EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I don’t know if “differently” is the proper word, but when projects are being done up in Nunavut, they should be a little more flexible because it is different up here.
We also work with the communities with their integrated community sustainability plans in terms of making sure that we get what the hamlets need, what their priority is.
As a government, we’re not here to tell the hamlets what they need and what they should get.
We want to hear from the hamlets to see what their needs are and then we will work with that.
I have a follow-up question.
If the materials miss the summer sealift and they have to wait a year, it probably gets more expensive.
I’m asking if the materials missed the sealift and they were left behind in one of the communities and perhaps be forgotten.
Since they’re not that huge, they have to be sent out by cargo on the airplane.
I know that it would increase the cost if you have to send them out by airline.
What would happen then?
Will the people who had ordered their materials have to pay more?
I’m not sure which community Mr. Qirngnuq is referring to, but the terms and conditions would be dictated in the contract and it depends on what the contract states.
It may be the contractor’s responsibility to make sure that they get to the community or it may be the government’s responsibility.
Unless we know exactly which contract or which community he’s talking about, I can’t talk any more specific than it would be up to the terms of the contract for the sealift.
I disagree with the minister, so I’ll move on to another item.
The funding for Kugaaruk’s hamlet office is $5.5 million.
When does the minister expect to go do an official opening for the hamlet office?
The Kugaaruk hamlet office/community hall stuff should have arrived this fall of 2016.
If I get an invitation, if I come back here as an elected member, and if I come back as the CGS minister, I will definitely go to the opening.
I hope he gets re-elected.
I’ll move on to another topic, the sewage lagoon funding provided to the municipalities.
Some sewage lagoons seep out and I believe that there are no liners.
I’m sure the minister heard about these issues.
Can you give me clarification on that? That’s my question, Mr. Chairman.
Some sewage lagoons are lined and some are not lined.
In general they are designed to slowly leech out so that the waste water is filtered out.
By the time it’s done all its leeching, it’s within the regulations and standards for the kind of water that comes out that’s fairly clean.
Sewage lagoons generally leech out. It’s a filtering system.
It’s not like a reservoir where we put the water in there and keep it in there and we keep putting it in.
The sewage lagoons are designed to filter out all the impurities and what goes in and what comes out should be quite drastically different.
The water should just naturally slowly get purified too in terms of rainwater and all that.
If a sewage lagoon is getting full, then they have to decant at times from the top because everything settles down.
Most sewage lagoons are designed to leech out a bit.
This is along the same line, but not exactly.
I want to ask about the waste oil that is stored in barrels and put in a non-fenced area.
I think they might leak out as they age. Can our government or minister have a storage area built?
There is such a facility in Kugaaruk. Why is it not being used?
They cost a lot of money to build.
I would like further information, if he can explain it to me.
I hope I am clear enough.
Just to go back to sewage lagoons here, I have been given enhanced wording. The proper word is exfiltration.
It’s not leeching, just to get back to that.
Going back to Mr. Qirngnuq about used oil storage, it may be looked at with a bundling request that we have for the solid waste.
As of right now all we do is store and it has to be properly stored.
I was questioned in the House last week that to store them is not the solution.
We have to come up with a solution on how to deal with it. We can’t just store them forever.
As I stated at that time too, currently there are only two ways to get rid of waste oil and that’s to ship it down south or burn it in a waste oil burner, whether it be a furnace or just a burner.
The companies or the people that produce the waste oil are responsible for disposing of it.
Proficiency is in the facts.
With respect to my earlier comment about waste oil in barrels, there’s a leakage over there on the waste oil storage. I think more money will have to be spent by the hamlet or even by our government.
When will it be able to be inspected or would it be dealt with through the hamlet by our government?
If I understand correctly, the member said that there has been a spill of used oil in Kugaaruk.
I can assure you that the Minister of Environment is also listening to these proceedings
He will pass the message down to his officials to have that looked at and taken care of.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Following my list of names, (interpretation ends) Mr. Rumbolt, your second round of questions.
I could have asked this question earlier, but I forgot and when we got on the topic sewage lagoons, I thought it would be good to ask on a status report on the sewage lagoon in Sanikiluaq.
This lagoon has been on the books now for many years and it has been delayed for various reasons over the years, and it’s not all to our own government’s doing.
