EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In some cases, some communities are doing very well, in other communities they are not doing so well. We need to look at that and try to address some of those concerns and come up with a Nunavut-wide strategy perhaps around A&D treatment.
We do have some funding for that and we also have a lot of additional funding from the federal government in both where funding is related to A&D type initiatives whether it be FASD, but it is another area that I think we need to look at examining to come up with a strategy that would work for Nunavut, and for communities.
I do not know if that answers the question or not.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think that certainly helps.
I know that the funding that is provided by the federal government, more or less, is not a lot in terms of the substance abuse, and so on, but I think in Nunavut, we do have serious other problems that families normally experience, whether they be justice-related where social intervention is required.
I note that in your business plan on page H-23, you stated in that objective that you do provide transportation where family or social-related incidents may happen. If an intervention is required, then that service is provided.
So obviously, many of the counselling requirements, treatments required are not in the particular community. If the intervention is required, particular to those that maybe have gone into law enforcement or justice issues, normally they are sent even before the trial has happened by the RCMP, but they normally, I think, ask social workers to pay for transportation or something. I do not know how that happened.
Do the RCMP normally send them out when there are family problems from particularly smaller communities before the trial or something that when they were sent out, did the police act on their own or did they ask your department to pay for these travels from point A to B?
Mr. Chairman I know in some cases where we have to intervene for, as an example, domestic violence we will send the family out, but I am not sure if we get involved in some cases where a person has been arrested and incarcerated, do we send them out or, I still do not understand your question, maybe you can elaborate a bit.
I am not sure of that either; if it is related to justice issues. Does the police or the Justice Department pay for them to travel to communities?
Is that considered social intervention, or do the two agencies work together because there have been places, a number of them; I represent a community where Rankin Inlet is a recipient of people that are sent whether they be social intervention.
I am not sure of all the circumstances involved, but I was advised by the social worker, not the departmental social worker, but the community worker, that we just don’t have an accommodation; transportation it may be very easy. That’s why I’m picking on that particular area.
Were you saying that you provide transportation services where intervention is required?
Could you expand that maybe a bit more and tell whether it is considered intervention on page H-23 in your business plans?
The member has raised a really interesting point.
In cases where in social services, as an example, we are dealing with victims, we will provide what services are necessary for that victim’s needs. In some cases, it may involve us removing that person or the families from the community. We’ve covered transportation for that.
When it comes to the accused, I think that falls to the justice system; if I can try and distinguish the two services that way.
The challenge that we face in trying to provide those kinds of assistance is where do we place them?
We are always challenged with placements of people that we’re trying to assist in whatever service.
In Nunavut, we all know that we lack some resources to provide this kind of assistance.
Strictly speaking from the social service standpoint, we would provide that travel assistance to the victims.
One last question that I have really is that where intervention is required to those that fit in your program, not only the transportation is covered, but accommodations as well because in places like Rankin Inlet, unless you put them in the hotel, it’s really quite difficult.
I noted that one of the workers that approached me there who is a very dedicated worker said we just don’t have any accommodations when interventions like this happen in places like Rankin Inlet.
I’m wondering whether or not your program can be tightened up a bit to ensure that people are not just left in the community without a place to stay.
I’ll look at what process we follow, as an organization, in providing that type of service.
This will also fall into the work of reviewing the work of social workers.
I see in that we can look at those types of situations and ensure that we are providing a good level of service and quality of service to those individuals. I’ll commit to that.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $107,660,000.
Chairman: Pages H-14, H-15, and H-16 are information items.
So go back to page H-4.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $224,790,000.
Chairman: Do you agree that the Department of Health and Social Services is concluded?
Chairman: Thank you, Minister, and your staff Mr. Ramsden and Mr. Whitworth.
First of all, I would like to thank Dave and Eric for being here with me.
At the same time, to thank all my staff that participated in preparing for this. And to thank every Member in the House for their comments and suggestions and recommendations over the last four days related to this on an ongoing basis. And I will follow up on the commitments that I have made, and thanks to everyone for their contributions.
Chairman: Thank you. We will now move on to Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
I would now like to ask Premier Okalik, Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs to make his opening remarks.
Bill 12 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2006-07 – Review in Committee – Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs
Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to address you.
I am pleased to present an overview of the department and its 2006-07 operations and maintenance budget.
This budget is designed to assist the government in meeting the priorities of Pinasuaqtavut. To meet our priorities, we must focus on developing and expanding our economy and creating a stronger cultural foundation based on Inuit societal values.
The Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs provides advice and administrative support to the Cabinet; plays a leading role in interdepartmental coordination, information sharing, and internal consultation for governmental departments and agencies; oversees the overall coordination of the executive branch, and the development of the senior public service; coordinates intergovernmental affairs with a focus on supporting the Premier and developing Government of Nunavut positions on national, provincial, territorial, circumpolar and Aboriginal issues; and works to ensure that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is implemented.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs provides leadership and management support so that government departments have the structures needed to deliver programs and services that serve the needs of Nunavummiut.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs is also responsible for communicating the accomplishments, objectives, and policies of the government, both within the government itself and to Nunavummiut.
Our mandate for the second term is ambitious and I am confident that Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs will serve as a catalyst for all departments as they strive to work together to meet the priorities that we have set in Pinasuaqtavut for 2004 to 2009.
I am proud of our territory’s accomplishments to date and I know that by working together we can carry out what remains to be done to meet our goals.
The total departmental budget for 2006-07 is $11,306,000. This represents an increase of $1,237,000 from 2005-06.
This increase was due mainly to the creation of the Devolution Branch, which was allocated a budget of $1,114,000 by the Financial Management Board.
The overall salary budget was increased by an additional $123,000 as a result of the Nunavut Employees Union Collective Agreement.
The Executive Branch of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs is responsible for corporate services, statistics, and communications, policy, planning and evaluation and provides support to the Utilities Rate Review Council.
This branch also provides support for Cabinet and ministers’ offices.
The Executive Branch provides overall management and direction, and is responsible for bringing forward the Cabinet agenda under the direction of the Premier, supporting Cabinet, and communicating Cabinet direction to the public service.
The Executive Branch also has the role of ensuring that Government of Nunavut departments follow Pinasuaqtavut 2004-09, incorporating Inuit societal values and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, adhere to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and fulfill the GN’s mandate to decentralize government positions.
Through decentralization, Nunavummiut have been able to benefit directly from the establishment of significant government operations at the community level.
Our government will act on the recommendations of the Auditor General with respect to strengthening financial management across government departments and Crown corporations.
I’m trying to talk here.
Any reallocation of finance positions will be offset by additions to program staff so the number of decentralized jobs in communities is not reduced.
It is important that we work to fulfill the objectives set out in Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to build a public service that is representative of the population of Nunavut.
This past year, the Statistics and Evaluation branches in EIA have successfully moved to Pangnirtung as part of the decentralization initiative.
The office has been set up and is fully operational. Positions have been staffed and an intern is currently being trained to take over the Statistic’s director position.
With a focus on economic development and opportunities for Nunavummiut, we are prepared to begin negotiations with the federal government regarding devolution so that Nunavummiut can more fully utilize the benefits from their abundant natural resources.
At the same time, I will continue to lobby at the national level for additional funding and the lifting of various barriers to the development of our economy.
I will be assisted in this by the Intergovernmental Affairs Branch, which is responsible for the management and development of intergovernmental strategies, policies, and initiatives relating to federal, provincial, territorial, circumpolar, and aboriginal affairs through:
Supporting and enhancing strong working relationships with other governments.
Coordinating GN activities relating to Nunavut Tunngavik and the Regional Inuit Organizations, guided by Iqqanaijaqatigiit, and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
The Government of Nunavut participates in Canada’s ongoing negotiations with the following claims: Inuit of Nunavik, James Bay Cree, and with Athasbasca Denesuliné.
The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement is currently being distributed to beneficiaries in anticipation of the ratification vote in the fall.
It is being reviewed by GN departments.  Canada continues to meet with Manitoba Denesuliné, Athasbasca Denesuliné, NTI and KIA on southern Kivalliq harvesting rights and land quantum.
In Sanikiluaq, the Hudson’s Bay Interagency Group is preparing to make a presentation in Montreal on the East Main 1A and Rupert Diversion Hydro-electric Dam Hearings in May.
As you know, we have a new federal government and recently I had the opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Harper on two occasions.
One on Friday evening, February 24, along with the twelve other premiers, I met with Prime Minister Harper in an informal meeting of the Council of the Federation.
