation, including:
$3,045,000 to address higher public housing utility costs due to increases in water and electricity rates in various communities; and
$704,000 for increased funding to local housing organizations for wage increases consistent with the Government of Nunavut’s new four-year collective agreement with the Nunavut Employees Union.
Bill 48 will provide a total supplementary appropriation of $5,295,000 for capital projects in 2013-14.
$5,045,000 to the Department of Justice to fund a budget shortfall for the emergency overcrowding relief structure; and
$250,000 to the Department of Health and Social Services for the mould remediation project in Resolute Bay.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have two witnesses. Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. Does the committee agree to bring in the witnesses?
To my right is Geoff Chown. He is controller-general, but he is the acting deputy minister of the Department of Finance this week.
To my left is Peter Tumilty, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Planning.
At this time, do members have any general comments on the opening comments?
There being none. We will first deal with Bill 47.
Page 4. We can now continue.
Office of the Legislative Assembly. (interpretation ends) Not Previously Authorized.
Total Assembly Operations. $290,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Committee members, I don’t have an Inuktitut copy, so I’ll be following the English copy. (interpretation ends) Page 5. (interpretation) And now I have a copy. Finance. Operations and Maintenance.
Not Previously Authorized. Comptrollership.
Total Comptrollership. $2,214,000.
Turn to page 6. Education. Operations and Maintenance.
Not Previously Authorized. K-12 School Operations.
Total K-12 School Operations. $645,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Turn to page 7. (interpretation ends) Health and Social Services. Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized.
Directorate. Total Directorate. $511,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Health and Social Services.
Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. Social Services.
Total Social Services. $3,212,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Health Insurance Programs. Not Previously Authorized.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I have a question under item 3, Compensation and Benefits. It’s $8,000. There is an increase for out-of-territorial hospital services of almost $4 million from Nunavut.
Can the minister give us some information on why there’s a huge cost increase? Is it because there was a billing delay?
Perhaps you can give us information, Mr. Minister. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, this is related mostly to the out-of-territorial hospital services. In the first nine months of the fiscal year to the end of December, there has been an increase in medical travel south of 2,752 one-way trips.
With that increase in medical travel to the south, we anticipate that we will be getting increased bills from out-of-territory hospitals.
We have a reciprocal billing process in place in all provinces and territories and they can bill us up to a year after the costs are incurred.
We would like them to be monthly, but we find that by the end of December, for example, we may only be billed for 18 to 35 percent of the bills. We’re just budgeting for the increase in advance.
We will go back. (interpretation ends) Health Insurance Programs. Not Previously Authorized. Total Health Insurance Programs. $3,908,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Continuing on. (interpretation ends) Public Health. Not Previously Authorized. Total Public Health. $1,521,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Turn the page. Page 8. (interpretation ends) Health and Social Services.
Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. Treatment.
Total Treatment. $15,748,000. (interpretation ends) Do you agree?
Not Previously Authorized. $24,900,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Continuing on to page 9. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services. Operations and Maintenance.
Not Previously Authorized. Government Services. Total Government Services. $3 million. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Turn the page. Page 10. (interpretation ends) Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Not Previously Authorized. Nunavut Housing Corporation. Total Nunavut Housing Corporation. $3,749,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Page 2. (interpretation ends) Schedule 1. Operations and Maintenance. Operations and Maintenance Appropriation. $34,798,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
We will now go to Bill 47. It should be in your binders.
We can then proceed if you all have it. I think we are all on the same page. I will proceed.
Bill 47, (interpretation ends) Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2012-2013. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Chairman (interpretation): Go to page 2. (interpretation ends) Schedule.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $34,798,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriation. $34,798,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Does the committee agree to Bill 47 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), does the committee agree that Bill 47 can now immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Bill 48. Page 4. I believe everyone has a copy of the document.
I will now proceed. (interpretation ends) Justice. Capital. Not Previously Authorized.
Corrections. Total Corrections. $5,045,000.
I know that it has been a long day for everybody, so I’ll try and keep my preambles as short as I can in questions and I hope the minister could do the same so that we can proceed here today.
Mr. Chairman, previously there was $700,000 approved for the planning and design for the new correctional facility in Iqaluit.
I’m just wondering where it stands right now in this project, whether the planning and design is complete or not.
I thank Mr. Rumbolt for the question and the hint.
The planning is at a class “B” design level.
If it’s at a class “B,” that means there could be more expenses related to the planning and design.
Will we be seeing additional funds needed for the planning and design?
I’m not sure if that’s a hypothetical question, but I think the class “A” estimates would give us a fairly firm estimate of what the cost would be, but if you go to a tender, it could come in less or it could come in more.
So I can’t really answer that question of what the final price would be. It depends on the RFP.
According to the department’s business plan on page 48, it says that a request for an RFP for the design has been completed and it has been awarded.
That’s why I’m asking that question of whether it’s a class “B” or a class “A.” If the minister could clarify, please.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, will you please clarify it.
Well, there hasn’t been a design completed. It is a class “B” from the information I have and there has been no contract awarded that I’m aware of.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson, (interpretation ends) for that clarification.
Again, according to the business plan on page 48, it states that “A Request for Proposal (RFP) for the design of an emergency overcrowding facility has been awarded to Stantec in Iqaluit. Design of this facility is currently in process.”
So is this wrong or can we get clarification on what the issue is here?
It has been a long day. I have been at it since about seven o’clock this morning. Perhaps I misunderstood the question the first time.
The design is in the process, it has been finalized, it is a class “B” right now, and it is moving towards a class “A.” I don’t have the information in front of me on who it was awarded to, but I’m assured that it is at a class “A.” Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m just wondering if it would be better if we could direct the question towards the minister responsible for that department.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) Minister Shewchuk, are you willing to give us an answer?
I hope I will clarify the confusion.
The planning and design is complete. The money is spent on the planning and design. It’s a class “B” estimate.
To my understanding, a class “B” estimate means, as the Minister of Finance said, there could be a plus or minus 10 percent variance on the class “B” estimate. But the planning and design of the structure is complete.
When can we expect an RFP or tender for the construction of the new facility to be issued and when do we expect construction to start?