I’m just wondering if the minister is prepared today to give us a quick update on the progress of the sewage lagoon in Sanikiluaq.
Just to give all the members an update, sewage lagoons are an issue in many communities and one of the unforeseen problems that we have run into is Transport Canada regulations in terms of where a sewage lagoon can be located.
As the member is quite aware, he’s aware of all the issues we’ve had with building a new sewage lagoon and we could not get the proper permitting to build a new sewage lagoon.
We are looking at working and enhancing the current sewage lagoon in Sanikiluaq, but just so that the member knows, we still have to get permission to expand it.
We are looking at it and we will deal with it.
It’s just that sometimes our hands are tied by stuff that is just beyond our control, but there are a few communities where we have to build sewage lagoons and we have to figure out how to do it.
I don’t have any new information to the member right now. I can’t tell him that “Yes, next year construction is starting to expand the sewage lagoon in Sanikiluaq,” but I can assure the member that we’re working hard on it and we’re working with Transport Canada. We’re not building a new sewage lagoon.
It’s to expand and enhance the existing one in Sanikiluaq.
I appreciate the update.
I know that Transport Canada is a big issue considering Sanikiluaq’s location and we’re pretty well surrounded by water. To try to stay four kilometres from the airport is not an easy task in my community.
I know that recently Dalhousie University was in there doing studies on the water flowing out of the lagoon.
I’m wondering when this report from Dalhousie is going to be complete for my community or if it’s part of the same report that they’re planning to release in January.
The member is correct in the latter. It’s part of the same report that will be released in January.
Total Capital Expenditures. $33 million.
Go to page J-5.
Community and Government Services. Petroleum Products Division.
Total Capital Expenditures. $8,450,000.
Go to page J-2. Department Summary.
Community and Government Services. Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $41,450,000.
Chairman: Do you have closing comments, Minister Savikataaq?
I would like to thank my staff, Ms. Kimball and Mr. Flynn, for being here to assist me in the questions.
I would like to thank the members for being engaged in the department and what we’re trying to do.
Lastly, I would thank the members that they know that CGS stands for Community and Government Services now, not like last year. It was three days of “Come and get Savikataaq!”
Mr. Mikkungwak: Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 24 and the capital estimates, and would like to report progress.
Mr. Qirngnuq. (interpretation ends) The motion is in order.
Just a reminder that tomorrow at ten o’clock in the morning, there’s a meeting of the Regular Caucus in the Nanuq Boardroom.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 25, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 18:47 Appendix – October 24, 2016
Public Accounts, Independent Officers and Other Entities
Report on the Review of the 2015-2016 Annual Report of the  Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut
Fall 2016 Sitting
Emiliano Qirngnuq, MLA
Under section 68 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Information and Privacy Commissioner is required to prepare and submit an annual report to the Legislative Assembly on her office’s activities.
The standing committee’s televised hearings provide an opportunity for the issues raised in each report to be discussed in a public forum.
Government accountability is fostered through the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, which requires that the government table a comprehensive response to the standing committee’s report and recommendations within 120 days of its presentation to the House.
The government’s most recent annual report on the administration of the Act was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on November 3, 2015.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner’s 2015 appearance before the standing committee took place on September 28, 2015, on the occasion of its televised hearing on her 2014-2015 annual report to the Legislative Assembly.
The standing committee’s report on its hearing was subsequently presented to the Legislative Assembly on November 4, 2015.
The Government of Nunavut’s response to the standing committee’s report was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on March 15, 2016.
The Final Report on the Department of Family Services’ Current Privacy Safeguards and Next Steps in Drafting the Protocol for Handling Personal Information Provided to Third Parties Under the Adoption Act and the Child and Family Services Act was tabled on June 7, 2016.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner’s 2015-2016 annual report was backdoor tabled under the provisions of Rule 44(2) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on July 24, 2016.
The September 13-14, 2016, appearances of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and Government of Nunavut officials before the standing committee took place in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly.
Issue: Government of Nunavut Responses to the Information and Privacy
Commissioner’s Review Recommendations
68. The Information and Privacy Commissioner shall, by July 1 in each year, submit to the Legislative Assembly an assessment of the effectiveness of this Act and a report on the activities of the Information and Privacy Commissioner under this Act during the previous year, including information concerning any instances where recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner after a review have not been followed.
In its November 4, 2015, report, the standing committee recommended that the Government of Nunavut’s formal written responses to the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s review recommendations be made publicly accessible through posting on the website of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
The standing committee applauds the Information and Privacy Commissioner for undertaking this work in a timely manner and making publicly available all review recommendations that have been completed by her office.
In her 2015-2016 annual report to the Legislative Assembly, the Information and Privacy Commissioner noted that:
“Sections 36 and 49.6 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act require the head of a public body to respond to recommendations made and to either follow those recommendations or make any other decision considered appropriate.
This decision must be in writing and must be provided to the Applicant or Complainant, as the case may be, and to my office.
There is, however, very little accountability for public bodies after this step has been taken.
Public bodies are not required to report back to my office or to the Applicant/Complainant once the recommendations have been implemented.
Until now, the public would not even know whether or not the recommendations were accepted, let alone be able to follow up with the public body on whether the recommendations had been completed.
The posting of the government’s responses on my website, alongside the Review Recommendations, will help to promote an increased ability for the public to follow up and demand accountability.”
During her September 13, 2016, appearance before the standing committee, the Information and Privacy Commissioner stated that:
“I would like to see provisions that would make the recommendations made by the Information and Privacy Commissioner something that has to be addressed one way or another.
Right now I make recommendations and they’re accepted most of the time but at that point, I don’t know whether they’re ever followed through.
I would like to see something that gives back to government, the accountability to address the recommendations made.
How one does that, I don’t know.
Require the public bodies to report back to the Information and Privacy Commissioner once the recommendations have been completed, perhaps.”
Section 49.6 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides that:
Decision of Head
49.6.
Within 90 days after receiving the report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner under section 49.5, the head of the public body concerned shall
(a) make a decision to follow the recommendation of the Information and Privacy Commissioner or make any other decision the head considers appropriate; and (b) give written notice of the decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the individual who requested the review under subsection 49.1(1).”
The standing committee notes that the Information and Privacy Commissioner has made numerous recommendations to the Government of Nunavut since the establishment of her office.
While a number of these recommendations relate to specific reviews of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the standing committee notes that a number of these recommendations are more general in nature and relate to policies and practices concerning the administration of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The standing committee applauds the government for accepting, in large part, the recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
However, the standing committee notes with concern that the government does not clearly account for its actual implementation of these recommendations.
During her September 13, 2016, appearance before the standing committee, the Information and Privacy Commissioner stated in her opening comments that:
“The Committee also encouraged me to undertake at least one formal privacy audit of a GN department in 2015-16.
I chose the Qikiqtani [General] Hospital for this review largely because it is a large public body which collects large quantities of the most sensitive personal information about Nunavummiut.
In order to do a thorough and effective job of this, my first privacy audit, I engaged the services of Robert Gary Dickson, the former Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan and one of Canada’s pre-eminent experts in health privacy law, to assist me.”
Members engaged in a broad dialogue with the Information and Privacy Commissioner concerning the outcomes of her privacy audit of the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
In response to questions concerning the challenges associated with conducting her office’s audit, the Information and Privacy Commissioner stated that:
“Actually we found that the staff and management at the hospital were very open and went out of their way to get us what we needed.
We did, however, run into more difficulty with the Department of Health because at the moment, the hospital is not a public body in and of itself.
It is part of the Department of Health and the Department of Health was a little less inviting, shall we say, or interested in having us there and there was a little bit more reluctance.
It took us a little bit more digging to get what we needed from them.”
The standing committee notes with concern that these challenges echo the Office of the Languages Commissioner’s challenges, which it faced while conducting a systemic investigation of the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
On March 1, 2012, the Office of the Languages Commissioner began its systemic investigation of the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
On November 24, 2015, the Languages Commissioner appeared before the standing committee on the occasion of its televised hearings to review her 2013-2014 annual report.
At that time, the Languages Commissioner stated that:
“It was very difficult to do the systemic investigation of the whole hospital.
In the requests we made in previous years that were documented, we were never responded to and I have been thinking that once the Act is being reviewed … I feel that there needs to be an obstruction clause to not investigate, but to give our office more authority on such matters.
Whenever we requested a document or anything from them during our investigation, it seemed like it didn’t matter if they ignored us and there was really no recourse for us. We even started thinking about using the courts to get those documents. They were finally given to us when we started thinking like that.”
Issue: Obligation of Government of Nunavut Departments, Crown Agencies and Territorial Corporations to Report Privacy Breach Notifications
In June of 2012, the Legislative Assembly passed Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
These amendments came into force on May 11, 2013.
These amendments established a statutory requirement for public bodies to notify the Information and Privacy Commissioner where a material breach of privacy has occurred with respect to personal information under their control.
Subsection 49.9(1) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides that:
Public Body to report to Information and Privacy Commissioner
49.9(1) A public body that knows or has reason to believe that a breach of privacy has occurred with respect to personal information under its control shall report the breach of privacy to the Information and Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this section if the breach is material.
“Nunavut was the first jurisdiction in Canada to make it a requirement that all public bodies report material breaches of privacy to my office and to report such breaches to the individuals involved when the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to those individuals.
That Nunavut was first to do this is to be applauded.
This is now one of the amendments being discussed in most Canadian jurisdictions currently reviewing their Acts.
I am concerned, however, that those who work within the GN are not yet fully aware of the obligations imposed on them to report breaches.
While I have received a few breach reports under this section, I would have expected there to be more.
This is a significant obligation and, if only because humans are imperfect, there are bound to be instances in which information is lost or falls into the wrong hands.
Every employee who deals in any way with personal information should be receiving at least basic training about how to recognize a breach of privacy and what to do when a breach happens.
More education of GN employees is called for in this regard.”
“While I understand the limitations that Nunavut municipalities face in terms of resources, expertise and infrastructure, I am starting to receive more and more requests that involve municipal governments and I have seen no real progress in ensuring that municipalities are responsible for either access or privacy protection.
Steps, even small ones, need to be taken to move municipalities toward basic access to information rights and privacy protections.”
In its formal response to the standing committee’s November 4, 2015, report, the Government of Nunavut indicated that it is:
“… dedicated to working with municipalities to prepare them for implementation of access and privacy principles in the near future.
The ultimate goal is to bring them under the ATIPP Act, with the appropriate authoritative oversight.
It should be noted that the current business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs indicates that:
“The department will continue discussions with the City of Iqaluit and Nunavut Association of Municipalities on potential revisions to the ATIPP Act that would allow for the inclusion of municipalities, and ensure meaningful compliance and effective implementation.”
It should also be noted that, in its September 14, 2016, opening statement to the standing committee, the Government of Nunavut’s lead witness indicated that:
“The Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs has engaged municipalities and the Nunavut Association of Municipalities for a number of years on their inclusion under the Act.
At this time, the GN is working on creating the necessary legislative framework that will support the application of access and privacy legislation within municipalities.”
Extensive discussion on these issues took place during the September 13-14, 2016, appearances of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and witnesses from the Government of Nunavut.
An ongoing issue that has been raised in the context of annual hearings on the reports of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is the application of access to information and protection of privacy legislation to District Education Authorities (DEAs).
In its November 4, 2015, report on the review of the 2014-2015 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the standing committee indicated the following:
“The standing committee notes that recently-passed amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations make Local Housing Authorities and Local Housing Associations subject to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The standing committee suggests that a similar approach with respect to District Education Authorities and the role of the Minister of Education might serve to help address capacity concerns.”
“In recent years there have been more and more complaints involving various education authorities, which are currently not public bodies under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Schools and Education Authorities not only use public money to deliver programs but they also collect significant amounts of sensitive personal information.
While I have, to date, been able to address these issues indirectly by making the Department of Education responsible for access and privacy within the school system, it makes much more sense to make Education Authorities directly responsible for both access and privacy.
There is clearly a current lack of awareness or concern about these issues, as was demonstrated by the facts in Review Recommendation 15-194 discussed above.
It makes sense to include Education Authorities as public bodies under the Act.”
In its formal response to the standing committee’s November 4, 2015, report, the Government of Nunavut indicated that it has:
“… been in discussion with the Department of Education for a number of years regarding the inclusion of District Education Authorities (DEA) and the Commission scolaire francophone du Nunavut (CSFN) under the ATIPP Act.
We fully support their inclusion, and believe consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner would be constructive and could help outline the consultations that will need to take place between the GN and the DEAs and the CSFN.”
It should also be noted that in its September 14, 2016, opening statement to the standing committee, the Government of Nunavut’s lead witnesses indicated that: