EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Bill 52 – An Act to Amend the Nunavut Teachers Association Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 52, An Act to Amend the Nunavut Teachers Association Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 52 has been read for the first time.
Bill 57 – Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 57, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and as such, Bill 57 has been read for the first time.
Bill 58 – Public Service Act – First Reading
Hon. Monica Ell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 58, Public Service Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 58 has been read for the first time.
Bill 59 – Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 59, Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 59 has been read for the first time.
Bill 60 – An Act Respecting the Nunavut Law Foundation – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 60, An Act Respecting the Nunavut Law Foundation, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 60 has been read for the first time.
Bills 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, and 56 with Mr. Ningeongan in the Chair.
Before we proceed into the Committee of the Whole, we will break for lunch and report back to start at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 12:04 and Committee resumed at 13:29
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan) (interpretation): Good afternoon, committee members.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, and 56.
Chair of the standing committee, Mr. Rumbolt, do you have any comments?
The committee wishes to continue with the review of the main estimates for Culture and Heritage, followed by the review of the following departments: Environment and the Legislative Assembly.
We would then wish to review the following: Bill 47, Bill 48, Bill 54, Bill 56, Bill 53, and Bill 55, in that order.
Does the committee agree that we continue with Culture and Heritage?
Minister Arreak, please go to the witness table.
Our Sergeant-at-Arms is not here to escort the witnesses in. We will continue from where we left off.
Does the committee agree to bring in Minister Arreak’s witnesses?
For the record, Minister Arreak, please introduce your witness.
On my right is Simon Awa, my deputy minister.
I would like to welcome you and your official.
On Friday, you made your opening comments and so did the chair of the standing committee.
At this time, I’m going to ask the members if they have general comments.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted one of the pages to come here.
I thank the minister and his deputy for being available.
I would like to make general comments regarding your opening remarks, Mr. Minister.
Here in Nunavut, when you’re out hunting far from your community, sometimes you don’t even know the Inuktitut names of the places that you’re going to. A lot of people don’t know the names of the places.
I am happy that there are place names being worked on and being put on maps. This is an ongoing project that is being done by younger people.
A lot of people have wanted to know the Inuktitut names of places. As for myself, it is very helpful for me. There are a lot of place names outside of Pangnirtung that I know of and that is the only thing that I know about Inuit place names.
This is a very good project that the department is doing. When a hunter, especially a young person, or any of us requires assistance, it’s easier to determine your location on the map if you know the place name, not just by using GPS or other locator devices.
I am quite pleased with this initiative and approve similar types of initiatives from your department.
Another issue you spoke about related to Inuit tools, especially traditional tools used by Inuit hunters, or if you are a woman, the intricacies of traditional clothing and seamstress skills. In talking about our Inuit traditional designs, I feel they are threatened due to knock-off replications.
We have already seen some designs copied or stolen. Before any more designs are replicated, we have to ensure that we are copyrighting them. If your department hasn’t already deliberated on this issue, I would urge that this be developed to protect our intellectual property.
In just looking at Inuit names, you can already see boots with the name “Kamik” on the boots. Even our names of certain clothing types are being misappropriated. I am worried that our traditional Inuit designs and methods will become irrelevant if they continue to copy our intellectual property.
This is worrisome in that it can impact our younger people. I am unsure if this will land in the laps of the MLAs elected in our next set of territorial elections, if these issues haven’t been resolved by this department.
This is my last remark on part of your opening comments related to our language.
Although we are seeing more protective measures to strengthen the Inuit language, we mustn’t forget that we have to understand the language used, irrespective of the wording being in Inuktitut or English or any other language, since language is dynamic and changes all the time.
I don’t think we have enough measures to protect our language since our language changes over time and most people will go with the flow linguistically.
This is a good start, including the work done by the Taiguusiliuqtiit committee, the language authority, but we have to remember that practically every community has their own dialect, even those in close proximity to each other.
We all have our dialects and we have to protect our language in all aspects.
This is in relation to the comments made by the minister in his opening comments. My commentary now hasn’t identified any particular solutions, but at the appropriate time, I will have questions on this issue. I will stop here for now.
I have no more names on my list. Please go to page F-4. Culture and Heritage.
Directorate. (interpretation ends) Total Operations and Maintenance. $5,505,000.
