EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
As I mentioned during an earlier session, medical doctors never seem to have enough time to see all the patients on the list during their short visits to the communities.
In fact, it has been suggested that given the current size of the population of Baker Lake, combined with the population at the nearby mining facility, a full-time medical doctor should be on staff in the community.
Can the minister provide an update on what consideration has been given to allocating a full-time doctor position to the community of Baker Lake?
The members know that there are challenges that we face in our territory and other jurisdictions in recruiting physicians on a full-time basis.
As it is right now, we have people that come in on short-term contracts, and so on, and that continues to be a challenge in recruiting physicians and doctors, not just in our jurisdiction but other jurisdictions.
Having said that, I will follow-up to see what work has been done to see if there is a requirement to have a full-time doctor stationed in Baker Lake, or the options of coming up with another model where we have doctors that travel to various communities to provide services, and get back to the member.
If it is okay with you, I would like to speak to a related matter, although it is not entirely related to the issue, and which I would like to pose a question towards.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, the community of Baker Lake has also noted that the number of visits by dentists is never enough to meet the needs for dental care.
Can the minister provide an update on how dental services are determined for each community and what is done to ensure that there are an adequate number of dental visits to address the needs of Baker Lake residents?
The dentist provides services in each community and a schedule is developed. In Baker Lake, the dedicated number of days the dentist is in that community currently stands at 100 days per year.
From what I understand with that information, the number of days is negotiated and agreed to through the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program. This is an area that the department has been working on for some time to try to increase the number of days for Nunavut.
I understand that we’re near completion with some of our discussions with Health Canada on increasing those numbers of days that are required in a community to address not only the population growth but also the increases in services.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Your final supplementary, Mr. Simailak.
I understand that Baker Lake’s current dental therapist may soon be leaving the community. As you know, a dental therapist plays an important role in the prevention of dental problems especially in youth.
Can the minister provide an update on what is being done to ensure that the community of Baker Lake continues to have dental therapy services and what is being done to hire a new dental therapist for the community?
I wasn’t aware that the dentist was actually leaving the community. But the normal process is followed for any positions that are vacant in the government when we have a vacancy and that is to advertise through the normal competition process in recruiting positions that are vacant.
One of the things that I want to share also with the Members of this House is that the department is also looking to develop a dental training program in Nunavut as part of our Recruitment and Retention Strategy. That is one area that we are exploring as a program to offer in Nunavut for Nunavummiut so that Nunavummiut can be dentists and provide services at their community level. So of course, that’s a long-term initiative that we’re looking at, but there is, again, like any other health care field, a shortage of dentists in Canada and it is a bit of a challenge for us.
But currently, where there are no dentists in communities, we have contracts in place with companies and organizations that provide the services to us. With the position that is allocated to Baker Lake, I will see when the advertisement will be initiated. Usually, those are initiated when the incumbent has resigned from their position.
Question 619 – 2(4): GN Five-Year Plan Does Not Include Pond Inlet Arena (Arvaluk)
As I stated earlier in my Member’s Statement, I spoke to the issue of communities that will be allocated capital infrastructure projects and that the projects are listed in the capital plan. Although I read the entire 2009-2013 Five-Year Capital Plan, I didn’t find the information I was looking for.
As the minister knows, it has been two years since her department concluded an agreement with respect to this issue.
I was shown the correspondence that originated from the government recommending that it would be more cost effective if the community hall and the arena were built as one unit.
When the government stated that there weren’t enough funds to build the single building, they stated it would be built in phases and only the community hall was constructed with the understanding that the arena would be constructed once the funds are earmarked for its construction.
I quickly reviewed the Five-Year Capital Plan and the arena project has been completely written out of the document, and there are no funds earmarked for the construction of the arena, even though I checked it all the way to 2013.
I would like to ask the minister: why was there a unilateral change in the plans without consulting with the people of Pond Inlet?
I was very pleased that I was able to come to your community to inspect the newly constructed community hall. In my opinion, it is a beautiful building that people should go and check out.
I am grateful, along with his constituents, that they have a nice new community hall.
In regard to the issue the member is referring to, some projects do get taken out and the government makes changes to the plans as required. That is the usual government practice. I believe the member knows the process since he has experience on the governance process and he ought to know how the allocation process is undertaken by the government as it hasn’t changed.
In regard to our plans to build a community hall/arena in his community, I can state that the arena could not be built due to lack of funding.
