EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Just last week the Minister of Finance gave her budget address, and there were projections in there of what things were planning to be at the end of the year.
Given that, if you look back through our short history, for almost every quarter you could say our fiscal update has been like a yo-yo, much like the power corporation’s projected profits and losses; they go back and forth.
Given that, Mr. Speaker, why does it seem inconsistent to provide that information with the government as a whole?
There’s no inconsistency here.
When the Minister of Finance tables financial projections and so on, it is based on audited financial statements from the year before.
She actually knows and the House knows and the members are informed of what those projections are and then we have a debate on it.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the government makes projections.
That’s why we have supplementals.
That’s money spent outside of what was budgeted when the House was sitting.
The corporation doesn’t have the opportunity to bring forth supplemental appropriations based on the amount.
So, there is no inconsistency in the way the format is run.
The financial statements are audited, they come forward, the members can look at them, and based on those statements and based on projections, the government sits down here and makes a budget and tries to project what we are going to spend.
Mr. Speaker, that’s why, as the member points out, sometimes they’re up and sometimes they’re down.
It’s the same thing with the corporation.
When I have the copy of the audited financial statements for the fiscal year that ended, we’ll have three financial statements; when we’ll be in this House in February, I’ll table those statements and I’ll be able to give a projection.
We’ll be six weeks away from the end of the fiscal year and then we’ll have an actual honest projection. Then we’ll be able to do that.
I think it’s a bit premature to do that right now in the third week in November.
Question 081 – 2(2): Provincial Status and Northern Strategy
I’ve been following with interest the media attention of the last couple days on the Prime Minister’s comments, made I’m not sure in what country, about the provinces and the three territories; he said something about eventually achieving provincehood.
So, I was wondering, in light of that recent comment, if there is a decision to develop an honest strategy, if the Premier thinks they should develop a timetable to reach provincehood as part of the discussions currently being held with the federal government.
Speaker (interpretation): Government Leader, Hon. Paul Okalik.
The issue of provincehood has not been raised in our meetings with the Prime Minister to date.
This issue came up in an off-the-cuff discussion with one of the governors in Brazil.
The good governor from Brazil was asking what was the status of the territories; that was very kind of the governor.
And the Prime Minister made an off-the-cuff statement that he would like to see the territories become provinces one day and have the same status as the rest of the country.
So, I applaud the Prime Minister for his honest answer, that he feels that we should one day join our rightful place in the Confederation.
Thank you, Mr. Premier, for those comments.
Yes, it was kind of a shock.
We’ve been moving to devolution and suddenly the Prime Minister is talking about provincehood.
Perhaps the Premier can update us on the discussions that he is having with the federal government on devolution.
Speaker (interpretation): The Premier, Hon. Paul Okalik.
Yes, we have been making some progress, but we have not concluded anything as of now.
We’ve been very up front with the federal government that we would like to conclude a devolution agreement during our term.
That still remains our position.
To date, the discussions have been very preliminary and we’re not going to sit back and take that.
We’ll continue to push very hard on this issue through the Northern Strategy, and we have very good partners in the Northwest Territories that are pursuing the same goals that we are.
We’ll continue to press this matter until we come to a successful conclusion.
A few years ago when I was in Ottawa lobbying on the same issue for Nunavut, a senior official with DIAND at that time told us that devolution is an important step in evolution of a territory.
I asked him what that meant and he said, “Well, it could take ten to fifteen years.”
The Premier stated that he would like have devolution within the life of this government, and I wondered if the Premier could tell us today, or give us an indication, of how receptive the government of Canada is to his stated wish that we want devolution by the end of this term.
To date, they have not said no, so I feel that’s a sign of encouragement that discussions are ongoing, and I am very optimistic that we can conclude one.
There was a time when the bureaucrats in Ottawa used to say that you can’t have your own government in Nunavut.
A lot of those same bureaucrats are in that same department.
So, I am optimistic that the Prime Minister of the day has very good views towards the North and I would like to take advantage of that and conclude agreements that are successful both for Ottawa and Nunavut.
I know, as politicians, we sit around and talk about devolution, and I think we all realize how important it is for our territory to succeed at devolution, but many people in Nunavut don’t understand what devolution is and how it would benefit us.
I wonder if the Premier could take a few seconds or minutes and explain to the people of Nunavut how devolution would benefit Nunavut over the next five to ten years, how it would benefit us?
If we look at where we are today, we are mostly, solely, dependent for our financial resources from Ottawa; up to 90 percent of our budget comes from Ottawa.