Good afternoon, minister and your officials. This issue which I feel can fit into this category of Directorate relates to financial management and corporate services.
I want to start off with this question first, Mr. Chairman. Last week, I raised some questions to the Minister of Finance and he told me at that time that I would have to raise this issue separately for each department regarding financial-related questions I was asking.
With that being the case, I am happy this afternoon as I agreed to request this information separately. I also enjoy querying departmental officials so that I can completely understand the issues.
Let me start off today with the issues I raised regarding travel costs, such as airline travel costs and per diems. Now that I have the opportunity, I want to ask this question.
In this department, under Directorate, it states in the 2013-14 fiscal year, there is a fund listed at $1,259,000 for travel costs, perhaps including accommodation costs.
The English version lists travel and transportation separately, so I have often wondered about the difference between the usages of the terms.
I assume travel costs includes hotel accommodations, so when I refer to this, that is what I mean when I state those terms, travel and transportation.
Can the minister inform me today how much of the $1,259,000 figure is specific for duty travel for his staff?
In our plans for travel and transportation, you can see the separation of these costs on page F-3. I believe that’s what he’s asking about. It’s for the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Committee, the Inuit Language Authority, as well as Department of Culture and Heritage staff.
These funds are specifically for travel costs and hotel costs for all the divisions I mentioned. However, that is the extent of the travel costs which can reach $1,259,000. If travel requirements fall below that amount, that is what we will be spending.
I can’t tell the member exactly how much of this budget will be expended at this time because we haven’t begun to use the funds yet.
In your department, approximately $958,000 was used for travel and transportation in the 2011-12 fiscal year.
Can the minister tell us exactly how much was used for travel, per diems, and other expenses? Can he give us detailed information on that?
I don’t have the information in front of me at this time on the detailed breakdown of money being used for travel and transportation, but we can give you detailed information on that later.
I thank the minister for his response and I will be expecting the detailed information. Another question that I have is in that section. The Minister of Finance told the House that each department must adhere to the FAM directives with regard to travel and transportation.
What does your department do to ensure that the Financial Administration Manual is being followed, especially for staff on duty travel?
We have to be able to make sure that the money we are spending is quite adequate.
Through you, I’ll have my deputy minister respond to that question.
All government employees have to follow the manual when they are on duty travel. They have to follow the Financial Administration Manual.
Also, the minister said that there are quite a few board members, for example, for the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Committee and the Inuit Language Authority.
When they need to travel, they have to follow the manual as it is stated.
There is a travel policy you follow. How do you ensure this travel policy isn’t being abused? What measures or accounting is used to ensure that these policy requirements are being followed properly?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have my deputy respond to that question.
Mr. Awa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Using this as an example, we know that in the government department, if you’re on duty travel, your per diem could go to a certain amount.
In Nunavut, it is a little bit more expensive, but you have a smaller amount as your per diem down south. Those manuals are followed and the per diem rates are determined by location.
Also to return to the committees I referred to earlier, there is a policy outlining the number of days for each meeting as it is tied to their honoraria. The members are required to adhere to this policy, as the honoraria goes with the number of meeting days.
With respect to per diem costs, they follow the government policy on per diem rates based on their travel dates.
I know that all government departments have to follow the manual and the per diem rates.
My question is: how do you know whether or not your employees are following the manual properly?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Employees who are on duty travel are provided with their airline tickets, which they have to keep. They must also keep their receipts for taxis, meals, and hotel bills.
They have to fill out a form upon their return from travel specifically outlining their expenses.
Once they have the form completed, it is signed by their supervisor. The minister also has to sign those forms.
This way, we make sure that these are the amounts of money that are expended by those people who are on duty travel.
Mr. Chairman, I want to raise another question. Over the past five years, within the Department of Culture and Heritage, have there been any concerns about travel costs resulting in his department having to request the Auditor General to audit the expense portions of employees due to suspicions of abuse of the travel costs?
To date, we don’t have a requirement to have any audits on travel costs.
For any employee in the department, what is the absolute amount of days allowed for duty travel or how many days can an employee be on duty travel?
What is the limit?
I will have my deputy minister respond to that question because he works closely with the staff.
I have now been in the Department of Culture and Heritage for about two and a half years, yet I have never been required to place a limitation on an employee’s travel. We’ve never had that occur in this department.