To date, we have the design drawings for the arena and they are now at the 99 percent review stage.
If I could rephrase this in English, (interpretation ends) phase 2 arena drawings and specifications are at the rate of 99 percent review stage.
Yes, we are well aware that design drawings can be and are usually completed for a project, but if there are no funds with which to construct the building, those drawings are useless and just collect dust. Those drawings can’t be utilized by the youth to skate in. Perhaps only in spirit could they skate on that drawn arena.
I would like to ask this question, Mr. Speaker.
I didn’t ask about projects that are taken off or put into the capital plan and how that process works. I’m familiar with that process, as is the minister.
However, any kind of changes to the plans require substantiation and reasons that are behind these changes.
My question is: what’s the reason behind the removal of this project from the Five-Year Capital Plan? Why was Pond Inlet’s arena/community hall project, which was originally in the capital plan with both phases listed, entirely removed from the capital plan?
As I have indicated before, our department cannot keep up with the capital projects requested by each community.
The cost of building all required capital infrastructure is more than what our financial resources currently allow for and this leads to difficulties.
We could probably look at the Building Canada Fund.
It may surface in that list of projects and we anticipate in getting some additional funds through that fund.
This will be reviewed later on this year as we can’t always work on these projects in a speedy manner due to our lack of resources.
We also have to place a priority on other communities which currently have no community halls, arenas, and other recreational facilities. We have to prioritize what is needed at the community level and which community should be placed first.
That’s part of the reason why we have to make changes, but we try to allocate funding as fairly as we can.
I’m well aware of the process and we are well aware that we will never meet all the infrastructure needs of every community in Nunavut, irrespective of whether it’s a dock or an arena.
We all know how much it costs to develop the infrastructure as they are extremely expensive to construct up north, especially today, with so much development in Alberta and at the national level, and I’m well versed in the challenges we face.
What I’m trying to state here is that the government gave false expectations to the community when they stated that they were going to be building a community hall/arena complex.
It was even placed in the Five-Year Capital Plan.
So therefore, the government led the community to believe that the community hall/arena complex would be built.
The government also stated that they would only build the community hall for the time being due to the shortage of funds.
The people of Pond Inlet believed the government, so they agreed to it because they expected that the arena would eventually get built.
I wouldn’t have anything to argue about if it wasn’t already listed in the Five-Year Capital Plan.
All I’m trying to ask is why it was taken out of the Five-Year Capital Plan.
I would like to thank the member for his understanding.
We have to make some changes when there’s a shortage of financial resources.
I’m trying to be as accurate as possible and it’s very likely that this building might be built with funds from the Building Canada Fund; we could look at it with that pot of money.
I apologize if I gave new hope to the people of Pond Inlet with the statement that the government made. We have put it in the Five-Year Capital Plan and we anticipate that we will see it again some time in the future because we have to meet the needs of the community.
I know that there are a lot of requirements in the communities and I know that there’s an extreme shortage of financial resources.
We would like to assist all communities, but it’s impossible to do so when there’s always a shortage of money.
I hope to see you come back again as the Cabinet Minister to the same department so that we can see that built under the Building Canada Fund.
I would now like to ask: when will negotiations begin regarding the Building Canada Fund and when do you expect them to conclude?
Has the federal government given you an update on that?
We have completed the Five-Year Capital Plan, but the Building Canada Fund is a seven-year program.
I am expecting that they will be revising some of them, at least our committee dealing with infrastructure, as well as with NAM, but the funding for the Building Canada fund is set for a period of seven years.
Question 620 – 2(4): GN Funding for Paving of Roads (Curley)
During the Budget Address, the finance minister said that there will be some funding to pave the roads in Iqaluit to improve the quality of life of its residents.
On July 10 of this year, the Premier issued a press release in which he announced that $12 million will go towards road paving in the city of Iqaluit over the next two years.
Can the Premier confirm exactly which department’s budget this funding will come from, where they will get the third party funding, and which department will be working on the road paving project in Iqaluit?
The City of Iqaluit has their discretion as to how the money is going to be spent and they also provide money for themselves, so we work with the City of Iqaluit.
This can happen anywhere in Nunavut if communities want to gain town status. In that way, they would be able to work with the government to provide all of these things. Iqaluit is a city and it is a taxed-based municipality, so we worked with them to have the roads paved here in Iqaluit.
It was announced during the budget estimates speech that there would be extra funding for the City of Iqaluit for the paving of roads to improve the quality of life. Why is it that the quality of life in Iqaluit is the most important one and not important for other Nunavummiut?
