EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If we had $1 billion, I’m sure we would be able to construct the buildings in every community.
Excuse me if I sound like I’m repeating myself.
As the only MLA with three communities, I’ll have to go back to Quttiktuq and explain to each community why there will be no new housing projects coming this fiscal year.
My final question, Mr. Speaker, is: in the community of Arctic Bay, why did we not receive any public housing units?
It’s the same scenario again: the wait list and the methodology used.
I indicated to my colleague there that I am tabling or making available the methods used that can be explained quite easily to your community members.
I’ve got to say that at the next funding round, I am hoping that we wouldn’t have to be doing this because housing is one of the major priorities this government has.
We all know that the housing shortage in Nunavut is over 3,500.
We’re trying to maximize the number units for the $100 million. That’s a step in the right direction. If we keep squandering that, it’s going to become more difficult to secure any more funding as time goes on.
Question 676 – 3(3): New Public Housing Construction (Enook)
Mr. Speaker, it is known that the federal government and the Nunavut government want to be able to find some funding to help the people of Nunavut.
In speaking with the Senators and the MLAs, they have really lobbied for this development because they state that Nunavut needs to have economic development. Our government echoes this position.
In Pond Inlet, we are always discussing the Mary River project. Sometimes it seems we are being encouraged to approve this project because it has many benefits for Nunavut and for Canada.
We, the residents, try to make our decisions based on the issues and we gave NIRB an opportunity to review this project to undertake their duties.
After this hearing, NIRB issued a project certificate to the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation.
Immediately after this decision was rendered, the people who lobbied for this project approval threw us out, so to speak.
Since approval was given, we were no longer an important piece and we no longer got phone calls about this once the certificate was issued.
This item was contained in the Minister’s Statement that these factors have to be included when deliberating on housing units, factors such as the population growth of a community, as well economic development in and around the community.
Mr. Speaker, there are already people from outlying communities moving to Pond Inlet to try and get employment at the Mary River mine. All of these immigrant people will also require housing.
We all know for a fact that Pond Inlet will have a growth spurt with the Mary River project proceeding and this government was very supportive of this project, both the Nunavut government and our federal government.
What then is the usefulness of this statement, which I want to ask the minister about, where it states that these factors have to be included in the assessment, to include economic development when we’re talking about an issue the community is trying to meet?
I thank the member from Tununiq for that question.
Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of communities and other jurisdictions that are pretty envious of what’s happening up there. There is the potential for a lot of economic activity with the production of a mine happening right close by Pond Inlet.
I hope Pond Inletmiut and landowners take the opportunities to make sure that they benefit from the economic activity that’s happening there.
Of course, with wage employment, there are always opportunities for folks to buy their own homes.
I’ve got to say that if the opportunities are there for Pond Inletmiut, Mittimatalingmiut, to take advantage of, I would like to see that happen. I want to see more economic activity happening not just within the Baffin region but all three regions of Nunavut. With meaningful employment, there’s always that better opportunity for our people, especially our younger people, to enter the workforce and start purchasing and buying their own homes, which, in fact, helps their self-esteem, their family, and their community.
I’ve got to say that there are people out there in the other jurisdictions who are pretty envious of what’s happening up in northern Baffin with the potential of a big operating mine coming soon.
Mr. Enook: Qujannamiik, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) That is the reason why I cited that fact and why I said it had been thrown out.
Once the community has any slight opportunity, the government turns around and says, “Try to be self-sufficient. Look after your own citizens and develop your own economic development. Look after your own housing shortage by yourself.”
However, we haven’t even moved one spot away from our previous situation. That was the reason why I referred to that statement.
It is as if the community has been thrown out of the eligibility list. Once a community has the opportunity to try and grow, if they have a small opportunity to create some revenue, the government pulls the rug and states that the community has to try to meet its needs alone and to try to meet these challenges by using only their budgets.
I want to ask the minister this question because he keeps maintaining that these factors are used to make the determination on how the public housing units will be allocated. I believe he stated the methodology.
Can the minister completely unearth the details of the entire allocation list for these units to Nunavummiut?
I did indicate to our colleague that I will be making the methodology available and it is there.
It’s the same methodology that was used by the Nunavut Housing Corporation board.
It’s the one we looked at.
I’ve got to say again and I assure, through my cabinet colleagues, that there’s no hesitation.
They accepted it as the fairest, transparent way of allocating units with the amount of money that was given to us.
Mr. Speaker, I’ll make that formula available and I can see it right here.
It’s the number of people on the waiting list divided by the number of public housing units in a community.
I’ve got to say that with the deadlines that are going to be given to us by CMHC, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we do have to try and meet, oblige, and be within the agreement that’s given to us. There’s third party money.
It’s from government to government, and it’s approved through this House or anything. As a government, we are responsible to maximize the impact of that investment that the federal government made and I intend to do that, Mr. Speaker.
My community of Pond Inlet wasn’t even allocated a single unit.
I want the minister to tell me truthfully what the real reason was that Pond Inlet wasn’t even allocated one single unit from this fund that was provided for housing.
Mr. Speaker, again, it’s a mathematical formula that was used and I repeat that it’s the fairest way of allocating units to the communities.
I know that some of communities didn’t receive anything, but the ones that didn’t receive anything are bringing them closer, percentage-wise, to equalize the needs of the territory.
It wasn’t done by region; the allocations were done community by community.
The method used, again, was based on the needs assessments, the wait lists, and the fairest way of allocating units.
Mr. Speaker, again, to maximize the impact of the investment, we did lobby hard with the federal government to have an increase in the amount. We did ask for $300 million, but we’re pleased with the $100 million that we did get.
I’ve got to say again that most jurisdictions out there are wondering how the Nunavut government did that.
Allocating units is a huge need. We still need over 3,500 units in Nunavut. It’s going to be a long haul, a lot of hard work, and hopefully, as elected leaders and MLAs, everybody is going to be writing letters that we try and address the housing shortage that we have in Nunavut.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Taptuna. Members will note that question period allotment time is over.
Before we proceed with our orders of the day, we will take a 22-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:24 and resumed at 15:55
We will move right along with our orders of the day.
Tabled Document 377 – 3(3): Response Summary, Survey on Nutrition North Canada Program (Elliott)
I wish to table a summary of responses to a survey about the federal government’s Nutrition North Canada Program that I posted to the Internet this spring.
The survey had 31 questions and close to 400 people responded.
I believe that these answers provide a very good overview of public opinion, perception, and experiences related to the Nutrition North Canada Program.
I urge my colleagues and all interested parties to review this document with care. It is very informative.
Tabled Document 378 – 3(3): Tunngasaiji: A Tourism Strategy for Nunavummiut (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the Tunngasaiji: A Tourism Strategy for Nunavummiut.
Tabled Document 379 – 3(3): Nunavut Law Foundation Annual Report 2007 (Shewchuk)
I am pleased to table the Nunavut Law Foundation’s annual report for 2007-08.
Tabled Document 380 – 3(3): FPT Report on the 100th Meeting of the Advisory Committee of Deputy Ministers of Education and Council of Ministers of Education Meeting in Halifax, NS, July 4 to 6, 2012 (Aariak)
I am pleased to table the FPT Report on the 100th Meeting of the Advisory Committee of Deputy Ministers of Education and Council of Ministers of Education Meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia, July 4 to 6, 2012.
Tabled Document 381 – 3(3): Community Justice Committee and Family Abuse Intervention Act Year-end Report 2010-2011 (Shewchuk)
I am pleased to table the Community Justice Committee & Family Abuse Intervention Act Year-end Report for 2010-11.
Motion 051 – 3(3): Performance Audit of the Nutrition North Canada Program (Schell)
WHEREAS the creation of the federal Nutrition North Canada Program was announced on May 21, 2010;
AND WHEREAS the Nutrition North Canada Program replaced the Food Mail Program;
AND WHEREAS the Nutrition North Canada Program is administered by the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development;
AND WHEREAS all residents of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon are directly impacted by the Nutrition North Canada Program;
AND WHEREAS officials from the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and the Nutrition North Canada Advisory Board met publicly with Caucus in the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly on October 25, 2011;
AND WHEREAS Members of the Legislative Assembly continue to have significant concerns regarding the success of the Nutrition North Canada Program in ensuring that all nutritious food is affordable for all Nunavummiut;
AND WHEREAS these concerns have been expressed in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Legislative Assembly;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member of Quttiktuq, that the Legislative Assembly calls on the Auditor General of Canada to undertake a comprehensive performance audit of the Nutrition North Canada Program and to report his office’s findings and recommendations to the Parliament of Canada.
Before we proceed with debate on the motion, I would just like to remind members of the procedures.
The mover of the motion speaks first and the seconder of the motion speaks second.
The mover has the right to the last reply, which closes debate.
As the mover of the motion, I am pleased to speak in favour of its passage.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps no federal program has attracted as much attention and scrutiny in this House as the Nutrition North program, not even the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.
Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to see why. The cost of food affects every resident of our territory. There’s nobody living here who is not directly impacted every single day by the Nutrition North Canada Program.