The reason why that is the case is that we don’t have the ability to generate our own revenue.
One area that is very readily available to us is our natural resources, which we can generate revenue out of.
So, that is one area that would definitely help us, that we would be managing our own resources and have our own financial resources at our disposal.
We often also hear about concerns towards the environment.
Today, we have no role as a government, even though we are the most affected, in the management and control of the resources in our backyard.
So, that is one area that we could greatly benefit from.
We live with the after-effects of development; we could look to Nanisivik, for instance, where the environment is in such poor state that we can’t reuse the very precious infrastructure in place because of what took place before.
So, those things we would love to be able to manage one day, so that we can manage our resources and take advantage of them.
Question 082 – 2(2): Providing Statements to the House
Again, my question is for the minister responsible for the Power Corporation.
Since the minister is aware of what the projections are and the Financial Management Board is aware of what the projections are and of the losses or the financial situation that the Power Corporation is looking at for this year and more likely for next year, and don’t feel that’s in the public’s interest to know what it is... .
As the minister’s statement in May indicated, there would be monthly statements provided and projections provided to the minister.
Will the minister commit to at least providing the members of this House with a listing of, since then, when those statements were received and for what time period they covered?
Mr. Speaker, what I would commit to the members of the House and to the Nunavut public, again, is based on the audited financial statements of the corporation.
Those are actual and verifiable.
It is my understanding that they are pending sign off by the Auditor General of Canada, and then I would be able to provide those.
Mr. Speaker, the projections for this current fiscal year, which is ending March 31, 2005... .
I would hope to be in a position to update the House on that situation when we sit down and reconvene, I believe it’s in February, when the Utility Rate Review Council reports and so on, and then that will bring clarity to the issue.
That would be consistent with the processes of the House.
I wasn’t asking for financial information or any numbers.
I was asking the minister if he would commit to providing the members of this House with the dates and the fiscal periods for those monthly accurate financial statements and projections, that according to the last minister’s statement, will be required to be made to share with the members of this House.
I’m attempting to do that.
I could, in two weeks, receive the audited financial statements from the Auditor General and make them public or something, and then the members of the House wouldn’t have a chance to debate them.
What I’m saying is consistent with what the process is. As soon as I receive the report signed off by the Auditor General of Canada, I will bring those forward.
I will table them.
I said, and I commit to the House, that I will be able to do that, I’m sure, by February, because the Auditor General has indicated that it should be a number of days for these current statements.
If the Auditor General of Canada signs off on these statements for this fiscal period in the next several days while the House is sitting, then I would table them at that time.
And that would be consistent with the process.
I wouldn’t be in a position to table projections based on numbers provided by the corporation on what their best guesstimate is of their balance sheet on March 31, 2005.
So, I would commit to updating the House on that amount in February when the House reconvenes.
When I actually have the third audited financial statement in hand and we’re only six weeks away from the year end, we would be able to provide that information.
I think that’s fair and consistent in what’s been occurring.
To do anything else wouldn’t give any opportunity to the members to be able to debate the issue and indeed raise it in the House.
I think that the members should be provided with that opportunity.
I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.
I was not asking for financial information to be tabled in this House.
I know that the minister is required by legislation to table that information.
What I was asking for is, in the minister’s statement last May, is says that the corporations will be required to provide timely and accurate financial statements and projections.
What I’m asking for is not what those projections say or what those statements say.
I’m asking for a listing of when they were received and for what period they covered, for the minister to provide that information.
Otherwise, how do we know that this is happening?
They’re saying, “Oh yes, we’re getting it regularly.”
Are they doing what they said they were going to do?
What I’m asking the minister for is not the numbers in there but the dates when they were received and from what period that information covered.
Will the minister commit to providing that information to the members of this House?
Over the last five years Mr. Tootoo has probably been one of the clearest members that has sat across from me in the house.
I can reassure Mr. Tootoo that clarity... .
Sometimes I have been blamed for making up my own words, so I’ll use one right now.
I would say that clarity and fairity are consistent with the process.
I would say to Mr. Tootoo that his request is not redundant.
I don’t believe that the request is out of line.
I will, at the break sometime today, see what information has been provided, the dates and times, if that’s what the member is asking for.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to bring forth projections.
That’s not consistent with the process that we follow in the House.
I can, though, bring forward, as the member has asked, what information, if it’s been an income statement and a balance sheet, brought forward to the board of directors and the dates.
But I would not commit to giving the amounts and so on because I don’t think that would serve the purpose that the member is asking for.