On Saturday, the northern territorial Premiers; Joe Handley, Dennis Fentie, and I met with Prime Minister Harper to address northern issues.  I am hopeful that the Prime Minister will develop a northern vision that includes devolution and recognizes the infrastructure challenges Nunavut faces and shares our desire to have Nunavut gain the tools needed to increase our economic contribution to Canada.
We believe that Nunavummiut should be the principal beneficiaries of Nunavut’s natural resources. Devolution will strengthen Nunavut by giving our territory more responsibility over its resources and allow us to allocate resource revenues.
The devolution process will build on the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, bringing about a jurisdictional transfer of land and resource responsibilities.
Through devolution negotiations we will seek a resource revenue arrangement that treats us as an equal partner in confederation without adversely affecting Nunavut’s formula financing arrangement with the federal government.
The Devolution Branch has been established and a chief negotiator has been appointed.
Devolution negotiations will begin shortly and hopefully be concluded by the end of 2008.
The department will also be home to a new initiative: an Energy Secretariat. At present, a nominal sum of $35,000 has been set aside and until new resources become available, it will be funded internally by the department.
As you know, six departments and agencies have energy-related responsibilities.
Given that about 20 percent of the Government of Nunavut budget is spent on energy; leadership and coordination is absolutely necessary. One of the key responsibilities of the Secretariat will be to provide advice and support to the Minister of Energy.
The Secretariat will provide leadership for the development of a comprehensive energy strategy and our dependency on imported oil.
It will also monitor energy-related issues and to develop options and recommendations on territorial energy policies, coordinate GN actions and provide options for Cabinet level decisions on energy.
Mr. Chairman, these are the highlights of EIA’s mandate for 2006-07.
I expect to continue to build upon programs and continue to advance Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as a strong influence in policy development.  I would be pleased to answer questions or address the comments of my fellow MLAs.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to meet you this afternoon.
Do you have any witnesses to go to the witness table?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Does the Committee agree that the minister go to the witness table with his officials?
Sergeant-at-Arms, can you take them to the witness table, please.
Premier Okalik, can you please introduce your officials for the record.
On my left, you know my Deputy Minister on Intergovernmental Affairs, David Omilgoitok.
On my right is Terry Rogers for Corporate Services. I will be asking one of my other officials if there are any questions in regard to our office, in regard to Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. If need be, I will be asking John Walsh.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations have opening comments?
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability has reviewed the proposed main estimates and business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for the 2006-07 fiscal year, and I am pleased to provide you with the committee’s comments.
The committee noted that the department’s proposed 2006-07 budget of $11,306,000 has increased approximately 46 percent from its initial allocation of $7,734,000 in 1999-2000. The department’s proposed 2006-07 budget is approximately five percent higher than its revised 2005-06 main estimates.
Over the years, a number of concerns have been raised during the review of the department’s main estimates and business plans. I would like to take a moment to make some comments regarding progress and performance in these areas.
In some cases, the performance of ministers and their departments in meeting their statutory tabling requirements has improved since the first few years of the Government of Nunavut’s operation. In others, it has not.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs has an important role to play in enforcing discipline in this area with respect to departments.
The committee would continue to suggest that the annual performance bonuses awarded to senior departmental and Crown corporation officials be tied in part to their actual performance in meeting legally-mandated tabling requirements, as well as their performance in such areas as complying with the Financial Administration Act.
The standing committee is concerned about the observations of the Auditor General in this area, and has noted her recent observations with respect to the GN having a “history of breaking the rules” when it comes to such matters as departmental spending without Legislative Assembly approval.
This is an issue that will receive more scrutiny during the committee’s upcoming hearings on the Auditor General’s Report.
The committee would also reiterate its call for ministers to formally table in the House all policies that are approved by the Executive Council under the signature of the Premier as head of the executive branch of government.
Although the committee is aware that the Government of Nunavut’s policies are made available to the public through such means as posting on the Government of Nunavut’s website, the act of formally tabling such items in the Legislative Assembly in a timely fashion serves to recognize and amplify the principle of the government’s accountability to the legislature.
Indeed, the regular tabling of new and revised GN policies would serve to provide all ministers with the opportunity to make formal statements in the House on the merits of such policies for the benefit of all members and the listening public.
While the committee recognizes and respects the principle of confidentiality as it applies to Cabinet deliberations, its actual decisions should be communicated to this Assembly and MLAs in a more proactive and transparent fashion.
