EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I’m just digging for the information here, the timelines. They’re looking at March, this month actually, for a class “A” estimate to be presented to the Department of Justice in March 2013, tender documents finalized, and then they will be looking at a April 2013 construction contract. That’s the latest information I have on the project schedule.
Not too long ago, there was a news article stating that the city was having issues with the development permits for the lot that was allocated for the new facility.
I’m just wondering why we go to the point where we’re trying to award tenders and stuff without having land secured for a building.
Can the minister explain why they’re kind of putting the horse before the cart?
I’m not sure if I understood Mr. Rumbolt’s question.
Mr. Chairman, I understood that the land was identified. It’s out near the existing facility, the Baffin Correctional Centre, on land that is under lease to the Government of Nunavut.
There is no cost for land acquisition factored into the proposal or land development.
I believe the officials in the Department of Justice have been working with the city officials concurrently and planning this entire project. They submitted an official application for a development permit on December 18 of 2012.
The supporting documents for the application were unavailable on December 4 and it only came to light on March 12, 2013 that some city councillors voiced concerns about the new facility.
From a commonsense point of view, Mr. Chairman, it made sense to put this facility in the area where we already have the Baffin Correctional Centre because there are going to be some minimum-security prisoners who will be removed from the Baffin Correctional Centre and put into this facility, which is more of a minimum-security, and we will still have the young offenders facility out there, plus we have the women’s facility out there. So the footprint is right there; the facilities can support each other.
It’s my understanding that no building permit that has been issued yet by the city.
According to the news article, they are requesting a meeting with GN officials to discuss the concerns they have with the location in conjunction with the new airport facility.
Can the minister identify if a meeting had taken place since this news article with the city or if there’s an anticipated meeting coming up?
I believe there’s a meeting tomorrow, March 19, with the city officials. I don’t know who’s going to be in attendance or what will be discussed in detail, but hopefully there will be a resolution to their concerns at that meeting.
I know we’re not supposed to talk hypothetical, but the threat is real. If the city decides to reject the land development permit for this lot, does the department have an alternate location to use in case that happens?
I don’t believe we have an alternate location, not one that we selected certainly.
Mr. Chairman, I don’t think it’s any secret to the Members of this House that our immediate priority is the overcrowding at the Baffin Correctional Centre. The overcrowding situation threatens the health and safety of our employees out there and threatens the health and safety of the inmates at that facility.
So our top priority as the government is to alleviate the pressures and any delays in constructing this facility is going to compound the pressures that already exist out there and have existed for as long as I can remember, even before I became an MLA or a minister of this government.
I’m not disputing the necessity of this building.
That’s not the issue here. The issue is land permits with the city. So my final question is: if the city rejects this land permit and we go back to needing a lot to build this facility, will this delay the construction of this facility?
I can’t predict the future.
I was a mayor of a community for several years and I understand how some councillors think, but when they meet tomorrow, they can explain their concerns to the officials and our officials who will be there will explain the situation in more detail. Hopefully they will come to a resolution and we can move forward with this very important project in this community.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation ends) On the same page, Mr. Schell.
I just want to go back to the original amount that was here and now they’re asking for another $5 million.
My question is: were there any other proposals for this structure or was this the only proposal that came forward that Justice picked?
I’m not sure I understand Mr. Schell’s question.
This was for planning and design. There has been no contract awarded to construct the facility.
If the Minister of Justice would like to take a crack at answering if there are other proposals for the planning and design, I would redirect that question to him.
Minister Shewchuk, please respond.
The Minister of Finance is absolutely correct. This is for planning and design. There are no tenders out for the construction of the building yet.
It is my understanding that this was the only proposal for the planning and design.
Was there any other company coming forward with a proposal to do a complete build and design of this project or was this the only… ? How did you pick this kind of tent structure?
Was there anybody else that came forward and asked to put a proposal together to build and construct this unit?
Mr. Chairman, I believe this facility is not going to be a tent structure anymore. They’re calling it more an emergency overcrowding relief structure. It will be more of a permanent type facility as opposed to a temporary facility.
I don’t know if anyone else came forward with a proposal to construct or erect that facility, unless the Minister of Justice knows. He’s indicating he’s unaware of any other companies.
We’re on page 4. (interpretation ends) Corrections.