Written Question 018 – 2(2): Social Assistance Payments
My written question is for the Minister of Education.
I understand that Statistics Canada reported that social assistance rates across Canada’s provinces went down between 1993 and 2003.
Last week in a member’s statement I referred to the importance of having the basic information to evaluate whether or not programs are effective.
Information from our social assistance program can tell us a lot about whether adult training, education, and work programs are having the desired effect of getting people to be more self-sufficient.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, this is the question I’ll ask.
Broken down by community:
What amount was expended in social assistance payments for the following fiscal years: 2000-2001; 2001-02; 2002-03; 2003-04?
What was the average monthly social assistance caseload in the following fiscal years: 2000-2001; 2001-02; 2002-03; and 2003-04?
For the following fiscal years, broken down by case size, how many individuals received social assistance and how long have they been receiving assistance?
Again, for the same time period.
For the following fiscal years, how many applicants for social assistance were assessed, what percentage of those assessed clients reported net income, and what was the total net income reported that were the total needs assessed?
Again, for the same dates.
Written Question 019 – 2(2): Eyewear and Related Services
I’m going to put my glasses on.
Not only me, most of us here use glasses to read.
I know there are concerns, especially in Kitikmeot, for those of us who use glasses. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, my written questions is to the Minister of Health and Social Services.
What entity currently holds the contract to provide eyewear and related services, pursuant to Government of Nunavut RFP 115223, to communities in the Kitikmeot?
How is the eyewear service provided; what are the department’s contractual standards for delivery?
Was this contract tendered or was it sole-sourced?
What entity currently holds the contract to provide optical related services (pursuant to Government of Nunavut RFP 115225) to communities in the Kitikmeot?
How is the optical service provided, and what are the department’s contractual standards for delivery?
Was this contract tendered, or was it sole-sourced?
When does the contract to provide eyewear and related services expire?
When does the contract to provide optical related services expire?
What is the value of the contract to provide eyewear and related services?
What is the value of the contract to provide optical related services?
Written Question 020 – 2(2): Trades Training
There are no trades schools in Nunavut.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education, especially in regards to trades training for Nunavut.
I will read it in English. (interpretation ends)
How many full-time trades certification programs are currently offered to Nunavut residents in Nunavut and in which communities?
How many full-time trades certification programs are offered to Nunavut residents in jurisdictions outside of Nunavut and in which communities?
How many students are currently enrolled in trades certification programs in Nunavut?
How many students are currently enrolled in trades certification programs outside of Nunavut?
What is the total amount of funding allocated to providing trades certification programs in Nunavut?
What is the total amount of funding allocated to providing trades certification programs outside of Nunavut?
Committee Report 002 – 2(2):Review of the 2004 Report of the Auditor General to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut
As Chairman of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability, I am very pleased to present the Committee’s review of the 2004 Auditor General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly, and I am sure the members opposite are quite eager to see it as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to express my appreciation to the Members of the Standing Committee, Mr. Alagalak, Mr. Barnabas, Mr. Curley and Mr. Peterson.
We all worked exceptionally well together during our hearings earlier this year and they were very productive meetings that were held.
As you know, the Auditor General reports annually to the Legislative Assembly on the audit of the Government of Nunavut’s financial statements.
Management issues that arise during the course of the audit are brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly.
In June of this year, the Standing Committee undertook the most comprehensive and in-depth set of public hearings ever held to date on the AG’s Report.
The Committee took the opportunity to rigorously question GN witnesses on the issues raised in the AG’s Report, and to scrutinize areas of concern to the Committee.
These hearings constituted an important accountability exercise in the management of the government’s scarce fiscal resources.
Mr. Speaker, on the first day of the Committee’s hearings, one of the Members noted that the Auditor General’s report was a “serious wake-up call for the government.”
As all Members know, serious issues were raised in the report with respect to a number of matters facing the Government of Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, the Report that your Standing Committee is tabling today contains a total of 21 formal recommendations.
In some cases, the recommendations deal with new matters.
In other cases, they build upon past issues addressed by Standing Committees and seek to generate action in areas where progress has been slow or non-existent.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a number of areas in our report.
Earlier this year, it was revealed that the Government has used up over 70% of its available borrowing limit.
The majority of this is due to guarantees made on behalf of Crown corporations.
The Standing Committee has recommended enhanced transparency in the reporting of the Government’s borrowing activities and debt position.
