EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
As Mr. Picco pointed out, any motion that is brought forward, we get to vote on it just like we are right now in this process under these items in the House.
If the majority of the members feel that they do not want it to go back right into the Committee of the Whole, then the members can vote on it defeat that motion.
That is one step of democratic process that would follow, after such a motion was brought forward.
The other step, as Mr. Picco pointed out, is once that Bill has been moved into the Committee of the Whole, all members, whether a Minister or a regular member, have the opportunity to question, make amendments, or changes in Committee of the Whole.
There is another opportunity for debate on it.
That debate is from the first Assembly can go on for some time on any Bill.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that when the word, sponsor of a Bill, it does not automatically mean that the sponsor of a Bill is a Minister.
There is such a thing called private member’s Bill that could be brought in by any member.
If it is being ignored that allows a formal mechanism to bring that to the next stage in the legislative process, as I outlined in my report yesterday so that all members would have an opportunity to debate it.
For these reasons, I think the rules committee did everything they can to look at everything.
This was an issue in the first Assembly, which is why this amendment is coming forward now as the rules committee report, and the first assembly never had the chance to get tabled and brought forward and dealt with, prior to dissolution of the first assembly.
This is not something new, this is something that has been looked and researched, and brought forward.
This was the easiest and the most common sense way of getting around that, to accommodate both the views of the government and the sponsor of the Bill, whether it be a Minister, private member, and also the democratic rights of the Committee and the regular members, be able voice their concerns and vote on things.
It is not taking away anyone’s rights; there are still opportunities at a number of stages after that for all members to be able to debate it.
Given all of that, I have not been able to understand of how this could be considered a closure motion.  So for those reasons, I ask all Members not to support the amendment.
As seconder to this motion, I, too, want to comment on the proposed amendment.
First of all, I would like to say that I am not in support of the proposed amendment to the motion.
In the past, I think one has to understand clearly that Bills have been dealt with at Standing Committee where the Standing Committee was at a standstill on a particular Bill.
And in one particular instance that I am aware of, a Standing Committee reviewed a piece of legislation for over one year, and this Motion allows us to continue with the democratic process of dealing with legislation, and allows the sponsoring Minister or individual to move that Bill into Committee of the Whole so everyone in this House can debate a legislation proposed Bill.
So in the past when there’s no consensus with Standing Committee members, we have allowed many extensions to deal with a Bill; again, not coming to a conclusion.
This amendment will allow us to deal with Bills in the House to keep the process rolling and a concern that we have had in the past with this government is that we need to be able to govern and when committee members are not able to agree to a proposed Bill or what not, this allows the need for the entire House and all nineteen Members to debate a Bill.
So I am in support of it; I don’t look at it as a closure rule, I look at it as an opportunity to involve everyone in the House to debate it.
So I am not in support of the proposed amendment.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. To the amendment.
You were given an opportunity to voice your opinions at one time. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to have a recorded vote.
Speaker (interpretation): I have no other names on my list.
The mover has stated that he would like to have a recorded vote.
All those in favour of the amendment please rise.
All those opposed please rise.
Ms. Aglukkaq  Ms. Brown
All those abstaining please rise.
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. Kattuk. Mr. Kilabuk. The amendment is defeated.
We will now deal with the motion.
I apologizes.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate something that was mentioned yesterday in my report of the Rules Committee in the House in relation to this motion.
As I had indicated earlier, and I’ll read from my statement yesterday, that during the first assembly, concerns arose with respect to the issue of the status of bills following the referral of the standing committee.
At present the rules are ambiguous with respect to how to advance a Bill to the next stage of the legislative process in the event that the standing committee does not report back within a 120 day period, provided for in the rules for the committee’s scrutiny of the Bill.
The proposed amendment to the rule would provide a formal mechanism to advance a Bill to the next stage in the event that a motion to extend the review period was not passed.
It is also important to note that a motion to move a Bill into Committee of the Whole would itself be voted upon by all members of this house and the end result would be a clear indication as to the will of the house with respect to a given legislative initiative.
So, with that Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all Members that there is no intent for closure with this motion and ask all Members to support it and I would also like to see a recorded vote on this one.
I would like to make it quite clear to the voters in Nunavut that closure is a procedure where the government unilaterally decides that certain public hearings that would have been carried out after 120 days, if there has been no motions in the Committee of the Whole, in this house, have not been requested or by the committee studying a particular bill, then conceivably, after 120 days, 4 months, any Minister or the government’s sponsor of a Bill without notice.
That means no notice of motion will now be given to introduce a motion to quit fooling around with public hearings. 120 days have passed, no motion to extend the hearings, conceivably the Minister could introduce a motion to begin bringing back to the Committee of the Whole.
It means no more consultations held throughout communities in my riding or any other riding.
I’m amazed that there was a reference to the fact that I made a reference on the need to do more research by the Member from Iqaluit East.
I did request the committee staff do more research.
Why they didn’t do so is beyond me.
A committee chairman about a month, this was the first time it was ever brought in was about a month ago, through the winter session, a month and a half ago, and I did immediately comment that there should be further research and consultation with other rules of the house through the democratic society, their parliamentary systems in Canada but no one took it upon themselves.
I’m not some left wing individual, and I’m supporting a procedure which would the groups in the public who have less fortunate ability to write a proposal to the committee within a time line, four months, 120 days, unless there had been an extension.
Now we have a rule that gives the crown, the cabinet, the opportunity to say, the Bill may without notice under the item motion move that the Bill be ordered into the Committee of the Whole after 120 calendar days have passed.
Sure, some of the omnibus Bills should be studied three or four months, even if it takes a year, as long as there are consultations, we have a pretty diverse population in this part of the Territory.
Not only bilingual Inuit, we also need unilingual translators to proceed with all kinds of studies.
It may be fine to give the Cabinet the Bill without notice, a motion could be introduced.
Well, it may be the greatest right the government could be given for further opportunity to do that.
To me, it restricts the time a public hearing can be held.
I’m amazed that with a legislature that is suppose to respect all kinds of views of our diverse population, is now asking, they may deny it, for a closure rule, a formalized closure rule.
It’s now in the motion after four months, and no motions have been introduced in the Committee of the Whole to extend the hearing.
The Bill may, without notice, under the item motion be moved.
Amazing, I thought we could only do that during the Committee of the Whole procedure, so, Mr. Speaker I do support the recorded vote on this motion.
I have no more names on my list and so I ask the mover of motion to speak last.
I too am amazed at the fact that for some reason, my colleague can’t seem to get his head around or understand or see that this isn’t the closure motion.
I know some things that my honourable colleague, who’s had some laughing gas, has also not mentioned in his comments the fact is when a Bill is sent to the committee, they have a 120 days to review it.
Prior to any sitting, if an extension is required, there’s always a full caucus meeting, and that is something that is on the agenda if an extension will be required.
Every time, during the first Assembly, when an extension had been requested, again through formal motion in the House where you get to vote on it, again another democratic process that all members get to vote on and speak to, it has been allowed, I don’t believe that it’s in the best interest of any sponsor of a bill, whether again as my colleague pointed out his always referring to as just a cabinet Member or the crown or the government, there are also the possibilities in the avenues for private member’s bills to come into the house as well, and that’s also something.
It’s for all Bills, whether it is a private Member’s Bill or a government bill.
It doesn’t give any sponsor of any bill, or any government any unilaterally, decision to close debate on it, without notice, like I said, there’s a full caucus meeting before every session and during the request for extension, if required.
Usually an extension is asked for, there is some grounds for the chair of that committee will point out the rationale as to why they need the extension and it’ll be brought forward then.
Just by asking for an extension and voting on it here in the House, they can’t do that.
Where the Member gets this idea, the only way no matter what, the government can do this, is simply inaccurate.
He says that one Member can do this, one Member here in this case.
He raised these concerns, as I identified in my report to the Rules Committee, that it wasn’t a unanimous decision, but it was a decision that was voted on and agreed to by the committee.
Just like we vote on and agree things here in this House.
Sometimes you agree with it and sometimes you don’t, but if the majority that passes then you go along with that.
Also it says it doesn’t eliminate the opportunity to do any public hearings.
A lot of time in vast territory that we live in due to the weather changing and quickly, we have had public hearings that were scheduled for certain communities on different tours; we did tours on the Elections Act; there were tours on the Education Act; there was a number of community consultations on tourism, on the Wildlife Act, there was a lot.
None of those were cut off.
Some of them, there were delays because of weather.
In no way shape or form, allowing any sponsor or Bill to cut off a committee’s right to hold public consultations in the member’s community; in any members’ community.
The Committee has the right to do that, and if there are legitimate grounds for delays, then normally there would be no problem to having that brought forward.
If the majority of the committee and the members thought that the government was going to invoke this and bring forward a motion and they didn’t support it, they have every right to vote it down and continue with the consultation process, or whatever process it does in reviewing and scrutinizing the Bill that is before the committee.
I think that there were some misconceptions that were stated.