Since announced in 2010, numerous hearings and meetings have been held, including our Full Caucus meeting with officials from the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, representatives of their external advisory board, and major Nunavut retailers.
Mr. Speaker, when Stephen van Dine, the key spokesman for the Nutrition North Canada Program, sat in the House, he discussed the old Food Mail Program and said the following, “For those who understood the program and used the program, it worked well.
Regular users, such as vendors and retailers, used the program quite effortlessly.” Mr. Speaker, does that sound like the program was a complete failure or even a program that required complete destruction?
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Van Dine also went on to list what they have reviewed as the problems with the old Food Mail Program: problems with the entry point or the lack of; only one in Dorval; efficiency with the way retailers move goods; the product eligibility list was too long; in some cases, machinery parts were shipped in on the subsidy; escalating costs; sharp rises in fuel and transportation; the program was run through a third party, Canada Post; dollars were leaking out to communities south of 60.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize there are some issues with the old Food Mail Program. However, the logical approach would have been to address them directly. Instead, they created a whole new bureaucracy program which they claimed would be more focused, transparent, accountable, and other bureaucracy buzzwords.
Instead, it created more bureaucracy and an additional interdepartmental committee and the Nutrition North External Advisory Board and put the subsidy right in the hands of the retailers.
Mr. Speaker, a family in my constituency told me that they don’t feel comfortable raising issues with the advisory board and viewed it as a board full of patronage, appointments including relatives and the wife of the president of the Nunavut Conservative Party Riding Association.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the three amigos got together, but it wasn’t Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Short; it was the alliance of three major retailers: the North West Company, Arctic Co-operatives Limited, Fédération des cooperatives du Nouveau-Québec, often referred to by my constituents as the Axle of Evil.
Mr. Speaker, these three major retailers joined forces to lobby the federal ministers and their officials, and it certainly appears as though their lobbying was rewarded.
In return for their efforts, the old Food Mail Program was blown up and the subsidy was moved directly to their back pockets.
This explains why business is booming. They’re actually making money off the freight and now North West Company profits are soaring, as they confirmed by their latest year-end report.
Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why the North West Company and Arctic Co-operatives Limited are the biggest defenders and cheerleaders of the program.
Their lobbying campaign essentially designed this program to their great benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with previous statements from our federal minister where she stated that decisions by retailers are responsible for the exorbitant grocery prices in Canada’s High Arctic.
However, we expect our federal Minister of Health, regional ministers, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Economic Development Agency, the Minister for the Arctic Council, and MP for Nunavut to do something to take this program out of the hands of the retailers to ensure that the subsidy we desperately need goes directly to the family and their children.
Mr. Speaker, if we were to ask the majority of Nunavummiut: are you better off today under the new Nutrition North Canada Program?
We all know the answer would be a resounding no.
We recently discussed how a Winnipeg firm, a North West Company subsidiary, is shipping groceries to Rankin Inlet at minimum freight costs, free in some instances, because they were facing competition from a small local company.
They decided to actually pass on the subsidy to a small group of clients. That example alone shows the lack of transparency and the failure of this program.
Mr. Speaker, under federal legislation, the Auditor General has the authority to obtain and review all documents and information necessary for preparation of his reports. The office’s past reporting on the Food Mail Program should give us confidence that his findings and recommendations will be comprehensive, accurate, and fair.
Mr. Speaker, I also anticipate the federal parliamentarians, especially those who represent isolated constituents impacted by the Nutrition North Canada Program, will welcome the findings of the Auditor General.
As the seconder of the motion that is before the House, I am very pleased to speak to it today.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall from recent years’ reports of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts, this is certainly not the first time that Members of the Legislative Assembly have suggested that the Auditor General of Canada undertake an examination of the federal Nutrition North Canada Program.
As the mover of the motion clearly stated, the Auditor General’s office has the authority and the resources to undertake the type of comprehensive audit that is clearly necessary with respect to this program.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, I worked closely last year with a number of legislators from the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Newfoundland, and Québec to jointly convey our concerns to the federal government about the Nutrition North Canada Program.
I am pleased to note that a similar motion to that which we are considering today is currently on the order paper of the Yukon Legislative Assembly for consideration.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall from the 2011 meetings at which we invited federal officials and retailers to appear before us to publicly address concerns about the Nutrition North Canada Program, members from both sides of the House participated actively in raising concerns on behalf of their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I see today’s motion in the same light: a clear opportunity for us to speak with one voice about the need to make it perfectly clear that this critical federal program must work for the betterment of the thousands of ordinary Nunavummiut and other Canadians who depend on it to make food affordable for them and their families.
