EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Is that what you’re telling me? Thank you.
All I am doing is demonstrating that in the last few years there have been a number of projects in the Kivalliq and in the three regions, and even proposals are up for discussion and for members’ feedback.
I would seek the members’ support to support the projects identified in the various regions for the Department of Health. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With your response, minister, it could appear that when I’m questioning you, I would look as though I’m trying to create a difficulty for you but I’m really trying not to.  So I want to ask you a question: for the record, exactly what percentage of the capital budget for 2008-09 is allocated for the Kivalliq region?
The Repulse Bay funding in there, whatever percentage that works out to, is in the allocation or the identified health budget. At the same time, once the small capital and minor projects funding has been allocated, we would be able to give him the precise amount.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have constituents in the second largest community of Nunavut.
Quite a lot of brilliant people; they can read the document and they can see the document but the minister cannot hide behind her statement and say there will be some funding.
Can the minister name one project with a dollar amount for the Kivalliq region, and say and present budget items so that my constituents can see?
I don’t see any penny or any capital project allocated for 2008-09. I’m not trying to make it difficult for the minister. I’m saying to the minister that there is not one dollar that looked a little better allocated for the Kivalliq region.
The Kivalliq region is a very important part of Nunavut and for the minister, during an election year, to leave out Kivalliq with not a dollar, is that any better comfort to the minister?
The allocated is shameful and it’s ignoring the Kivalliq region, and my constituents will say, “They don’t care about us.”
Why are you treating Kivalliq as such, Madam Minister?
I think, as a whole of this government, there have been a number of projects identified for the Keewatin outside of Health.
I mentioned earlier that we just completed a $16 million health facility in Rankin Inlet, and we’re looking to the boarding home once our negotiations are completed with Health Canada to construct a boarding home in Rankin Inlet.
From my colleagues, I understand that we’re constructing a trades school, as well as a correctional facility. So those are a number of projects going to Rankin Inlet.
As it relates to the Department of Health for the Keewatin, we completed the continuing care facility in Chesterfield Inlet. We’re proposing to complete the project that was started in 2003 for Repulse Bay.
So there are projects, as a government, overall supporting the Keewatin and Rankin Inlet.
I don’t know what more I can say there, Mr. Chairman.
I want the minister to, again, reflect on my statement. I’m not trying to make anything difficult for you.
That’s your budget, not mine, and the government should know that.
She quoted some of the projects that are really not her responsibility and I think it’s fair that I respond to them. When I look at the CGS capital budget that we just passed and approved, 36 percent of the CGS budget was allocated for the Baffin region.
Minister, if you would jot these figures down, the Kivalliq region receives 19 percent of the total allocation which we approved last week.
The Kitikmeot region received, if you don’t have that percent, 28 percent.
So you’re trying to convince me, and I don’t think you will, that we’ve just approved for CGS was very good for the Kivalliq.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister, the minister has failed the Kivalliq.
I cannot see any reason why you would be so proud in representing my region because when you don’t have one penny allocated, in spite of the last three years we have been saying, “Where is the Kivalliq Boarding Home?”  The so-called health facility, in my riding, and my colleague’s, Levinia Brown, is for the region, for the whole region.
It wasn’t allocated specifically for Rankin Inlet, and therefore, you’re not fully able to have a total continuing care facility for medical care as you originally planned.
So I believe, Madam Minister, you have completely failed Kivalliq and you’re afraid to admit it. Why?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Chairman, in the projects for Keewatin, we have completed a health centre for Rankin Inlet; we have completed a continuing care facility for Keewatin in Chesterfield Inlet; we are proposing to complete a project in Repulse Bay, again, in the Keewatin.
I don’t see that as a failure. I see it as contributing to the communities’ infrastructure needs as it relates to health amongst other government priorities. The department has also been spending its minor capital project funding from last year to renovate the old health centre in Rankin Inlet.
So there is funding going to the Keewatin.
I don’t see that funding of over $20 million as being a waste. I beg to differ in opinion in that because I think those facilities have contributed to the development of health care services in that region.
What we’re proposing for Repulse Bay is to finish off a commitment of this government that started in 2002-03 for Repulse Bay to finish it off.
That funding has been used for other priorities and what I’m proposing is to finish off those capital projects that were started in 2003 because those commitments have been made to Repulse Bay, to Taloyoak as well.
The continuing care facilities, as a commitment from the Full Caucus Retreat in Arviat, added a lot of pressure to the Department of Health, and other projects that were approved in 2003-04 were put on hold to accommodate the decisions of Full Caucus to construct a continuing care facility in Gjoa Haven and in Igloolik.
So if you look at the commitments that were made between 2003 and 2004 of the Pond Inlet, Pangnirtung, Igloolik, Iqaluit hospital, Rankin Inlet hospital, Cambridge Bay hospital, those are all done with the exception of two: Repulse Bay and Taloyoak. I’m in the process of trying to complete what we started.
So we’ve had to use some of that funding for the continuing care and at the same time use the funding to deal with the emergency repairs that were required in the Baffin region of Sanikiluaq.
So within the limited dollars that we have, we have tried to accommodate the needs of the communities and the needs of members in addressing capital priorities and we’re trying to move forward in that.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I would like to remind the minister once again that she asked for in her concluding remarks, asked for my support and I have stated the reason why I don’t feel I should.
I reminded also, the minister this was not my budget, that’s your budget. I voted for the capital expenditures last year, the second year and the first year.
They have concluded. If the minister says she’s so successful, why has the department been going through tremendous staff changes?
