EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
How they practice is outside of the jurisdiction of the Nunavut Government. We have to appoint judges who will practice in Nunavut and we appoint alternate judges who will work here as and when.
Only the federal government can make an appointment for a permanent judge to work up here. So it’s up to us to keep lobbying our federal counterparts. The federal government is just as concerned as we are about the low number of judges we have up here.
Question 145 – 2(4): Funding to Build the Qikiqtarjuaq School (Arreak)
The other day the federal government approved their budget and in their budget there was money set aside for infrastructure.
In Qikiqtarjuaq, the Qikiqtarjuaq School has been in the plan for quite some time now.
Is it possible to build that Qikiqtarjuaq School before 2010?
The member has raised the issue of the Qikiqtarjuaq School on several occasions and we actually had a motion in the House.
The money is expected to flow from the new federal budget in May and June.
At that time, the Financial Management Board will have an opportunity to review the new monies that are coming forward for the Government of Nunavut.
The infrastructure monies that the member is talking about are not monies that we are able to access to build new schools in Nunavut.
However, the monies that have been identified by the federal government, which is new revenue for the Government of Nunavut, there may be an opportunity to look at that to see what we can do within the framework of the capital budget. But again, that would have to go through the Financial Management Board for that decision.
So does that mean I can look forward to getting a new school prior to 2010, and are we going to be seeing that Qikiqtarjuaq plan in May or June?
As I said earlier those extra new monies that are coming forward have not been identified in our budget because we did not know up until last week what the amounts would be from the federal government.
So, there has been no allocation made to those funds.
What I am suggesting to the member is that allocation may be O&M money, for example in the programs and services.
Or some may be put into a capital program and that’s the decision that has to occur in sometime in May with the Financial Management Board.
I think the members realize that there are some serious issues with the education facility in Qikiqtarjuaq and that would be one of the priorities that we would have to look at. But again, that decision hasn’t been made yet.
Question 146 – 2(4): Hans Island Sovereignty (Barnabas)
The Canadian and Danish Governments and other governments have talked about one of my communities: Hans Island. I want to ask the Premier what is happening in regard to Hans Island sovereignty.
We are not included in the dispute between those governments in regard to Hans Island.
I know that Nunavummiut have to be protected as well but this is outside of our jurisdiction and we would like to be able to help the federal government to see what kinds of help that we can provide them with.
The people of Qaanaaq and Greenland have always occupied some land in my community. The Vikings have been coming around for some time.
Now there is a border, they are having a dispute over Hans Island and we are saying that the clock is ticking.
What is going to happen if one of those countries or government thinks that Hans Island belongs to them?
I can’t really respond to that question because the federal government is involved in that dispute. If we can help them for the protection of our waters, we will do anything to help them out.
The geological survey of Denmark and Canada has said that they have been dealing with this for some time just to find out where the border lies.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Government of Nunavut and the federal government, are they going to be involved when they are doing the geological survey?
We have not been asked to be involved with that geological survey but if we were asked, we would be willing to be involved.
Question 147 – 2(4): Cambridge Bay Airport Upgrade (Peterson)
My hamlet council has told me that the Cambridge Bay airport is a priority to them and the Kitikmeot. In fact, the Kitikmeot mayors have supported the Hamlet Council of Cambridge Bay to get that airport upgraded.
It is an unsafe airport and operated under a term called ‘Deviation from Standard’.
That is fuzzy wording for an unsuitable airport for certain aircraft.
I raised this issue in the House before.
My question for the minister is can he tell me when the Government of Nunavut will upgrade the Cambridge Bay airport?
We have to ask for funding from the federal government in order to upgrade through the Airport Capital Assistance Program in Nunavut.
We asked for funding to do upgrades on the Cambridge Bay airport but we did not receive any funding. We will have to try to get some more funding from the federal government in order to upgrade that airport in Cambridge Bay.
I understand that an Airport Capital Assistance Program proposal was developed and submitted to the federal government. I believe it was limited to widening the runway.
I wonder if the minister could share some information with me today and tell me what information the new ACAP proposal will contain that will give the new application a greater chance to be approved by the federal government department that’s responsible for ACAP.
We are compiling a new request that we will be giving to the federal government to upgrade the airport in Cambridge Bay.
I expect that the request will be given to the federal government in October to try to get some money for ACAP to widen the airstrip in Cambridge Bay.
At this time what we’re doing is we’re putting a proposal together, like the member said, to widen, or to make the airport longer.
I certainly hope that application is successful this time around.
Can the minister tell me if his department has made the Cambridge Bay Airport their number one priority to access funds through the ACAP program in 2007?
