EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I thank you for the answers to that. That actually answered my next question, which would be: how many years would it take for that to happen? And you said it was three years for it to unfold.
I guess my next question is: in terms of the Baffin Correctional Centre, could you update the committee on the facility review and some of the findings in terms of the living conditions of the inmates out there?
As committee members know through a previous debate on this discussion on the Baffin Correctional Centre, the facility is in an advanced state of disrepair. It is an old building.
It wasn’t designed for the type of services that it is providing now. It is overcrowded.
I think Mr. Elliott has taken a tour of the facility and seen first-hand what the condition is.
The director of corrections services approached CGS following the decision by the House not to fund our $300,000 request for funding to look at the modernization, expanding, upgrading the facility, or even possibly replacing it.
He requested an assessment of the immediate priority areas that need to be addressed to make the facility a safer facility not only for our inmates, Mr. Chairman, but also our officials who work out there.
The three areas that they looked at as requiring immediate attention would be the security system, then the fire security system, and then the ventilation system.
The reason I’m asking is because I was wondering, with some of the changes and some of the suggestions in that study, whether it was going to adversely affect the operations and maintenance in terms of repair and some of the things that they were going to do to that building in terms upgrading the fire system, the ventilation system, and the security system.
So are those changes reflected in this budget or is there going to be an increase to the O&M for the operation of that building?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliott.
It’s a good question.
No, it’s not reflected in this budget.
Mr. Chairman, the cut off for preparation of main estimates was early in November and we were into capital estimates in December when we got the decision not to proceed, but we will have to deal with these costs in the new fiscal year.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. Mr. Elliott.
In regard to… I don’t know the proper term, but I guess the inmates who are in there and then now, if I understand correctly, there are quite a few people who are in there who are on remand, so I don’t know if they’re technically called inmates.
Is it a usual practice across Canada where we have people who have been through the court system and they have received a sentence and they are an inmate put in with the general population of people who are on remand awaiting trial that could go from one to two to three years waiting for a trail to happen?
Mr. Chairman, recognizing Nunavut’s unique circumstances and the lack of facilities, we have to put remand prisoners in with the regular population.
It’s not a common practice down south. It may occur in some areas, but it’s not a common practice.
It’s only in Nunavut, to my knowledge.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then I guess I’m going back to my original question.
The feasibility study or the study that was done, in terms of CGS being asked to help with looking into the possibilities of things to do, was there a suggestion of having a separate remand centre for people on remand or was it just looking at the facility?
No. Mr. Chairman, the only thing that they were asked to look at was the immediate areas that needed replacement or repair. As I said, it was a security system for operating the doors, then fire safety, and then the ventilation of the facility.
The work was undertaken by Accutech Engineering and Parkin Architects Limited, the people who designed the Rankin Inlet facility.
So they have a lot of good knowledge about correctional facilities and what is required to undertake all of these improvements and repairs.
There was quite a bit of publicity on the state of BCC and there was a CBC report that sort of was talking about some of the inmates or some of the people in BCC and whether it was infringing on people’s human rights.
Is that the case of what’s happening here?
I don’t think we’re at that point yet, but we’re at a point where we have to deal with making some of these repairs to make it safer for the prisoners and also the officials out there.
So I guess it wouldn’t hurt to tell some of the inmates and also some of the people who are in remand who feel that they’re - I guess I’ll take your advice that you gave me about the people with disabilities - not having their human rights met to go to the Human Rights Tribunal. Is that a good suggestion?
Mr. Chairman, the folks who are prisoners and the officials who are out there, if any of them feel that their human rights are being infringed on or violated, then the Human Rights Tribunal is a phone call or letter away if they want to contact them.
Thank you for that explanation because that was going to be my next question. If some of the workers out there feel that they’re being put into situations like that, what advice and suggestions do you have for them? It sounds like you’re saying that the Human Rights Tribunal would be a good way for them to go, unless I’m wrong.
Maybe a clarification. Thank you.
I thank Mr. Elliott for a good question.
Mr. Chairman, the Human Rights Tribunal operates at arm’s length from me, so I can’t answer for how they might receive the application or how they deal with it.
I have talked to the Executive Director, Marion Love, and they have a very good system in place.
They will investigate properly and promptly.
There is no guarantee that they may find that there is a human rights violation, but they will look into it.
While we’re on that topic, I know we don’t actually have whistle-blower legislation in place and we’ve had a lot of talk about it from different MLAs. It sounds like the government is working towards that in terms of HR.