That is the concern of Nunavummiut because I believe that the city is not able to raise that amount of capital through tax-based revenues.
So therefore, the government comes in with the extra measures. Is the Building Canada Fund involved in this project or is the Department of Community and Government Services providing extra funding aside from the tax share of Iqalummiut?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I invite all municipalities to become towns so that they can generate their revenues and help us out in creating wonderful projects like paving in other communities.
So the city has worked out an arrangement where we had agreed to, in this House, block fund the city and that money is already there. What we did was we advanced it by one year but that’s it. We’re not changing the amount; we’re just advancing one year of additional dollars so that they can complete the paving project.
We’re not, in any way, increasing funding for anybody, so there’s no favouritism.
The city is hopeful that they can get Building Canada funds for the project, but in the event that they can’t do that, they’re going to use the $12 million that we allocated in this House.
So that’s the flexibility that they do have as a city with their own tax base. I invite other large communities to become towns so that they can do their part and fund innovative projects like this in their communities. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the Premier for explaining what the benefit of tax-paying communities are, but he failed to explain to Nunavummiut that there was a special arrangement entered into in 1999, or shortly thereafter, to provide extra capital funding over a four or five-year period. I believe that has been extended.
That is beside the tax revenues that the city, in itself, raised. So I’m not convinced that taxpayers, as it is, are a good example, as the way that the Premier explained to us. He cannot explain exactly what third party funding has been used to pay for paving roads in Iqaluit.
So my second supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is: local leaders in Rankin Inlet have expressed their disappointment that while the capital city enjoys new paved roads, the Hamlet of Rankin Inlet’s request for assistance was apparently rejected.
Can the Premier clearly explain to the House why Iqalummiut deserve paved roads but Rankin Inlet apparently does not and is not being provided with extra funding from the same sources as Iqaluit qualifies for?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) The city has the freedom and flexibility to make those decisions. They are not dependent on our government to make those choices because they are a tax-based community.
That’s a freedom and flexibility that you do get by creating your own tax base.
What we have done through this House is approve a block funding agreement that was already approved in the budget, and the city chose to use that money for paving as opposed to other projects.
So they’re using their own source funding to fund other ongoing additional costs on their own.
So I invite other communities to do the same and create their own tax base where they can so that they don’t have to rely on our government to make day-to-day decisions, basically, so they can do their part and fund projects like paving their own roads in other communities. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tax-based communities certainly appear to have some benefit, but they rely on a significant amount of funding.
Extra funding is required by this government, otherwise, the Premier would not have been part of the announcement unless he was putting extra, above and beyond funding from tax revenues alone.
Nunavummiut are not only hoping for fair distribution of programs and funding for municipalities, but they, too, are entitled to third party federal government funding such as the Building Canada Fund.
Why do only some communities qualify from those funds and others don’t?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) There is a list that is attached to the Building Canada Fund, it’s a federal list of what projects can be approved or not, so it’s not our list.
It’s a list that we have to work with to finance and cost share projects throughout Nunavut. So that’s a limitation that we have with the Building Canada Fund.
I must say that we didn’t approve any additional dollars for the City of Iqaluit. We advanced by one year some of that funding that was already allocated in this House and it’s a city that chose to spend that money that was approved in this House for the paving project. It wasn’t our decision, it was the city’s decision, and we accommodated their request.
That’s why we were taking part in the announcement by accommodating what had already been announced in this House. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 621 – 2(4): Fuel Delivery to Homeowners (Kattuk)
As the minister knows, I have asked this question many times.
People who own their own homes try to fill up their tanks themselves during bad weather.
During the winter session, the minister stated that she would look into the issue that took place in Sanikiluaq. A person with their own home had to refill their own heating fuel.
The people of Sanikiluaq are awaiting the reply from the minister.
Can the minister give me an update on whether or not that issue has been resolved?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister of Community and Government Services, Honourable Levinia Brown.
In different communities, various organizations are contracted to provide services. As an example, the local Co-op usually has contracts for fuel delivery, but it could be any local business that meets our criteria.
My department conducted a review on the issue raised by the member at our last session and the extenuating circumstances were looked at as well.
It seems that some of the homeowners experienced difficulties and after conducting some research into the issue, it was found that some of these people were filling up their fuel tanks using jerry cans.
However, transporting the fuel by themselves could have lead to dangerous situations.