I also see today’s motion as being another element in our overall approach to addressing food security in Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of years, we have taken a number of important steps together as a legislature and a government towards addressing food security in Nunavut.
We have established a formal partnership with NTI to reduce poverty in Nunavut.
We have passed legislation to help ensure public accountability for the government’s efforts in this area.
We have passed legislation to encourage the donation of food to the needy. We have approved funding for nutrition and wellness programs in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, as the Member of the Legislative Assembly representing the three communities of the High Arctic, I have also been addressing other issues that directly relate to the high cost of living in the High Arctic.
These include the development of the High Arctic Transportation Strategy, as well as the need to enhance such federal programs as the Northern Residents Deduction and Old Age Security.
Mr. Speaker, today’s motion directly addresses the need to improve the federal Nutrition North Canada Program.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from South Baffin noted, there are a number of aspects of the Nutrition North Canada Program that need to be carefully examined.
Mr. Speaker, my own concerns and questions relayed to me by my constituents about the program are well known. I’ll review them in brief today.
Is Nutrition North actually making food more affordable for our constituents or is it simply making it a little less expensive than it would otherwise be without the subsidy?  Is Nutrition North actually investing more resources into reducing the cost of food than was previously taking place with the old Food Mail Program?
Is Nutrition North functioning as a subsidy for consumers or a subsidy for business?
Is Nutrition North enhancing the transparency of retail pricing?
Is Nutrition North stimulating competition and consumer choice or is it actually doing the exact opposite?
Are the tax dollars that are going into the program to reduce the price of food for Canadians living in isolated and remote regions being fully passed on to the intended recipients or not?
Is the Nutrition North Canada Advisory Board fulfilling its terms of reference?
Mr. Speaker, I think that you get my point because these points have been made on many occasions.
Mr. Speaker, as I’m sure my friend from Cambridge Bay would be quick to remind you, I don’t have all of the answers.
However, I do believe that we have been asking the right questions and raising the right issues in this House.
Mr. Speaker, the volume of conflicting testimony that we have heard in recent years about the Nutrition North Canada Program is amazing. Former officials who administered the Food Mail Program have gone on the public record to state that the new program’s underlying model is fundamentally flawed.
Retailers that initially raised concerns about the program have changed their perspective.
Mr. Speaker, when the Nutrition North Canada Program was originally announced, my constituents had high hopes that they would see a real difference in their daily lives.
Since that time, however, we have seen the emergence of such grassroots organizations as Feeding My Family Nunavut in direct reaction to the high cost of living in the north.
Mr. Speaker, there is, perhaps, no federal institution that is more trusted than the Office of the Auditor General.
We can be assured that the findings from this office’s work will be accurate and unbiased.
Mr. Speaker, the findings from such an audit will be of use not only to us in Nunavut and not only to federal Parliamentarians, but also to our fellow Canadians in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, and Québec who live in regions that are impacted by the Nutrition North Canada Program.
Mr. Speaker, I join with the mover of the motion in urging all members to rise together in support.
I would like to thank our colleague for moving the motion.
Mr. Speaker, as people of Nunavut, everything is very expensive.
When you go to the stores anywhere, we buy products that are very expensive.
The federal government set up this program.
It took off in the right direction, but then again, we didn’t see a reduction in the prices of the food that we buy.
The biggest retailers are given money to subsidize the food when it’s landed in the community.
The only reduction that we see is for operations.
So we, as Inuit, are wondering because this subsidy is not reaching the customer.
It’s not making a reduction in the cost of food.
I support the idea of the Auditor General doing a performance audit.
Maybe they’re doing an excellent job. Maybe we’re just thinking about it wrong.
I would urge the Auditor General to do a performance audit so that we will know whether or not this program is being administered the way it should because we should see a subsidy on the food.
I support the motion because I know that even though they want to buy food from a retail outlet, my constituents can’t buy it since it is too expensive, even if it is said to be subsidized.
The only way we will find the true answer is if we have the Auditor General do a performance audit to determine what is running properly and what requires improvement.
Are there any more speakers to the motion?
The mover, Mr. Schell, would you like to make any comments for a last reply?
I really have nothing else to add to it, but I would like to request a recorded vote.
That closes debate on the motion.
I’ll ask all members who are in favour of the motion to please rise and sit down when I call your name.
Let the record show that the motion passed 17 to 0, so it was passed unanimously and the motion is carried.
I advise the Members of this House that as the Speaker, I will send the appropriate correspondence to the Auditor General as a result of the passage of this motion.
Bill 66 – Plebiscites Act – First Reading