Total Corrections. $5,045,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Turn the page. (interpretation ends) Health. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Directorate. Total Directorate. $250,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go back to page 2. (interpretation ends) Schedule 1. Capital. Capital Appropriation. $5,295,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
You should have Bill 48 that is in your binders. We will now go to that bill.
I believe everyone has a copy in front of them, so I’ll proceed. (interpretation ends) Bill 48, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2013-2014. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Page 2. (interpretation ends) Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2014.
Vote 2: Capital. Total Capital. $5,295,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriation. $5,295,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Go back to page 1.
Does the committee agree to Bill 48 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), does the committee agree that Bill 48 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
We have concluded with the bill. Minister Peterson, at this time, if you have any closing remarks, you have the floor.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your committee for your scrutiny of Bills 47 and 48 over the last few weeks and your good questions tonight. I know it has been a long day.
I would like to thank my officials from the Department of Finance here at the witness table with me. I would also like to thank my two Health and Social Services witnesses who are in the Gallery, Deputy Minister Peter Ma and Bill Neish, Acting Director of Corporate Services. They were prepared to come in tonight and answer questions on health and social services.
So I thank them. I thank all of the officials in all of the departments for working so diligently on our finances.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation) Before we proceed, Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister’s witnesses out.
We will now proceed.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bills 47, 48, and 49 and would like to report progress and that Bills 47, 48, and 49 are immediately ready for third reading.
Thank you very much, Minister of Finance, Minister Peterson.
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 49, Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014, be read for the third time.
The motion is carried and Bill 49 has had third reading and is ready for assent.
Just a reminder that there’s a meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislation tomorrow morning in the Tuktu Room at nine o’clock.
Third Reading of Bills  Bill 47
This House stands adjourned until Tuesday, March 19, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 21:11 Appendix – March 18, 2013
Asked of: Hon. Monica Ell, MLA
Number: WQ 025-3(3)
Date: February 26, 2013
Subject: Direct Appointments under Section 18 of the Public Service Act
Question: Broken down by department, Crown agency, occupational category, gender, and Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiary status, how many direct appointments to the public service were approved by the Executive Council of Nunavut for each of the following fiscal years:
Broken down by department, Crown agency, occupational category, gender, and Nunavut Land Claims Agreement beneficiary status, there were direct appointments to the public service approved by the Executive Council of Nunavut for:
1999-2000 fiscal year:
During the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 64 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 48 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 75% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 25 male appointments and 39 female appointments.
In addition the following departments made appointments during the fiscal year:
Department/Agency
Total Direct Appointments
Community Government & Transportation
Culture, Language, Elders & Youth
Public Works & Services
Executive & Intergovernmental Affairs
Finance & Administration
Health & Social Services
The Direct Appointments are also broken down into the following 6 occupational categories:
Occupational Category
Middle Management
Paraprofessional
Administrative Support
2000-2001 fiscal year:
During the 2000-2001 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 105 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 51 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 49% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 46 male appointments and 59 female appointments.
2001-2002 fiscal year:
During the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 67 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 44 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 66% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 26 male appointments and 41 female appointments.
2002-2003 fiscal year:
During the 2002-2003 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 99 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 73 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 74% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 36 male appointments and 63 female appointments.
2003-2004 fiscal year:
During the 2003-2004 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 77 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 63 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 82% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 27 male appointments and 50 female appointments.
Community Government Services
Economic Development & Transportation
2004-2005 fiscal year:
During the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 87 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 81 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 93% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 30 male appointments and 57 female appointments.
2005-2006 fiscal year:
During the 2005-2006 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 69 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 68 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 99% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 22 male appointments and 47 female appointments.
2006-2007 fiscal year:
During the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 112 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 110 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 98% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 31 male appointments and 81female appointments.
2007-2008 fiscal year:
During the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 137 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 132 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 96% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 42 male appointments and 95 female appointments.
2008-2009 fiscal year:
During the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 70 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 60 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 86% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 18 male appointments and 52 female appointments.
2009-2010 fiscal year:
During the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 52 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 46 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 88% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 16 male appointments and 36 female appointments.
2010-2011 fiscal year:
During the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 31 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 26 were beneficiary appointments – which represent 84% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 11 male appointments and 20 female appointments.
2011-2012 fiscal year:
During the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 46 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 38 were beneficiary appointments – which represents 83% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 18 male appointments and 28 female appointments.
2012-2013 fiscal year:
During the 2012-2013 fiscal year, the Executive Council approved a total of 23 Direct Appointments.
Of these, 15 were beneficiary appointments – which represent 65% of all appointments for the fiscal year.
There were 8 male appointments and 15 female appointments.
Culture and Heritage
Family Services
Response to Written Question 27-3(3)
Date: February 27th, 2013
Asked of: The Hon. Daniel Shewchuk, Minister of Justice
Title: Recidivism Rates and Rehabilitation Programs
As of February 26, 2013, how many adult and young offenders are serving sentences in territorial custody at the Baffin Correctional Centre, the Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, the lIavut Healing Centre and the Iqaluit Young Offenders' Centre?
As of February 26th, 2013, the number of adult and young offenders serving sentences in Territorial custody at the Baffin Correctional Centre, the Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, the Ilavut Healing Centre, the Women’s Correctional Centre, and the Iqaluit Young Offenders’ Centre are as follows:
Facility (Nunavut)
Inmate Count
Baffin Correctional Centre
Rankin Inlet Healing Facility
Kugluktuk Ilavut Centre
Nunavut Women’s Correctional Centre
Isumaq Young Offenders Facility
As of February 26th, 2013, there are 73 individuals incarcerated in Territorial correctional facilities awaiting trial.
As of February 26, 2013, what is the average period of time before an individual on  remand in territorial custody goes to trial?
As of February 26th, 2013, the average period of time before an individual on remand in Territorial custody is sentenced is approximately 71 days.
As of February 26, 2013, what is the rate of recidivism for male adult offenders in  territorial custody?
As of February 26th, 2013, the rate of recidivism for male adult offenders in Territorial custody is approximately 74%.
As of February 26th, 2013, the rate of recidivism for male young offenders in Territorial custody is approximately 66%.
As of February 26th, 2013, the rate of recidivism for female adult offenders in Territorial custody is approximately 43%.
As of February 26th, 2013, the rate of recidivism for female young offenders in Territorial custody is approximately 13%.
As of February 26, 2013, what rehabilitation, counseling and education programs are offered to adult offenders in territorial custody?
As of February 26th, 2013, the following programs and activities are offered to adult offenders in Territorial custody:
Individual and group counseling services facilitated by a psychologist or elders (e.g. “Surviving Abuse”, “Grief and Loss”, “Katak Program for mental health”).
Violence Prevention (e.g. “Healthy Relationships”, “Life Skills”, “Alternatives to Violence”).
Sexual Violence Prevention (e.g. “Men’s group ”).
Cultural learning and skill development (e.g. “Land Program”, out-post camps).
Addiction services (e.g. Addictions counseling and “Alcoholics Anonymous”).
Spiritual programs (e.g. Church services).
Work programs (e.g. “Town crew”, kitchen, shop and maintenance work).
Educational Programming (e.g. Upgrading and GED completion).
Recreation (e.g. Gymnasium, ice skating, hiking)*.
Arts (e.g. Crafting, carving, music).
Community service opportunities (e.g. Soup kitchen, and town clean-up).
*(limited due to current repurposing of the gymnasium)
As of February 26, 2013, what rehabilitation, counseling and education programs are offered to young offenders in territorial custody?
As of February 26th, 2013, the following programs and activities are offered to young offenders in Territorial custody:
Individual, family, and group counseling services facilitated by a psychologist or elders (e.g. “Embrace Life”, “Tasiuqtugiit”).
Cultural learning and skill development (e.g. Inuktitut language learning classes, “Inuit Cultural Skills”, “Experiential Learning Camp” ).
Addiction services (e.g. Addictions counseling, “RCMP D.A.R.E program”).
Spiritual programs (e.g. “Religious Studies” and church services).
Vocational and Work programs (e.g. “GC North and Nova Construction for youth”, kitchen, shop and maintenance).
Educational Programming (e.g. GN Recycling program, sexual education, upgrading and GED completion).  Recreation (e.g. Gymnasium, ice skating, hiking)*.
*(when municipal or school recreation space is available)
As of February 26, 2013, how does the Department of Justice measure the effectiveness of its rehabilitation, counseling and education programs for adult offenders?
As of February 26th, 2013, the Department of Justice measures the effectiveness of its programming for adult offenders through four (4) processes.
(i) Assessment of Delivery
All programs are delivered by professionals trained to deliver specific programming and are evaluated on performance.
Programs are also assessed through feedback at the end of each program.