Mr. Speaker, during the Committee’s hearings, much energy was devoted to addressing the challenges facing Crown corporation governance in the territory.
For its part, the Government has identified the work of the recently-created Crown Agency Council as being critical to achieving progress in this area.
Indeed, the Premier reminded this House just yesterday of the importance that the Government places in the Crown Agency Council in addressing the issues facing our Crown Corporations.
The Standing Committee has recommended that the work of this body be regularly disclosed and reported to the Legislative Assembly and the public, and not be shrouded in secrecy.
The Standing Committee has also recommended that the Crown Agency Council act decisively to produce formal letters of expectation to clarify the role and performance benchmarks of Crown corporations.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is required by law to table the annual public accounts by December 31 of each year.
This is not a matter of discretion or something for the Government to do at a time of its own choosing and convenience.
For some time now, we have heard that one of the reasons why the law hasn’t been followed is because the fiscal year-end of Nunavut Arctic College falls on June 30, rather than March 31.
The Standing Committee is formally recommending that the legislation governing this area be amended so that the College’s year-end date is the same as with other entities of Government.
We are optimistic that this will assist the Government in meeting its legal requirements.
Mr. Speaker, progress has been achieved over the years with respect to the amount of information that is disclosed to the public and the Legislative Assembly through the annual main estimates process.
The Standing Committee’s report contains a number of important recommendations for further improvements in this area, including enhanced transparency with respect to disclosing Government contracting and leasing expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, it was revealed that the planned transfer of the petroleum products function of the Department of Community and Government Services to a new Crown corporation has been delayed until 2005.
Given the significant challenges and problems facing the Government as a whole with respect to energy issues, the Standing Committee is of the view that this transfer should be deferred at least until such time as the Qulliq Energy Corporation receives a clean audit opinion.
Mr. Speaker, a significant portion of the Standing Committee’s time was spent examining the issues surrounding the Nunavut Power Corporation.
One of the Standing Committee’s recommendations is that a recovery business plan for the Corporation be brought forward and tabled during the next sitting of the Assembly, in early 2005.
This recommendation is closely related to our position that a comprehensive GN-wide review of energy subsidies is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, the trend towards greater transparency and accountability is a national one.
Indeed, as we have even seen recently at the federal level, the heads of national Crown corporations are now being subjected to parliamentary review and scrutiny prior to their appointments being made.
Your Standing Committee is recommending that a review take place in Nunavut concerning the process by which major appointments are made.
As Members of this House are well aware, millions of dollars are being spent to construct major new health facilities throughout Nunavut.
The public still does not have a clear picture of exactly how the government plans to pay for two of them.
It is important that the government clarify its position with respect to the use of P3s, and the Committee has recommended that it do so.
Mr. Speaker, it’s important to note for the record that the recommendations presented by the Standing Committee have been designed to support our collective commitment to strengthening financial management in government.
As you will recall from our recent Caucus Retreat in Arviat, one of our stated goals was to act decisively on recommendations made by the Auditor General and Standing Committees of this House.
Our recommendations have been developed in the spirit of constructive improvement, and should not be misconstrued or misinterpreted or misrepresented as being mere annoyances or inconveniences for the bureaucracy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by noting that your Standing Committee, pursuant to Rule 91(5), is requesting that the Government table a formal written response to our report within 120 days.
I move, Mr. Speaker, that the report of the Standing Committee be received and adopted by the House.
Speaker (interpretation): Do members agree that the committee report be received and adopted by the Legislative Assembly according to Rule 91(5) and that it be written as read.
Speaker (interpretation): Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills.
Item 13, under orders of the day, tabling of documents.
Tabled Document 026 – 2(2): Early Childhood Development Report 2002-2003
I would like to table as per my Minister’s statement, the Early Childhood Development Report 2002-2003 and also its student loan fund.
Tabled Document 027 – 2(2): Student Loan Fund
Student Loan Fund as required under the Student Financial Act.
Speaker (interpretation): Please provide a copy of the document that’s being tabled.
Consideration in the Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters: Bill 4, Appropriations Capital Act 2005-2006, with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
>>Session recessed at 15:26 and resumed at 15:54
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for coming back. (interpretation ends) I would like to call the Committee meeting to order.
Bill 4, Appropriation Capital Act 2005-2006.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends): I would like to continue with our review of the capital estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services and if time permits we would commence with the review of the Department of Community and Government Services.
Chairman: Are we agreed with the review of the department.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Brown do you have any witnesses you’d like to bring to the table?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): I did not have this placed so could you repeat your question please?