The contractors tried to fulfill their obligations to the best of their ability as it relates to fuel delivery, but this occurred during a difficult time. The private homeowners were attempting to fill up their fuel tanks when the fuel truck was broken down. In the meantime, the private homeowners still had to fuel up in order to keep their houses heated.
The majority of the homeowners were utilizing the five-gallon jerry cans during this period, those red plastic cans, to refuel their homes as people don’t wish to run out of heating fuel, especially during the winter.
When your home runs out of heating fuel in the winter and freezes, it can lead to expensive repairs. These people were just trying to ensure that they didn’t run out of fuel oil and that was their attempt at maintaining their homes.
That’s what I have been apprised of in regard to that matter.
Is the minister saying that the contractors will now be fuelling up the private homeowners’ tanks? Is this what the minister is stating, that these homeowners will no longer have to fill up their own fuel tanks?
Do I understand that during times of bad weather or mechanical difficulties, the contractor will now fill up the fuel tanks using jerry cans?
The government prefers to deliver fuel oil directly to the homeowners’ tanks because it can become a dangerous situation and this can lead to fuel spills directly onto the ground. However, I’m not saying that the contractors will be delivering fuel oil using that method.
If the contractors are requested to fill up a fuel tank, they have to go and fill up the tank as requested.
But in regard to private homeowners, not all of them are up to date on their fuel bills and they don’t have any disposable income available for that.
In the case of mechanical failure, such as when the contractor’s fuel truck broke down in this case, the homeowners were just trying to ensure that they have fuel to heat their homes and that’s why they were using the five-gallon jerry cans to refuel their tanks.
This is a complex issue with no easy answers and we will have to review all of the circumstances.
Perhaps if we were to stop someone who is undertaking that as it can be dangerous for all parties involved. As a result of this practice being stopped and if the homeowner runs out of fuel, then who is going to pay?
The homeowners did whatever was necessary to protect their own interests at that time, but the government prefers that this not be repeated.
However, we cannot forecast times when mechanical problems will occur, so we cannot state unequivocally that this will never happen again. This did occur in the community of Sanikiluaq and we will have to be better prepared for those eventualities should they occur again in the near future.
I think I understand the minister when she states that this problem will be rectified soon.
If I understood the minister properly, can she tell me if this problem will be resolved before the cold winter months arrive and that there is a plan?
Yes, I will have this matter looked into further. As well, the contractors have stated that if this reoccurs and the fuel delivery truck is mechanically disabled, then the contractor will deliver fuel using 45-gallon drums and perhaps a hand pump to refill the fuel tanks.
That will ensure that the contractor provides fuel so that the homeowners will no longer have to refuel their own tanks using five-gallon jerry cans due to the dangers associated with that practice.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Your final supplementary, Mr. Kattuk.
I appreciate the minister for clarifying this problem.
The people in Sanikiluaq now know what the government wants us to do.
So the contractors will probably be delivering the 45-gallon drums to the homes of those homeowners.
This is not a question; it’s just a comment, Mr. Speaker.
Question 622 – 2(4): Additional Guidelines Under the Integrity Act (Tootoo)
I just want to follow-up with the Premier in the exchange that we had earlier.
I didn’t get very far in responses.
In the Premier’s ability to set additional conflict of interest requirements for his ministers as outlined in the Integrity Act, I would just like to ask him to confirm that if something does come up that does contravene that, if those responsibilities would flow to the deputy minister of the department.
So I’m just wondering: those additional requirements that he has set for his ministers, who’s responsible for ensuring that they’re complied with?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) We are bound by the conflict of interest provisions through the Integrity Commissioner, so anybody can enforce those provisions.
If my colleague has an issue, he can file a complaint like he has in the past, so that’s one way of enforcing it.
I work with the Integrity Commissioner annually and make sure that everything is in order, so I follow-up with my colleagues and report on any potential conflict.
That’s how I work with my colleagues and it’s worked to date so far. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to clarify, according to section 38 of the Integrity Act, and here it says that only the Premier can ask the Integrity Commissioner, in writing, to review any facts and give a written report as to whether a minister has contravened any additional written requirements established by the Premier for his ministers.
I know that the Integrity Act itself is there for everybody, but that gives the Premier the ability to establish additional requirements on top of the Integrity Act, and I believe, as he had indicated earlier, that those are in place, and I was trying to find out who is responsible for ensuring that those additional requirements that he has set for his ministers are followed.