Every facility has meetings annually to discuss programming and activities to ensure best-practices and that programs are fine-tuned accordingly.
(ii) Assessment of Risk
Risk evaluation is continuous throughout an Inmate’s incarceration period.
Initial assessments are conducted when an offender is admitted to a Facility on criminogenic factors, which are incorporated into an offender’s case management plans.
This information is used to appropriately place inmates within a Facility based on their apparent risk to themselves and others.
Risk of recidivism is also incorporated into offender’s case management plans.
Assessment of Need
Every case management plan is evaluated by a case manager and a classification officer, to ensure appropriate placement for each Inmate within a Facility based on risk and need.
A variety of assessments on each offender, when admitted to a Facility, provide assistance in understanding each offender’s programming needs.
Based on these needs, the Facility will attempt to offer the offender programming options.
Assessment of Response
The Department of Justice measures the effectiveness of its programming through pre and post program facilitator offender assessments.
The assessments are done particularly for the “Men’s Group” and “Alternatives to Violence” program.
Case managers incorporate release plans into every offender’s file to help prevent relapse.
As of February 26, 2013, how does the Department of Justice measure the effectiveness of its rehabilitation, counseling and education programs for young offenders?
As of February 26th, 2013, the Department of Justice measures the effectiveness of its programming for young offenders through four (4) processes.
Assessment of delivery
All programs are delivered by trained professionals trained to deliver specific programming and are evaluated on performance.
Programs are assessed through feedback at the end of programs.
Quality of programming and activities are accessed annually to ensure best-practice and that programs are fine-tuned accordingly.
The Young Offenders Facility has a dedicated clinician who regularly liaises with other jurisdictions in Canada to ensure best-practices and approaches based in current research.
Assessment of Risk
The Young Offenders Facility offers a relatively dynamic environment in which young offenders are immersed in programming and positive role-modeling on an on-going basis.
Due to the high youth worker to youth offender ratio, youth workers are able to assess the immediate needs of offenders in the Facility and respond accordingly.
Assessments are completed on each young offender when admitted to the facility and a comprehensive case management plan is developed, in order to plan for when the youth is released from custody.
Youth are assessed using a variety of tools and programming.
The high youth worker to youth offender ratio allows for the clinician and youth workers to develop and complete a comprehensive needs analysis for each youth offender.
The clinician delivers a wide range of accredited programming to address behavioral issues (sexual, violence, trauma, etc) founded in different fields of research such as behavior and cognitive therapy.
Youth offenders participate in assigned programs until their sentence is complete, at which point post-release data is gathered.
Post-program youth offender interviews provide insight on perceived program relevancy and effectiveness.
Programs are regularly fine-tuned based on the responses and reception of the offenders, including areas related to culture.
The Facility attempts to involve the young offender’s family and community during programming, by incorporating them in aspects of the youth’s release plans to help prevent relapse.
From April 1, 2012 to February 26, 2013, what percentage of adult offenders in territorial custody participated in rehabilitation, counseling and education programs?
From April 1st, 2012 to February 26th, 2013, 61% of adult offenders in Territorial custody participated in programming.
From April 1, 2012 to February 26, 2013, what percentage of young offenders in territorial custody participated in rehabilitation, counseling, and education programs?
From April 1st, 2012 to February 26th, 2013, 100% of young offenders in Territorial custody participated in programming.
As of February 26, 2013, what rehabilitation, counseling and education programs are offered to former adult offenders who have completed sentences in territorial correctional facilities?
As of February 26th, 2013, Corrections does not possess the resources required to provide additional programming for released offenders.
Correctional case plans do suggest possible follow-up care and resource options for offenders as required.
If the offender is on probation or a conditional sentence order, Community Corrections Officers provide assistance to clients to peruse resources within their community.
As of February 26, 2013, what rehabilitation, counseling and education programs are offered to former young offenders who have completed sentences in territorial correctional facilities?
As of February 26th, 2013, Corrections does not possess the resources required to provide additional programming for released young offenders.
If the young offender is on probation or a conditional sentence order, Community Corrections Officers provide assistance to clients to peruse resources within their community.
Recommendations for Amendments to the  Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut
Recommendation #1: Government Responses to Reports of Standing  and Special Committees
The Standing Committee recommends that Rule 91 be amended as follows (new provisions in bold):
(6) The Executive Council may file a provisional response with the  Clerk indicating: