EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs has several areas of responsibility including providing advice and administrative support to cabinet and government departments and agencies, overseeing the overall coordination of the executive branch and the development of the senior public service, and ensuring that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is implemented.
The role of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs is to seek political direction and build consensus within the public service.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs is responsible for communicating the accomplishments, objectives, and policies of the government both within government and to the public.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs also plays a leadership role in coordinating the governments priorities and mandate as set out in Pinasuaqtavut.
Our government is now five years old, and although much has been done, there is much more to do.
These 2004-05 main estimates represent the direction of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs in meeting its challenges.
The total budget allotment for operations and maintenance is $9,397,000 for 2004-2005.
Executive Branch
The Department’s Executive Branch is responsible for executives and corporate services, statistics, communications, policy, planning, and evaluation.
We also do support to the Utilities Rates Review Council.
Under my direction, the Executive Branch is responsible for bringing forward the cabinet agenda.
It also supports cabinet by communicating our direction to the public service.
The Executive Branch ensures the Government of Nunavut incorporates Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, follows Pinasuaqtavut, and fulfills the Government of Nunavut’s mandate to decentralize government positions.
Intergovernmental Affairs Branch
The Intergovernmental Affairs Branch of the department is responsible for the management and development of intergovernmental strategies, policies, and initiatives relating to federal, provincial, territorial, circumpolar, and aboriginal affairs.
This is accomplished by:
encouraging strong working relationships with other governments;
respecting “iqqanaijaqatigiit” by coordinating Government of Nunavut activities with Nunavut Tunnavik Incorporated and regional Inuit organizations;
ensuring the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; and
advancing the issue of devolution in negotiations with the federal government.
As all members know, there will be a new federal government after June 29.
As a territorial government, and in partnership with NTI, we will have to build new relationships to ensure that our priorities are addressed by the new government.
All of my cabinet colleagues, through their portfolios and in federal-provincial-territorial forums, will be pursuing funding and programs to address the needs of Nunavummiut.
Mr. Chairman, those are the highlights of EIA’s mandate for 2004-05.
I expect to continue building on our successes and advancing the importance of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in policy development.
Does the committee agree for the Premier to bring the witnesses to the table?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could assist the Premier’s officials.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Yes, with me today is on my left, my deputy minister, John Walsh.
And to my right Terry Rogers, corporate services.
Chairman: Does the Chair of the standing committee have any comments?
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome Deputy Minister Walsh and Mr. Rogers.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability has reviewed the main estimates and business plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs for the 2004-05 fiscal year, and I am pleased to provide you with the committee's comments.
The Committee notes that the department's total 2004-05 budget has decreased approximately 9 percent from 2003-04, primarily as a result of the wind-up of the decentralization secretariat.
In the past, a number of concerns were raised during the review of the department’s main estimates.
In general, the performance of GN departments in meeting statutory tabling requirements has improved since the first few years of the GN’s operation.
EIA has an important role to play in ensuring discipline in this area on the part of line departments.
However, as both the committee and the Auditor General have noted, annual financial statements for a number of Crown corporations continue to be tabled months after they are due.
EIA and the Department of Finance should present a united position with respect to achieving improvements in this area.
As a start, the committee would suggest that the annual performance bonuses awarded to senior departmental and Crown corporation managers be tied in part to actual performance in meeting legally required tabling requirements.
In the past, members have stressed the need for the department to improve communication with communities.
Members are pleased to note the department’s continued commitment to more actively using community radio to disseminate information of interest to Nunavummiut.
Members have consistently supported the government’s efforts to impress upon our federal partners the need for funding arrangements that are not based on rigid and inadequate per capita formulas, but on the real needs of the jurisdiction.
In turn, members urge the government to be consistent and credible by dealing with the needs of our communities, schools, and other institutions in a manner that is not based solely on population numbers.
Members were pleased to note recent tri-territorial success in securing a better deal for Nunavut and our northern partners, the NWT and the Yukon, in the area of healthcare.
Members were also pleased to note that GN lobbying has proved productive with respect to progress on the Bathurst Inlet port and road project.
Members recognize that the federal election has injected a degree of uncertainty with respect to immediate progress on the devolution issue.
Members would wish to see the Premier and his ministerial colleagues account more frequently and formally to the House on their activities and achievements at the many federal-provincial-territorial and international meetings at which they are in attendance.
Simply issuing news releases is insufficient.
The committee would also wish to see more frequent and formal updates to the Legislative Assembly on the status of transboundary disputes with groups in Manitoba and elsewhere.
The committee looks forward to a productive working relationship between the GN and NTI, while urging the government to be forthright with members with respect to areas where the two parties have legitimate disagreements.
Mr. Chairman, although the structure of the GN was re-organized in March of this year, members note with disappointment that a final report on the program review initiative and what it achieved has yet to be released.
On a related note, members reacted with surprise to a recent GN request for proposals by the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, in which consulting services are requested in a number of areas, including program review.
The GN’s obligations with respect to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act are coordinated by the department.
There continue to be a number of areas in which little progress has been achieved in meeting past recommendations of the information and privacy commissioner or committees of this House.
One specific area where the committee would wish to see greater transparency on the part of the GN is with respect to the formally adopted policies of the government.
All too frequently, the government claims that it is unable to make public the decisions and directives that it gives to departments and Crown corporations.
While Members recognize that the deliberations of cabinet, and the options that it considers, are legitimately confidential items, the public good achieved by keeping secret the actual decisions of government remains questionable.
As a start, the committee would recommend that the government formally table in the Legislative Assembly a comprehensive set of the policies that have been formally approved to date by cabinet.
These would include, for example, the GN’s new leasing policy, the existence of which was publicly disclosed in February 2003 by a senior GN official during public hearings.
There can be no justification for not tabling and making public the formal policies approved by the cabinet and followed by the government as a whole.
Although the government frequently pays rhetorical tribute to the values of transparency and accountability, it often appears that we are falling further and further behind other Canadian jurisdictions with respect to making information public.
At the federal level, progress has been achieved in bringing the lens of public scrutiny to bear on such items as the travel and hospitality expenses of senior officials, as evidenced by the fact that even federal cabinet ministers have these expenses posted on departmental websites.
Mr. Chairman, it is self-evident that making such information public serves as a deterrent against waste and abuse.
The Utility Rates Review Council falls under the jurisdiction of the department.
Members continue to have concerns as to the extent to which it has been involved in the current situation surrounding the Nunavut Power Corporation’s latest fuel stabilization rider.
The committee has noted that although the department last year announced the decentralization of a number of its positions to Pangnirtung, these positions have not yet been filled.
These include, ironically, the positions which are supposed to evaluate the success of the decentralization initiative itself.
Two areas where the committee could see value in the government’s engaging a truly independent review are the costs and success of the decentralization initiative, and the costs and success of the implementation, to date, of the recommendations of the Ikuma reports.
A related area is that of performance measurement.
Members have noted with interest the department’s stated business plan goal to establish a GN performance measurement program.
The Committee would wish to see departmental business plans begin to incorporate performance measures that look at actual results and outcomes, and not just activities and outputs.
That concludes my opening comments. Individual members may have their own concerns and comments as we proceed, but that is it for now.
By now you know the rules.
So, the floor is now open for 10-minute general comments.
I see no names for general comments.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Just to supplement the opening comment… .
I want you, Mr. Premier, to know we are concerned about the government and that we do not dislike the government.
But, if we look at all of the consultant contracts during the life of the first Assembly and also for the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth, there was a $500,000 contract to find the location for the museum; $500,000, that is half a million dollars.
We could probably build a few units with that, and in reading the report, it seems it should have been closer to $60,000 instead, keeping in mind that cost factors were incomplete.
For that reason I would caution your department, if we are going to be contracting out you have to review it with all the departmental programs.
There are individuals who can do reviews within the government, department officials; we don’t necessarily have to go directly to the consultants.
There are individuals within the government who have this expertise, so we have to be very cautious of contracting out.
We have to utilize our workers, our staff that has that expertise. I’m sure that big, huge sum of contracts was approved by the Financial Management Board was incomplete, and that’s just one example that I wanted to point out.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for listening.
No more members on my list for general comments.
We will now proceed for a page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page B-5. Executive and intergovernmental affairs branch summary.
Directorate. $1,426,000.
Chairman: Page B6.
Communications, policy, planning, and evaluation. $1,989,000.
Chairman: Page B-7. Statistical services.
Total, Operations and maintenance, $352,000.
Chairman: Nunavut cabinet.
Page B-8. $3,500,000.
Chairman: Page 9.
Total, operations and maintenance, $189,000.
Chairman: Intergovernmental affairs.
I would like to welcome the Premier and his witness.
I have a question on raising the entire profile of Nunavut in southern Canada.
What is Intergovernmental Affairs doing in terms of raising our profile in southern Canada, sustaining it?
I’ve often heard in my travels that people down south don’t know where Nunavut is.
I’ve heard politicians in Ottawa say that the novelty of Nunavut has worn off.
I think when we are lobbying in the south we have to use all our efforts and resources to raise our level of awareness in southern Canada with what is happening up here.
I’m wondering if the Premier can comment on what efforts his department is doing in this regard.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Premier.
Due to our limited budget we try and keep our costs down.
We are very active in the intergovernmental forum and have a good working relationship with all other governments, whether they be provinces or territories.
So, it’s very helpful in terms of our lobbying efforts.
We maintain an office in Ottawa; if you are in Ottawa you are more than welcome to come and use our office facilities there.
So, that keeps us in touch with the federal government.
In terms of advertising, we do not do much.
But we do take any free advertisement that comes our way.
For instance last fall, I believe, the Globe and Mail provided us with a free full-page ad to advertise our product and where we are as a result of ongoing advertising for positions and jobs in their paper.
Whatever trips I do take overseas, I try and make sure that other governments pay, for those like the federal government.
So, I try to take advantage of any avenues that come our way to promote Nunavut and our fine products.
I appreciate that answer.
One of the common misconceptions down south is that southern Canada gives us $700- or 800 million in federal transfers and it simply comes here and disappears into some kind of sinkhole.
Two years ago the municipalities did some calculations, where we hired KPMG. They calculated that from the $600- or 700 million in federal transfers, $450 million went back south. That supported between four thousand and nine thousand jobs in southern Canada and added a value of $300 million to goods and services produced down there.
I wonder if the Premier can comment if the government should be doing this kind of work. Should they calculate the financial impact on southern Canada in terms of the monies we spend down south, and the jobs we create to support down south, while we are up here in northern Canada?
(Interpretation.) It is the explanation that we have to offer, and I’ve never really encountered any opposition to our position with other governments, because they understand where we’re coming from and that our ability to generate our own revenue is very limited because it is held by the national government.
This is not uncommon for new governments.
Like in the west, all the provinces from Alberta to Manitoba, or Saskatchewan did not have their own ability to generate their own revenue when they first started.
So, they fully support us on any efforts to regain control of our ability to get our own resources.
For example, when it comes it fisheries, that’s the same issue.
So, the other provinces have been very supportive of our efforts and the national government is coming around to it.
So, they’re open to discussions on devolution so that we can generate our own revenue.
They all agree that we don’t have much resources here, so we have to spend the money down south and purchase their products, so that’s the easy part of the work.
To try to get the national government to accept that we need assistance is the biggest hurdle.
I’d just like to ask the Premier if he could offer us some insight into his negotiations, or discussions with provincial premiers and the federal government in terms of explaining to them that we have a very small population-base in Nunavut, and because of that, per capita formulas do not work for Nunavut.
We’ve seen that in terms of the infrastructure monies we used to get.
We’ve been successful and making some improvement there, but in terms of getting additional funds for health, it’ll be good if the per capital formula didn’t apply. We should get some sort of base allocation.
I’m just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier can comment if he’s making any progress in southern Canada in terms of convincing his counterparts and senior persons in the federal government that per capital formulas don’t work for small populations such as we have in northern territory or in some of the smaller provinces.
Chairman: Thank you Mr. Peterson.
Yes, where you’re going, when we walked, as a territory when we couldn’t convince the national government of our position that per capital does not work.
Since we walked from the agreement that the federal government was trying to impose on us, we created new conditions for the north where we get additional funds for healthcare.
That was reflected in the last national federal government budget.
That additional that we get on top of the per capita dollars is an ongoing fund for health for the north.
It does not meet all our costs but it does go some way in helping us absorb some of the costs that we have to bear.
We’ve also got additional money for infrastructure that is on top of per capital allocations that were in place in the past.
So, I appreciate the good work that the member has done with NAM in lobbying the national government.
It has been very helpful, but we still pursue any avenues that we can use at the national level. The easiest way is through the annual premiers’ conferences that we attend, and I’ve always received very good support from colleagues whenever we raised an issue for the north.
I just have a comment.
In terms of seniority in Canada, are you the longest serving premier or the second longest?
Could you comment on that?
I know that helps when you’re trying to lobby at the senior levels.
Can you comment on that?
Chairman): Mr. Premier.
I am third-ranking, and it helps because they know you have been around and you know the issues.
I know the players around the table and what their issues are, so it is very helpful in terms of the dealings on various issues that we face at the national level.
I would like to beg the committee’s indulgence as I was taking my daughter to the washroom and I missed some questions that we had on the first few pages.
It was your fourth question that I wanted to address.
My first question in this, and related to the comments that were made in my opening comments, I mentioned the program review final report.
I’m just wondering when will the final report be tabled on that?
Chairman: Mr. Premier.
The conclusion of our last Assembly before the elections, we had presented an overview at the time, findings of the program review.
We did not anticipate a formal report other than to present the findings and some of the responses that we have put together.
So, if the member wants us to write up a nice report on the findings and our responses to the review, we can do that as well.
I was at that meeting and I’m pretty sure that was just an update on that program review.
I’d like to ask the minister what specific decisions or direction were taken as a result of the whole exercise.
And also, to comment on… . You know, just by taking it to the point of finding a few little things and that are decided kind of seems like they are cutting something off half way through the process.
It seems incomplete.
Given that, what specific decisions and directions are taken as a result of the whole exercise?
That finding’s with me right now but I’m more than willing to provide the comments, perhaps in the form of a report that the member requests.
I’ll look forward to that.
Could you touch on that through correspondence to the minister so I get a clear indication of what we’re looking at?
My next question relates to something that I mentioned in my opening comments and that was on getting the government to table the complete set of formal policies that have been approved to date.
Will the minister commit to doing that, and when?
Hon. Paul Okalik: “Qujannamiik, Itsivautaq.” Yes, our session is almost done.
I would say that I could table it in the next session, so that we have it for the next session.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Premier.
Mr. Tootoo: You guys look forward to the summer, eh?
Mr. Chairman, my next question that deals with senior personnel secretary, again, is something that I mentioned in my opening comment, that it is a fact that the federal government now makes public on a regular basis the hospitality and travel expenses of senior federal public servants.
Will the minister commit to tabling this information in the House for the Government of Nunavut senior public servants as well as the cabinet ministers?
Hon. Paul Okalik: “Qujannamiik, Itsivautaq.”
I am willing to review that possibility and see what requirements there may be for confidentiality, but I am more than open to it.
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Chairman, another question I have is dealing with something else raised in my opening comment, and that was on in the statistics division.
It was announced in 2003 that the department was moving to Pangnirtung, knowing the people that are in the division moved with it.
I am just wondering, when does the department anticipate having this division operational again?
We will take a little time and find local staff, which we are planning to do. We plan to have it complete by September of this year.
Well, I am sure some of the information that that division provided to the government is information that we desperately need to take to our southern counterparts.
So, the sooner we can get that going, the better.
That is pretty vital.
It is homework that we need to take down to justify additional resources to build our case with them.
I urge the minister to work on that as quickly as possible.
The other thing I would like to ask about is on the fishing quotas when you are talking about the intergovernmental relationship with Ottawa.
Can the minister give us an update as to where things are at with that in trying to get a higher allocation of the quota? And borrowing any positive possibility of my comments that I made earlier today to the minister responsible for environment, if we cannot capitalize on the actual quota, there are other ways of forcing these people that fish in our waters out here to offload their catches in Nunavut. Is that something that we could look at as well?
Our focus has been to lobby for higher allocation based on adjacency.
Members may recall that at the last premiers’ meeting that I attended, I received support for our position.
That adjacency principle, in terms of shrimp allocations, should apply for Nunavut, and we should be treated like the rest of Canada in terms of getting our share of our resources.
So, that has been our focus to this point, in trying to get the same treatment as we would if we were in southern Canada.
So, in terms of actual infrastructure, we have also lobbied for the same kinds of programs that southern jurisdictions receive.
To date, we have not been successful, but we are continuing to pursue all avenues that we have at our disposal to try and get our message through.
We are also pressuring the courts on one of the allocations because we feel the land claim agreement was not respected by the national government when they allocated last year, for instance.
So, we will continue to explore every avenue that we have, to try and get as many benefits flowing from our resources to Nunavut.
I’m sure the minister knows that any support that any of the members of the Assembly can do to help that cause out, I’m sure that they will be more than willing to do it for them, to try and further our cause in that area.