So no employee feels that they will be reprimanded or anything, your department would have no problem with them doing that in terms of there would be no negative or adverse effect in terms of their job if they were to go through the Human Rights Tribunal. If you just say yes or no whether you would support them.
I want to assure the officials and employees out at the Baffin Correctional Centre or anywhere that if they have concerns and complaints, ideally, they would take them to their supervisors, but if they have other concerns, I don’t think there is going to be any retribution from this government.
Before I ask, Mr. Chairman, I need a clarification on the activity page for Community Justice, if activity is, in fact, related to the outreach community worker directly or indirectly.
If yes, I have one question.
Chairman: I believe that’s under Community Justice, but I’ll ask Minister Peterson.
If Mr. Ningark could direct me to the correct page that he is referring to, it would help.
Mr. Ningark: My question was: this activity page here on Community Justice, does it have anything to do with the community outreach worker?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Ningark is referring to page E-9 of main estimates, the community justice outreach worker is connected to the Family Abuse Intervention Act, so yes to his question.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. That will be the next page we go to. You can ask that question then.
Any more questions, Mr. Ningark?
I apologize. I’m getting ahead of the game here, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: No problem.
I wanted to go back and again in terms of Baffin Correctional Centre, one of the things that were mentioned in some of the media releases that have come out is the idea that programs are not able to be run for the inmates because of overcrowding and because of the way that the building is set up.
I guess I’m new at this. What are the programs that are offered to individuals?
I know originally, there was a carving program that was stopped for a while and I don’t know if it’s still going again, but if the minister could explain some of the programs that are offered.
According to 77(2), I’m going to give you an opportunity to ask some questions, but we have to be careful that we ask most of the questions the first time around. I wouldn’t mind going the second time around, but the third time around… I think we have to limit that I’ll let Minister Peterson answer that.
I thank Mr. Elliott for that question. Mr. Chairman, I have a long list here on some of the programs.
One of them would be alternatives to violence. Dr. Podmoroff facilitates that program.
It’s a six-week model, twice weekly. It’s a men’s group again facilitated by Dr. Podmoroff. It’s a six-week model and it’s intended for offenders who have been convicted of sexual offences.
There’s a classroom which has an adult instructor who helps students to participate in basic literacy upgrading, general education diploma, high school credits, trades, and free trades.
There’s the Inuit cultural skills program that’s facilitated by land program officers.
There are the outpost camps that are operated in some of the communities and around Iqaluit.
There’s a drug and alcohol program which is currently on hold because the facilitator of the program is no longer available.
There are individual counselling and psychologists, members of the local Christian Fellowship Church, and elder Susan Sammurtok, who offers individual counselling.
There’s the Katak Program; it’s a special needs program for individuals who face mental health issues.
There are recreational activities so that folks out there can get fresh air, walks, baseball, swimming, when available in the summer.
There was a suicide intervention program, but that’s on hold, so we would have to find some staff to train.
Income tax assistance; the staff coordinates with local volunteers to help some of the inmates to complete the income tax.
So there are a number of programs available to the folks out there.
I didn’t realize it was my third go around, I thought it was my second go around. As Minister Taptuna pointed out earlier, it takes a while for my original ideas to start flowing.
I just have one more question. In terms of the programs that are offered, it’s great that those programs are being offered. I’m just wondering if the minister would be willing to accept the suggestion of another one.
It was something was mentioned in Tamapta and it’s one of our homegrown programs through Nunavut Arctic College, the Prior Learning Assessment Recognition Program. Nunavut Arctic College has adapted that and has it in all of its programs. It’s a way for people to get in touch with where they fit in, in their community and whatnot.
If the minister could commit to maybe looking into that program and seeing the viability of having that run as a way of supporting Tamapta as well as Nunavut Arctic College.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliott for asking that question.
I’ve had conversations with Mr. Elliott a few times on PLAR. It’s not his first good idea; it’s one of his first good ideas. He’s had many good ideas.
I meant that as a compliment right there. He is always giving me good ideas.
Mr. Chairman, yes to that suggestion, I think it’s a very good suggestion and our officials will include it.
We have no more names on the list here. We will go to Justice. Branch Summary.
Corrections. Total Operations Maintenance, to be Voted. $23,527,000.
Chairman: Move on to E-9. Branch Summary. Justice.
Community Justice. Are there any questions? Mr. Ningark.
Some people tell me, under this activity, that the community outreach worker is funded by the Family Abuse Intervention Act. I would say the position is funded by the hamlets in their respective communities.
So up to this point in time, all I know is the Roman numeral print in my head. So who pays for the position and operation of the community outreach worker?
Is it the hamlet or is it funded by the Family Abuse Intervention Act?
The CJOW positions are funded through the Department of Justice via contribution agreements with the hamlets.
If not, we will go to Branch Summary.
Justice. Community Justice. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $4,851,000.
I wasn’t sure where I could ask this.
Maybe I could have asked it in E-7 under Court Services, but because I don’t know, I’ll ask under the general page.
I would like to raise the issue with the minister. In January of this year, I received concerns from a constituent with respect to a subpoena that the constituent had received to appear as a witness in a matter in the Nunavut Court of Justice here in Iqaluit.
According to my understanding, this constituent received the subpoena while they were living or staying in Iqaluit but subsequently moved back to Pond Inlet.
I’m not going to talk about the name of the constituent, but the constituent did not have the means to buy an air ticket to travel back to Iqaluit to honour the subpoena.
The constituent was under the impression that charges would be laid if the constituent did not show up. The constituent indicated to me that the subpoena was delivered by the RCMP. Again, I’m being very careful not to refer to the constituent by name.
I would like to ask the minister to outline in general terms what happens in these circumstances and to clarify what written policies exist with respect to covering the cost for witness travel. (interpretation) Thank you.
I thank Mr. Arvaluk for the question.
It’s my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that if a person is in another community and they’re subpoenaed by the court to appear at a trial, then the court will pay for those travel costs.
So if there is a written policy concerning the costs of witness travel, will the minister commit to tabling them in the House?
Mr. Chairman, we will look for that information and provide it to Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Elliott: You sounded so down, “Mr. Elliott.”
I only have one thing to say and I was going to say in terms of community justice outreach workers, I think they are a tremendous idea.
I know in my community, the lady who is hired to do it does amazing work.
She is writing proposals, she’s meeting with people after hours, and she started an after school program for young kids.
I just want to say, I know at least in my communities, they are working.
I think that was a comment, but if you want to comment on that, Mr. Peterson.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliott for that compliment of the lady.
We have a lot of people throughout Nunavut in all communities, in Iqaluit and the regional centres, who work very hard and are dedicated to providing good programs and services to Nunavummiut.
The example of the lady that Mr. Elliott uses is a good one.
As the Minister of Justice, I appreciate all of the work that everybody does for all of us.
I just sit here and defend the department. I’m not working as hard as some of the people out in frontline, so your comments are well taken.
Mr. Ningark: For the record, like my colleague from Quttiktuq, I have every respect for the community justice worker in my community.
That was just a comment. We will go to E-9. Branch Summary.
Justice. Community Justice. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $4,861,000.
Chairman: We will go back now to page E-3.
Department Summary. Justice. Detail of Expenditures.
Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $78,052,000.
Chairman: Do all of the members agree that the Department of Justice is concluded?
Chairman: I would like to thank the minister and officials.
I would like to thank yourself and members of the committee for your great questions and your good suggestions today.
As I said, the Department of Justice is open to any good ideas that we can consider.
We have taken your opening comments seriously.
We will hopefully address all of your concerns and keep you updated throughout the coming fiscal year.
I would like to thank my officials for being with me here today and I thank my other officials who were in the Gallery who have been observing. They all worked really hard to contribute to this day.
Again, I thank all of the staff in the Department of Justice and some of our other agencies, like the Nunavut Legal Services Board and the Human Rights Tribunal.
They’re probably going to be very busy now because of Mr. Elliott’s questions.
I would like to assure Mr. Ningark that we will make sure that his community justice outreach worker hears about the strong support for the work she does in Kugaaruk.
I also would like to thank yourself and your officials for showing up.
I would like get the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the minister and the officials out, please.
We’re going to take a five-minute break so that Minister Peterson can prepare for the Department of Finance budget.
>>Committee recessed at 17:30 and resumed at 17:38
Bill 22 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2010-2011 – Finance – Consideration in Committee
I would now like to ask Minister Peterson, responsible for the Department of Finance, to make his opening remarks.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members.
The Department of Finance 2010-11 business plan and priorities include:
Fully implementing action plans from the September 2009 Auditor General’s reports to the Legislative Assembly with respect to the departments of Finance and Health and Social Services;
Conducting the minister’s task force on liquor and implementing the recommendations that will flow from that review;
With our territorial colleagues, negotiating a territorial formula financing agreement to be implemented in 2014 that is reflective of the needs of the north in general and Nunavut in particular.
In this regard, we will be paying close attention to our “Gross Expenditure Base” to ensure that it reflects our needs as closely as possible;
Fully implementing the joint Canada-Nunavut strengthening financial management $23 million program, with priorities that impact virtually all lines of business in Finance.
Finalizing this initiative on time and on budget will form the computer network foundation and financial process framework for all other government priorities;
Paying close attention to the budgeting process itself. Over the next three years, we will refine our budgeting procedure from A to Z to make it more reliable and timely;
Maintaining our continuous improvement process in internal audit using our risk-based audit approach. The appropriate mix of assurance services will be fully executed based on the plan.
Over the course of the planning cycle, we will conduct a review of our internal audit systems, programs, and practices to ensure that they remain fresh and represent the leading edge of internal audit standards;
In association with the Department of Human Resources, developing and implementing a new leave and attendance program.
Implementation will include a comprehensive training regime – one that will ensure the success of the new program.
For 2010-11, the staff complement of the Department of Finance remains unchanged at 209, as reflected in our six lines of businesses:
Advisory and Administrative, with a budget of $1.2 million;
Policy and Planning, with a budget of $3.1 million;
Financial Management, with a budget of $3.1 million, up slightly from 2009-2010;
Internal Audit Services, with a budget of $1.2 million;
Comptrollership, with a budget of $14.2 million; and
Centrally Administered Funds, with a budget of $34.7 million, an increase of about $1.6 million from 2009-2010.
The total budget allotment for the Department of Finance is $57.5 million for 2010-11, an increase of $2.6 million from 2009-2010.
That increase is made up of about $1.1 million in compensation and benefits, $1.5 million in forced growth in Centrally Administered Funds, and a reduction of about $200,000 in contract services.
Compensation and benefits are increasing as a result of mandated wage increases and projected staffing levels.
Forced growth in Centrally Administered Funds includes $600,000 for general insurance premium increases, $700,000 for medical travel for GN employees and their families, $200,000 for capital leases, which is the result of a change to the accounting treatment for this type of lease.
Once again, as was the case for 2009-2010, the department is budgeting compensation and benefits to anticipated actual expenses.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the department will continue to play its central agency role, in addition to supporting initiatives of other departments and territorial corporations.
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, if you would escort the witnesses in.
(interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is Mr. Peter Ma, Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance, and to my left is Chris D’Arcy, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance.
Does the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations have opening comments?
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the 2010-11 main estimates and 2010-13 business plan of the Department of Finance.
The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2010-11 operations and maintenance budget of $57,469,000 has increased by approximately 5 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2009-2010 main estimates.
The number of positions in the department is remaining stable at 209.0 PYs.
The standing committee applauds the minister for demonstrating restraint in this area given the tendency of too many other departments to increase the number of positions in their organization charts every year, despite not being able to fill a significant portion of their existing jobs.
The department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicated that the Crown Agency Council has been replaced by a Public Agencies Council.
It indicated that “in 2009-2010, our relationship with the territorial corporations will be strengthened and formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding process that will clearly define the roles and responsibilities of both the GN and each territorial corporation.” However, no 2009-2010 MOUs have been tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
The department’s proposed 2010-13 business plan indicates that one of its priorities for 2010-11 is to “Finalize and execute Memorandums of Understanding with all territorial corporations regarding governance, roles and responsibilities.” The standing committee looks forward to the timely tabling of these items in the Legislative Assembly.
The standing committee also urges the minister, in his capacity as the Chair of the Public Agencies Council, to ensure that the corporate business plans and annual reports of all of Nunavut’s major Crown corporations, including the Qulliq Energy Corporation, are tabled in the House on a timely basis.
The standing committee also notes its concern with respect to the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation given the Auditor General of Canada’s recent denials of opinion of its financial statements.
On April 1, 2009, the most recent Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut was tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
The standing committee held hearings on this report last fall.
The department’s 2010-13 business plan indicates that the government’s action plan to respond to the Auditor General’s report was proposed, “completed and then discussed at the Standing Committee in the fall 2009.
This will be implemented during the next three fiscal years.”
The standing committee will hold the government accountable for its progress in this area.
Mr. Chairman, the tabling of the government’s annual public accounts continues to be an issue of concern. The public accounts for the 2007-08 fiscal year were not tabled in the Legislative Assembly until November 25, 2009.
The Government of Nunavut’s interim financial report for the 2008-09 fiscal year was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on December 8, 2009.
The public accounts for 2008-09 have not yet been tabled.
Mr. Chairman, the 2009 Report of the Auditor General noted that “the underlying cause of the Government’s lack of progress on our previous recommendations is its limited human resource capacity.