Members have been pleased at Nunavut’s ongoing efforts to work with the Northwest Territories and the Yukon on tri-territorial priorities. All members of this House recognize that the recent change in government at the federal level has caused uncertainty with respect to a number of initiatives that had begun under the previous federal administration, including the important agreement reached at Kelowna last fall.
There are encouraging signals that the new federal government does recognize the unique challenges and opportunities facing Nunavut and the North.
It is incumbent upon our ministers to make well-substantiated cases to Ottawa when it comes to such areas as federal investment in housing.
Mr. Chairman, on December 28, 2005, the GN announced the appointment of a Chief Negotiator for devolution talks with the federal government. The 2006-07 Main Estimates for EIA include a new devolution branch to manage this process.
The proposed budget for this branch is just over $1 million. The standing committee remains firmly supportive of the goal of achieving a devolution agreement with the federal government.
However, it is important that our government come to the bargaining table with credibility and confidence.
The committee is concerned that our negotiating position for a significant transfer of responsibilities will be weakened if we cannot clearly and convincingly demonstrate to Ottawa that we are successfully managing our own affairs.
Frankly, we need to do a better job in addressing the financial management issues that the Auditor General has raised, and into which this standing committee has itself held hearings.
This committee has been told by GN witnesses that there is a climate of “passive non-compliance” on the part of some GN departments and entities when it comes to following the rules and getting things done on time.
EIA has an important role in strengthening departmental compliance and performance. Improvements in this area will go a long way towards supporting our case that we are ready for devolution.
Last year, the committee encouraged the Premier and his Ministerial colleagues to account more frequently and formally to the House on their activities and achievements during the numerous federal/provincial/territorial meetings at which they participate.
While members are aware of the formal communiqués that emanate from such gatherings, the committee stated that our ministers should report back to the House more frequently and openly on their success in advancing Nunavut’s specific priorities at such meetings.
The committee has noted that ministers have been more proactive in recent months with respect to tabling reports on their intergovernmental initiatives and activities. The committee hopes that this practice will continue.
The committee is of the view that the government needs to be significantly more proactive in keeping appropriate members of this House informed of developments with respect to the trans-boundary issues that affect such communities as Arviat and Sanikiluaq.
Members have consistently supported the government’s efforts to impress upon our federal partners the need for funding arrangements that are not based on rigid and inadequate per-capita formulas, but on the real needs of the jurisdiction.
In turn, members have urged the government to be consistent and credible by dealing with the needs of our own communities, schools and other institutions in a manner that is not based solely on population numbers.
The committee looks forward to a productive working relationship between the GN and NTI, while urging the government to be more candid with MLAs concerning the rationale for its own position in areas where the two parties may have honest disagreements on specific matters, such as certain issues related to the development of regulations under the Wildlife Act.
The committee is aware that Justice Thomas Berger’s Interim Report as Conciliator for the NLCA Implementation Contract negotiations was completed in August of last year. The committee would wish to see this document and the final report formally tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
The GN’s obligations with respect to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act are coordinated by the department. The committee recognizes that a degree of progress has been made to the Act on recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the committee itself.
The committee also notes that the government continues to work on developing a “privacy impact assessment process” for GN departments and public bodies.
In the past, the committee has taken issue with the government for paying only rhetorical tribute to the values of transparency and accountability.
For a number of years, members have called on the government to be more transparent in a number of areas, and I am pleased to say that there has been progress.  We are pleased to see that annual reports on the GN’s contracting and leasing activities are now being tabled on a regular basis.
The committee looks forward to the government also routinely tabling such information as salary ranges and bonuses that are paid to officials, as well as travel and hospitality reports, in addition to detailed government-wide reporting on grants and contributions spending.
As the committee has pointed out before, the bottom line is this: the public has a right to know, in detail, where its dollars are being spent.
Making detailed information public on a routine basis also serves as a powerful deterrent against wasteful spending and abuse of process.
Mr. Chairman, one of our collective goals announced at the 2004 Arviat Caucus Retreat was to explore overarching legislation to govern the accountability of public bodies across the territory.
Issues of transparency and disclosure need to be a part of this initiative, which should be led by EIA.
An important issue that needs to be addressed is a system for the registration of lobbyists.
In a number of Canadian jurisdictions, the government has enacted legislation to regulate the registration of paid lobbyists.