Like I said, we’ll be putting in a proposal and we will hear from the federal government in October of 2007 regarding the airport in Cambridge Bay.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister again for that answer.
It might be worthwhile for the minister to visit the Hamlet of Cambridge Bay and speak to the Hamlet Councillors and the Mayor. He could also ask the Kitikmeot Mayors about the Cambridge Bay Airport.
So I’d like to ask the minister: will the minister commit to meet with the Cambridge Bay Hamlet Council before the spring sitting and discuss their concerns about the Cambridge Bay Airport, and outline the department’s plan is to upgrade the airport?
I can’t commit to going to Cambridge Bay before the May session, but I know that I will be going to Cambridge Bay in June. I will be more than happy to meet with the hamlet council and the mayors at that time in June.
Question 148 – 2(4): KDBC Contribution Agreement (Tootoo)
It is dealing with contribution agreements that it has in general, but particularly, I’m looking at the one that they have with KBDC.
When the department enters into a contribution agreement with any organization, I understand that there is a Schedule A that outlines what the funding is going to be used for.
My question for the minister is, and my understanding of the agreement is, if there’s any change, or deviation from what was outlined in Schedule A, that written permission has to be sought and received from the department for any change.
I am just wondering if he could indicate if they do require written permission to deviate from the numbers that are outlined in Schedule A of the contribution agreement.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Minister for Economic Development and Transportation, Minister Simailak.
Yes, our staff is working on that right now to see whether that is the case. We have not had any response as yet.
Now, that the member tells me that, we will be looking at the agreement.
I have had my staff look into this agreement at this time but we don’t have any response on it right now.
As I indicated if you go over what’s outlined in Schedule A, I believe a written request for permission is required. In the event when they review the audited financial statements from the organizations and if there is a surplus that they haven’t used the funding in the areas that’s outlined, would that be something that is collected back by the department?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I have not heard whether that’s the case, whether the money that is not used goes back to the Department or not.
I just ask because I know in some areas comparing the contribution agreement to the audited financial statements, some areas are over considerably.
And so, I’m just wondering if you look at the wages and benefits, for example, for the 2005-06 year that’s in the contribution agreement, they have $178,000 and in their audited statements it’s about $196,000.
Also, if you are looking at the numbers according to the contribution agreements, compared to the audited statements, if you look at some of the categories you know, they spent barely over half of the funding on what it’s supposed to be spent on.
So I guess in cases like that is there a requirement for them to, if they look at it, and see no we didn’t spend it on where we were given permission to spend it on, therefore like in any other cases they’d have to reimburse the government for that funding.
Like I said, I have not had that information as yet or whether they should return the remaining funds.
I will look into that for the member and I will find out what happens to the money that is a surplus and I’ll get my staff to get on that as soon as they can.
The only one I really had a chance to have a good look at was the 2005-06 contribution agreement, where for example it outlines the board of directors for $11,000 and according to their audited financial statements, they only spent half of that.
Same thing with the rent and insurance; it didn’t cost them, according to their financial statements, as much as they budgeted.
Also, their legal fees, where they had indicated they were approved for $75,000 and they only spent $30,000.
So, they are not spending the money where their proposal was approved.
Like in any case if any other business applied for a grant or contribution, they have to account for that. If they don’t spend that money in that area they have to be given back to the government. So I’d like to just ask the minister if he could particularly look in those cases where there are under expenditures according to some of the contribution agreements to the audited financial statements that have occurred.
These are old, and sometimes it’s impossible to get some information but in regard to your question, I will look in the discrepancies and look into the funds that they expended.
Question 149 – 2(4): Program Funding for Health Care Professionals (Curley)
I have a question for the Minister of Education. Nunavut has a serious shortage of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals.
The federal budget that was tabled contained a pot, which says in part, we will work with the provinces and territories to increase the numbers of, and expand the educational programs for doctors, nurses and other health professionals.
The minister, during his presentation, did not appear to be perked up about this clause and I wanted to ask the minister why he did not announce whether or exactly how he intends to work with the minister or the federal government to increase and expand the numbers of, particular the Nursing Program probably would be eligible for this amount.
The minister failed to indicate any kind of action. Now, the federal budget has been approved.
I would like to ask the minister exactly what you intend to do about this offer.
It is a first that the federal government is going to make an offer to help us with our education programs.
We know, and Mr. Kaludjak, is here today that the major focus with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s suit with the federal government is the training programs that they have to fund.
I guess a quick answer to the member’s question is when the federal government identifies extra dollars available; they don’t actually mean to start training programs in Nunavut.
They identify seats in most cases, for example, for medical schools where they actually allocate seats for doctors programs. When we approached the federal government in the past for money, for example to help sponsor a nursing program, the answer was actually no.
As I said earlier in answer to a question on the federal budget, the budget was approved yesterday in the House of Commons.
Our work now is to look at what parameters within that federal budget may mean extra dollars for Nunavut in specific program areas and that is what we will be doing over the coming days.
The money from the federal government will not be flowing probably until sometime in April and late May.
Our government may not have had concrete offers to increase the numbers and expand educational programs for Nunavut, nurses or doctors or other health care professionals.
But this is the statement that the budget contains that they are willing to work with the provinces and territories. So will the minister table his plan of action when we reconvene again in May about this particular offer?
Again, once the federal budget has been approved and now it has been approved, now we will be able to look at what type of dollar values will be available for Nunavummiut, which includes a whole range of program specific areas in that budget; one of them being training opportunities.
So yes we will be looking at those opportunities within the federal budgets and be able to move forward with it.
I’d like to thank the minister for his intention to consult with the federal government.
I would like to remind the minister that, as stated earlier, we do have a very serious shortage of nurses and doctors and other health care professionals.
We can use a concrete example. We have a brand new hospital in Rankin Inlet or healthcare centre. It has no doctors and has a shortage of nurses and other health care professionals.
Will you use that as an example?
This qualifies for an additional expansion of services or educational programs. So the federal government is leaving it to the minister to put the dollar amount. A good example is Rankin Inlet.
The member is being a little disingenuous when he says when the federal government is leaving it to me to decide.
I tried to get $1 million a year for the nursing program in the past. Mr. Kaludjak and NTI are going forward with a billion dollar lawsuit on training. Again the devil is in the details, as it were.
We know that there has been a money announcement in the federal budget. We want to see what that means.
I think it is important to point out that for every $1 billion the federal government is bringing forward in programs; it is on a per capita basis. That means out of every $1 billion, the Government of Nunavut gets about $750,000.
So when you look at those pictures of dollar values, I don’t want to get Nunavummiuts’ expectations up that somehow there’s a pot of gold at the end of that federal government rainbow for training dollars.
We will have an opportunity to look at what is available and where there are monies available for Nunavummiut we will be aggressively proceeding to access those monies, for example, under the Aboriginal Employment Skills Programs and under the Labour Market Development Agreement that they have in place.
I thank the minister for stating clearly why he has failed to acquire additional federal dollars. I think this time you have to go with a little more optimism. The fact we do have a case like Rankin Inlet with a brand new hospital, a shortage of doctors, no place for staff to stay as housing is a problem.
I believe that when the federal government says that we will work with the provinces and territories to increase the numbers, they are leaving the responsibility of identifying what you need in the hands of our own government.
I would like to ask the minister if he has a concrete case that due to the shortage of nurses and so on, the hospital in Rankin Inlet has not opened.
Will you use that as an example when you communicate with the Minister of Finance in Ottawa?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I always thought I was pretty persuasive in my arguments with our federal partners...I had a chance in the last... Thank you for your acknowledgement and support, Mr. Curley.
What I am trying to say is the Government of Nunavut has been aggressively pursuing, on different fronts, with the Premier leading the way with the Prime Minister, where access to opportunities for training dollars are available to make that case.
I believe there is a strong case to be made for the health centre in Rankin Inlet. Of course, that would be one of the areas we will be pursuing.
Written Question 004 – 2(4): Environmental Contaminants (Barnabas)
My Written Question is to the Minister of Environment, titled Environment Contaminants.
Pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, the Department of Environment has the responsibility to identify and prevent potential threats of environmental contamination.
What steps have been taken, either under the Act or through other departmental initiatives, to monitor the levels of mercury in Nunavut wildlife?
How is the Department of Environment involved in determining the extent to which the Nunavut environment is subject to damage from such energy-producing technologies as hydroelectric power?
What tools are in place for Wildlife Officers, or other officials of the Department of Environment, to inform the public in circumstances where levels of environmental contaminants, such as mercury, are found to be rising?
Written Question 005 – 2(4): Supplemental Costs of Staffing HSS Positions with Non-Certified Nurses (Tootoo)
My Written Question is for the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services and it deals with the supplemental costs of staffing Health and Social Services positions with non-certified nurses.
What were the total supplemental costs of hiring additional nursing staff as support for the International Nurses recruited by Trillium Consulting and subsequently employed by the Department of Health and Social Services who were unable to practice independently before they had successfully passed the Canadian Registered Nurses Exam?
Please bring the Written Questions up to the officers.
Reports of Standing and Special Committee.
Tabled Document 070 – 2(4): Electoral Boundaries Commission Report – Letter of Support for Recommendations from Hamlet of Kugluktuk (Evyagotailak)
I would like to table this letter from the Mayor of Kugluktuk providing information from the Mayor on what was talked about in Kugluktuk.
Tabled Document 071 – 2(4): Inuit Language Protection Bill (draft) (Tapardjuk)
Tabled Document 072 – 2(4): Official Languages Bill (draft) (Tapardjuk)
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my Ministers’ Statement, it is my pleasure to table the proposed Nunavut Official Languages Bill and the proposed Inuit Language Protection Bill for public consultation.
Please bring forward the document to the table.
Tabled Document 073 – 2(4): Enokhok Centre, Cambridge Bay Lease Information: Site Inspection 2005, Building Envelope Assessment 2007, Yardsticks for Costing (Brown)
I am pleased to table the following document in regard to Cambridge Bay lease negotiations information.
Please provide the tabled document to the officers.
Tabled Document 074 – 2(4): Utility Rates Review Council of Nunavut - Rules of Procedure and Practice and Rate Setting Guidelines March 2007 (Okalik)
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I wish to table Utility Rates Review Council of Nunavut’s Rules and Procedures and Practice and the Rate Setting Guidelines. Under section 6(4) of the Utility Rate Review Council Act, as Minister responsible I am required to table these documents at the earliest opportunity when they have been formally adopted by our Executive Council and I hope that they will help all constituents in fulfilling their part during debates for setting rates.
Please bring the documents to the officers.
I’d like to seek unanimous consent to deal with Motion 011 – 2(4).
Mr. Tootoo is asking unanimous consent to deal with Motion 011 – 2(4).
Motion 011 – 2(4): Censure of the Executive Council (Tootoo)
WHEREAS the Government of Nunavut’s 2005-06 Annual Lease Activity Report, which has been tabled in the Legislative Assembly, reveals the single most expensive commercial lease held to date in the Government’s portfolio has been Lease Number LS-410-1115;
AND WHEREAS this lease was originally awarded on a sole-source basis;
AND WHEREAS the start date of this lease was February 1, 1987;
AND WHEREAS the annual value of this lease has been $1,120,248.12;
AND WHEREAS the expiry date of this lease was February 1, 2006;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Nunavut had ample opportunity to undertake a public process and issue a Request for Proposals with which to determine the availability of alternate office space in the community in question;
AND WHEREAS the Members of the Executive Council of Nunavut, in their capacities as members of the committee of the Executive Council called the Financial Management Board, made a decision not to pursue such a process;
AND WHEREAS this action is inconsistent with our shared commitment to a transparent and accountable government;
Members, before we proceed, I would like to state that any member has the right to speak to the motion for up to 20 minutes and the mover is the first to speak to the motion.
The mover has the opportunity to be the last one to speak to the motion.
This motion comes as a result of frustration on behalf of the regular members and their disappointment with the way that this particular lease was handled.
I know myself and other members were under the belief that after raising the issue in April and May, 2005, that different alternatives would have been looked at.
The government has come back since then and said that now we don’t have a choice, that this is the best deal we could get.
If they didn’t go through a public process there is no way of knowing if this was the best deal or not. We want to develop the economy but doing these sole-source type deals definitely doesn’t give anyone else an opportunity to be able to participate in any opportunities.
We all recognize that now we are trapped in this situation. This motion reflects our dissatisfaction with Cabinet and Financial Management Board on the handling of this issue.
It appears that, based on their documents, we have already paid close to $24 million for this building that is 20 years old and now we are looking at probably another $15 million to $20 million over the term of the lease. By then, it is going to be a 40 year old building.
I understand that even yesterday the building was evacuated for health reasons, or something. I’m not sure why. I don’t even know if they are back in the building yet.
This is a 20 year old building that we have paid a lot for already and the fact that they didn’t even try as they had indicated and we were under the belief that they would, after raising this issue two years ago, that they didn’t go to a public process and they just went with a sole-sourced negotiated lease.
That is why we are bringing forward this motion.
I am the seconder of the motion.
I want to reassure you and all my colleagues I didn’t make that decision lightly.
The Government of Nunavut and all the Members of the Legislative Assembly made a commitment in 2004 to operate in an open and accountable, fair and transparent manner. To me, that includes providing information to MLAs, Regular Members on this side of the House, who are the voices and eyes of Nunavummiut.
The issue with the lease shows that the Executive Council does not always believe in what they said in 2004, and what they all agreed to.
Although I wasn’t an MLA in the First Assembly, I have read documents from the First Assembly. There was a document from the Auditor General of Canada in 2001 that recommended that the Government of Nunavut to implement a stronger leasing policy.