I can’t recall any cases where we’ve had employees transferred to our department requiring any lengthy hotel stays. I have never heard of any such cases to date.
Let me try to reword my question so that it is clearer.
Does your department have a policy that one employee is limited to a set number of days within one calendar year for duty travel to fulfill their job duties?
Within one year, how many days can an employee be on duty travel with associated travel costs?
Do you have such a policy?
The Department of Culture and Heritage doesn’t have a specified policy related to the number of days for travel.
We follow the GN travel policy.
When I raised the issue, the Minister of Finance was unable to provide any answers yesterday.
Perhaps the Minister of Culture and Heritage can tell me this: what does the travel policy dictate as the absolute number of days an employee can remain on duty travel in one year?
As per my previous response, we’re just following government policies.
As the Department of Culture and Heritage, we don’t have a separate policy for this item.
As I stated earlier, I’ve never had to initiate any investigations into financial misappropriation of the funds.
This is due to the reason that if any departmental employees are required to go on duty travel to attend meetings or workshops, their travel usually doesn’t extend into multiple weeks.
The only extended travel period we see are for courses that take several weeks, such as our employees who may be on educational leave.
Most of the daily operational travel requirements are usually not for long periods of time.
Having just heard that the government has an overarching travel policy, I now understand that to be the case.
I also fully understand that each department doesn’t have their own travel policy, in particular, the Department of Culture and Heritage, who uses the GN policy.
My question is this: how many days are allocated for an employee to be on duty travel for their positions within one fiscal year?
You stated that this policy is for the entire government.
I’ll have Mr. Awa respond to that question through you.
I believe Mr. Awa will be able to respond to the question. Mr. Awa.
Actually, I can’t provide an exact number as I seem to be misunderstanding his question.
I’ve never had to provide a directive, at least to our employees in the Department of Culture and Heritage, about the maximum number of days they can travel. We don’t have employees who travel for extended periods, as per my previous response, other than for employees on educational leave.
I’m not sure if I get the gist of his question.
Is he referring to one employee and the total number of days they can travel?
I don’t quite understand the question as he worded it. Was he talking about 30 days or for three months in total? Due to my inability to comprehend the basis of his question, I can’t really respond at this time.
Mr Enook, perhaps you should note that we are dealing with matters under the mandate of the Department of Culture and Heritage and you may ask questions related to their plans.
You may continue, Mr. Enook.
I also thank you for providing me with an opportunity.
I apologize if I’m not clear with my questioning.
Let me rephrase my question in this manner: within the Department of Culture and Heritage, respecting your employees’ travels over a period of a year, how many days can they be on duty travel?
I now know this department doesn’t have their own policy and I thank you for that response. I also now know that most departments use the same government-wide travel policy.
Does the policy state that over a period of a year, an employee can be on duty travel for up to a certain number of days?
What is the limit of travel one employee can embark on, regardless of whether it is one long travel period or a number of separate travel periods? What is the limit?
Our employees tour communities depending on the issues or consultation requirements for their position in a particular community as long as there is no weather situation. They go to the communities to do what they have to do; to attend board meetings, to hold workshops, and so on. There is no limit on the number of days that they can be on duty travel and we just follow through with the budget.
I hope this is going to be the last question and I hope I can make it understandable.
What they stated was that the Department of Culture of Heritage just follows a government-wide policy.
There is nothing written within the government as to how many days they can be on duty travel.
Is it unlimited?
Just a yes or a no would do.
With the Department of Culture and Heritage, I am the one who authorizes the travel of employees.
If I realize that one of the employees is going on duty travel too often or if I notice it, I would have to look into it.
Well, there has never been such a case, but I would have to look into the situation if an individual was travelling too frequently on behalf of Culture and Heritage.
I’m the one who gives the authority for an employee to go on duty travel and I keep an eye on it.
I usually look through where they are going and what the purpose of their travel is.
Lastly, if they don’t have any backup or indicate the reason they are travelling, I will not authorize it.
There has to be a reason why they are travelling to a particular community or place and only if they identified the reason or some supporting documents would I authorize their travel.
I’ll again say that I haven’t noticed any employee of the Department of Culture and Heritage travelling too frequently.
I’m not concerned about whether or not an individual is travelling too frequently.
The basis of my question was predicated on finding out how many days any employee can be out on duty travel within a one-year period and whether there is a limit.
I guess I can characterize my understanding as there being no limit to the number of travel days that an employee can take.
I will take that as my understanding based on this issue. Is it that this government doesn’t know? The government has no set number of days that can’t be exceeded, as I’m getting a typical bureaucratic answer, so I will keep that as my understanding on the issue.
I have one other question, Mr. Chairman. For instance, within the department, there are employees located outside of Iqaluit in one of the outlying communities somewhere in Nunavut. Let’s say they’re in the Baffin region.
How many employees located outside or roughly how many employees can be characterized as being required to be in Iqaluit for over 30 days within one calendar year due to their job duties?
Our employees on duty travel are representing the Nunavut government, which by virtue of our representation of the public, requires that they travel for their work duties.
We do have employees located outside of Iqaluit in Igloolik, Kugluktuk, and Baker Lake. There are offices located outside of Iqaluit.
Mr. Enook, your allotted time has expired.
I have no other names on my list. We’re on page F-4. (interpretation ends) Culture and Heritage. Branch Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $5,505,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Go to page F-5. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary.
Culture and Heritage. Official Languages. Total Operations and Maintenance. $10,905,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Go to page F-6. (interpretation ends) Culture and Heritage.
Branch Summary. Heritage. Total Operations and Maintenance. $5,897,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to page F-7. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary.
Culture and Heritage. Elders and Youth. Total Operations and Maintenance. $2,322,000.
Under this page related to elders and youth, our elders have concerns related to their children or grandchildren taking advantage of their situation. Does the toll-free number still exist where elders can call in with their concerns about elder abuse?
Yes, we still have the same number that individuals can call to report elder abuse and the 1-800 number is in the Culture and Heritage office.
If an elder calls about their concerns, what kind of assistance for elders is available? If an elder is in a certain situation, then they can do the following action items. I’m asking about cases of elder abuse called in to this number.
When we do get a caller, we take action and, if required, we also talk to other departments to deal with the problem.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is the government drafting a bill in regard to elder abuse? In the Northwest Territories, they have set up an elders’ society.
Is your department planning to establish that type of board or society? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to supplement my last response, when we correspond with the other departments, we talk about how we’re going to resolve the issue.
There is an elders’ entity. They’re not a society, but they work very closely together with the Nunavut government.
They were established about three years ago. There are 10 individuals sitting on the board of elders.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. Ms. Ugyuk.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If anybody ever suggested setting up a Nunavut elders’ society, would your department take the lead and set one up?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Ugyuk. Minister Arreak.
All communities have an elders’ entity and they can decide whether or not they want their status to be a society. If anybody is interested in setting up a Nunavut elders’ society and they’re looking for some kind of support, our department can help. The only one we have is the elders’ board that was set up by the department and that is the only one we are responsible for.
I have a question for the minister. Elders usually go through very heavy challenges, including financial support.
Only a small amount is set aside to be used for the elders and that is a Nunavut-wide program.
Again, this is in regard to the finances.
They have to cry for grants or contributions for any type of programs they would like to start in their community. They can’t even get an employee or somebody to do certain tasks for them.
We keep saying that the elders are very important to us.
Yes, we do care very much about our elders, but when it comes to money for elders’ programs, it seems like they are never given enough.
My question to the minister is: if there are sufficient funds available, are the funds given to the elders’ groups out there?
There are applications every year and we give them $5,000 for operations on an annual basis, which is given out automatically.
Then again, $5,000 is not that much, so they have to kind of use it and there are no other alternatives.
They have to apply should they want some more funds either for operations or programs.
They have to apply if it goes over $5,000 and if one of our employees is in one of the communities, they also provide training programs. They do have to apply if they want funds over $5,000.
In Nunavut, the elders are listening to or watching the proceedings on TV and I’m sure they are getting this information.
Is your department still gathering traditional stories from people of Nunavut?
Yes, we do it on a continual basis. I will have my deputy respond to your question.
We’re still doing recordings of elders and traditional stories. We’re recording them and then transcribing them.
In the beginning of 2013 in January, the recordings in Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay were completed. Right now, we’re in the planning stage to start recording stories in April in Iqaluit, Kimmirut, and Cape Dorset.