I just want to make it very clear to all the voters in Nunavut, as my colleague had indicated, that this is not something in any way shape or form, would bring any opportunity of closure by the government, or any sponsor of the Bill, to hear what the people have to say on it.
For all those in favour of the motion, please rise:
All those opposed to the motion, please rise:
All those abstained, please rise:
Returning to the Orders of the Day. Item 17.
Consideration in the Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters: Tabled Document 100-2(2); Tabled Document 101-2(2); Tabled Document 102-2(2); Bills 16 and 17, with Mr. Evyagotailak on the chair.
We will take a short break for 20 minutes.
>>House recessed at 16:05 and resumed at 16:39
Chairman (Mr. Evyagotailak): Minister Kilabuk, can you kindly introduce your witnesses for the record?
Yes, they appeared before the Committee here with me; to my immediate left, Mr. Tom Rich, my Deputy Minister; to my immediate right, Mr. Chris Clark, our Director, they will be with me today.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kilabuk, Mr. Rich, Mr. Clark, welcome.
Do Members have any questions to Tabled Document 100-2(2), Nunavut Leased Properties.
I would like to ask, in 2005, it states that the lease will expire.
I would just like to ask, it states that the lease term will expire in 2011.
If the lease expires that year, will it be tendered out again?
The lease in Coral Harbour will be up for review, perhaps in five or seven years’ time.
That review is approaching soon again and we will find out what decisions will be made and whether it will be tendered out again or not.
The buildings that the housing corporation are leasing will be reviewed again?
My colleague from Arviat asked the same question and I had responded that once we find out all the information, I will be able to give you a definite answer.
Mr. Netser.  Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don’t have anything else at this time.
Does the committee agree that we have concluded debate on Tabled Document 100-2(2), Government of Nunavut Leased Properties. Are we in agreement?
Finally. Members, we can now go to 101-2(2) and also 102-2(2).
Tabled Document 101-2(2) and Tabled Document 102-2(2), Annual Contracts Data Report.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, one time they had indicated to me that I had been Out of Order, so I would like to get a response, please.
Chairman: Okay, ask your question to the Minister and staff.
Mr. Curley: I just want to make an introductory comment before I go through other details.
I was overwhelmed with the amount or size or number of the sole sourced contracts.
The policy appears to be quite formal that anything over $25 thousand must go through either one of the public open tender process, but one of the sole sourced contracts was $700 thousand for something that has to do with a digital service, health-related contract, I think, to some hospitals.
It’s amazing that with those amount of dollars that the government spends as well as all of the consulting dollars that the government spends, a whole slew of them are sole source contracted to individuals where there appears to be a variety of competition out there for providing various services.
Is it pretty much the government partnering with the independent consultants through their work rather than building specialized units in the government for various works that the government needs?
The reason I am saying that in that fashion is that I am not 100 percent sure of whether the government is really diligent in carefully managing finances, and therefore, it doesn’t really rely on getting the best value for the dollar with the limited amount of dollars that we have.
So I would like to ask the Minister and his officials why you have to go through sole sourced contracts sometimes doubled, tripled, and in many respects, a tremendous amount of sole sourced dollars leased by contracts to go through the sole sourced arrangement.
I read the policy and the policy appears to be quite clear that any contract that would exceed $25 thousand would go through that provision of public tender process.
So could the Minister maybe state why so many are going through that, although many of them are within the other departments, but surely the contracting policy is administered by one main department.
And if the Minister could answer then, I would like his deputy minister to comment as well.
Before the Minister answers your question, I would like to thank Mr. Clark for answering questions over the three days that we are dealing with the other document; and Mr. Minister, I would like you to introduce your new witness for the record.
He is not a stranger at all; Mr. Mike Rafter.
I would like to thank Mr. Chris Clark for being here.
Chairman: Mr. Clark, I am sorry, Mr. Rafter, is that how you say your name?
Welcome to the committee meeting.
The question that my colleague just asked in regards to sole sourced contracts.
I would like to reiterate how many sole sourced contracts have been awarded, in terms of percentage, and the dollar amounts.
The contracts have been awarded based on priority and those are the sole sourced contracts that are given out and following this is 13 percent to the sole sourced contracts.
According to their money, it starts at 28 percent.
They do have a policy, as I had indicated earlier, these are defined if its on an emergency case, then should it involve the public’s safety, that sole contractor is allowed to come into an agreement, whether type of work that they have to do, if it is under $25,000.
Mr. Curley: I thank you for the summary, Mr. Minister.
I am still not 100 percent sure why so many dollars that are being sole sourced.
In spite of that, could there be more of an attempt made to go through the public tender process, if not maybe the Minister can give a case by case sort of an approach process, as far as the process is concerned.
Obviously the contracting managers would have an idea whether to go through one of the motions of the contracting process policy for service that are required by the government.
If they choose to go through a half a million dollar worth of service they have to decide that.
What constitutes, timeframe-wise, what is urgent.
What amount of time is considered urgent and what isn’t.
What would allow you to go through the public tender process in what amount of time?
Could you maybe explain to us how these are managed?
The summary that I gave him to his specific question; I will let Mr. Rich elaborate more on this.
As the Minister mentioned, we have three criteria that we follow.
Every sole sourced contract is to have a justification filled out for the reasons for it and how it fits in within those reasons that the Minister identified.
The two principle ones that we are looking at are the issue of it being an emergency and the second one is that only one person or company capable of doing the work.
It requires deputy minister approval.
It is not something that can be signed off, simply, by staff.
Many of the sole sourced contracts are emergencies because they affect the Hamlet life or safety directly.
A good example would be if a water supply breaks down and the Hamlet is in danger of not having any water supply, you need to get repairs done immediately.
We had one of those, for instance, this winter, so one simply does not have time to follow a three or four week tendering period.
One has to immediately get someone in there to do the repairs.
Another issue that we run into, unfortunately, from time to time in Nunavut, is issues that arise and need to be dealt with, we have a sealift date that is immovable.
We have to do the tendering, the tender is not sufficient time to do the tendering for an issue that has arisen.
We do find at times in working with the department that they’re not as good as they should be on preplanning, so we’ve been working very diligently with the departments to make sure that there is forward planning so that we don’t back into those unfortunate times periods where there’s a sealift deadline, where it could have been avoidable.
The other issues we have is, a very specific expertise is required in where it’s well known that’s there’s only place where that expertise can be found.
We have taken steps, over the past year, to do two things with the departments, to reinforce the fact that they should only be using sole source contracts in exceptional circumstances.
One is, we’ve been doing more training for staff in the department on the contract regulations.
The other is, we are in the process of updating the contracting manual and guidelines to make sure that they’re clear for all departments, so that there is a very clear rule for sole source contracting.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, more on the general side.
Looking through the number of contracts out, that were released to the consultants, the information that we have.
I note that there are quite a few, for instance, that didn’t appear to be specialized, related to sporting events, or even sporting contracts that sometimes double the amount, double the $25,000.
Why is it that few doesn’t appear to be an emergency related, why go through the contract that seem to have a whole lot of competition out there for providing that kind of sport related contract?
You may not be specializing in that area, I know that other departments are.
Obviously they’re not under your domain, but can someone explain to us as to why go through sole source arrangements on those kinds of stuff.
In all of the cases that I’m familiar with, it’s been a combination of very specific expertise that’s required, and time, that there is a time frame on a report that needs to be done or a time frame on an application that needs to be developed.
We have someone with a particular expertise and available to do the job, and the decision is made by the deputy involved that it’s warranted to do a sole source contract.
Again, we try to avoid that where it’s possible, where it’s possible to do a tender or a request for a proposal.
But there are times where combination of areas where a specific expertise and timeliness makes a sole source contract warranted.
One area I’d like to touch on, concerns how much the government pays to advertise all of its tenders and RFP’s.
(Interpretation) I wonder if it’s in the same document here, I just want to get an indication on that before I proceed.
Chairman Thank you Mr. Netser.
I apologize, I didn’t get his question.
I’ll let my deputy respond to that.
If I understand the question correctly, it was what is the amount of funds are allocated to advertising contract and tenders.
That does not come under a single source.
Many of them are done by individual departments, the tendering is done, so we don’t have a single line item that I can give you on that particular cost.
We do have a Standing Offer Agreement for advertising and that’s in place with a communications company for newspaper advertising and some of it comes under that.
I don’t know if we have the contract dollar amount for that particular contract here with us, I don’t think we do.
Standing offers is there isn’t a single amount it would be every time the advertising is done, so I can’t give you a single amount for that.
When we were dealing with the Office Chief Electoral Officer when she was meeting with us in Committee of the Whole, she mentioned that $80 thousand had been paid from her office.
When we were dealing with the Office of the Languages Commissioner, there was an expensive newspaper advertisement, it was stated that the government had spent huge amounts of dollars when it was placed in the newspaper and they didn’t know how much money was being spent by the government.
I would now like to ask this (interpretation ends) when the government calls for a tender, and it’s translated in Inuktitut and English, and we all know how much government pays on advertisements, have you ever received any unilingual tenders that can’t fill out a contract form when they are bidding on a job?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rafter.