If I can remind the minister, the department doesn’t appear to have been so successful in the last seven years since 1999. Seven or eight different deputy ministers under her department, under her ministerial responsibility, how many deputy ministers has she actually gone through?
I don’t think that’s a great record, Mr. Chairman.
I cannot be convinced by the minister who failed to really appreciate whatever funds this government collects and allocates should be fair and transparent for the ongoing. You cannot and should not use the practice of eliminating a region from your capital plans for a number of reasons because my constituents could see and the public could see it doesn’t appear to be fair. They’re not ignoring it.
I know that you will not use that term but I could because I feel the Kivalliq region has been failed by this minister, and this minister, Mr. Speaker, if she wants support from all members on this side, you can do it. You can have two days, if I were you, to re-arrange and move some of the projects by not sacrificing any other regions.
The other regions have done a lot better, I can tell you, Madam Minister, than the Kivalliq.
So, Mr. Chairman, I again ask the minister to help me move ahead, and why should I support this capital item?
I would like to remind committee members we are dealing with capital items, or capital budget.
I’ll give the minister time to respond. Minister Aglukkaq.
As it relates to the operations, past ministers and past deputies, those are not related to the capital projects and I will not respond to that.
In terms of Keewatin, there are projects in the Keewatin.
Perhaps, the member can help identify here, then what is it that is a priority for Rankin Inlet that we have not identified in our books that should be up for review?
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, the minister, if she feels doesn’t have to look to me, she can look to Madam Rosemary Brown, who is an expert on health facility needs, is also operating an old health facility, which I’m sure requires renovations in Rankin Inlet.
And, if they are the priority of this minister, we would have seen figures in 2008-09 but there are none.
So my question to the minister is on boarding arrangements. For the last three years, the minister has been promising that the negotiations with Ottawa are still ongoing.
What new information can the minister provide to me or this committee about what’s happening with the boarding home that she promised when the capital project began with a new health facility for the region to be based in Rankin Inlet?
Why has she, for the last few weeks, been saying, “Sorry, zero.”
Can she estimate, present an estimate at least, for this coming fiscal year?
A Point of Order has been called. Minister Picco.
On the Point of Order very quickly, the member is referring to the minister over the passed three years why she hasn’t brought figures forward so on and so forth.  I’m sure the member realizes the chronological sequence of events here and that, indeed, the minister has not even been the Minister of Health for the pass three years and wouldn’t have had the opportunity to bring forward the numbers that the member is talking about.
Our five-year capital plan and the numbers in the capital budget were approved in this House when the member was here. This year we’re looking at 2007-08 and projecting onwards.
So per the Point of Order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the member to refrain from referring to the minister as the minister responsible for the past 36 months on numbers that she had no control over because she was not the minister responsible.
Secondly, as the members know, any boarding home is flow through money provided by the federal government for Canada. It does not appear in the main estimates that we would build a facility because that is done through the auspices of rental of given accommodations by our federal partner. And, that is cash or flow through money through that department to the contractor.
Your point is taken. To the Point of Order.
Mr. Curley: To the Point of Order, the minister does not excuse whatsoever from the role of the minister from any other actions or budget planning process from any other ministers. We looked at it as one government.
If I’m wrong, Mr. Chairman, when you rule on that, I take into consideration the minister, any minister, takes the responsibility of any ongoing matters of whoever the minister was.
I fail to see the connection with the point that the Government Leader is trying to make.
I thank the member for making the Point of Order.
We’ll take a 10-minute break to make a ruling.
>>Committee recessed at 17:15 and resumed at 17:32
As all members are aware, one of the principles of ministerial accountability is that ministers are responsible for all matters that fall within their portfolio.
Although decisions may have been made prior to a minister taking office, ministers who are in office are presumed to be aware of the issues facing their department.
However, as always, a minister may choose not to respond to a question, but the member’s question is not out of order.
I would note that the member made an honest error in stating that the minister has held her portfolio for the past three years. There is no Point of Order. Mr. Curley.
I want to continue.
I want the Government House Leader to note that I’m not taking anything personally in any way, shape or form. I’m responding to the budget as submitted.
She asked for my support in her opening comments.
I have a question with respect to boarding home arrangements for medical clients. The information that I have states that the three regional health facilities have been an issue of concern not only to me but to all the regions.
So having said that the draft 2009-13 Five-Year Capital Plan does not include any projects for Rankin Inlet, or Iqaluit, let alone for this capital year, I would like to ask the minister why, in view of the fact the project is over two years behind schedule; why has the minister not succeeded in getting a penny for these boarding homes that she promised would coincide or follow the regional health centres, including Rankin Inlet?
As it relates to the work that we’ve been undertaking with Health Canada for the boarding home, we presented the comprehensive Nunavut-wide plan to Health Canada in September.
Health Canada, and I stated this before in the House, have asked the Government of Nunavut to put forth a proposal for all its boarding home needs, which goes from Edmonton to Yellowknife to Cambridge Bay to Rankin Inlet to here to Ottawa, and from current needs to future needs.  That report, that information was discussed with Health Canada, again, I said in September.
The department is working to consolidate that information to present to the House hopefully some time this month to members.
The work that’s undertaken involves putting forth our argument for every boarding home and the daily rates that would be used to construct new facilities and so on. We have been successful in moving forward in some of them, for example, the Ottawa Boarding Home, in partnership with the Inuit organizations who are proceeding to construct a new boarding home in Ottawa.
The contract RFP process is out for tender for the Yellowknife Boarding Home, which is going to be expiring in January 2008, I believe.
In terms of going forward with the other ones, for Cambridge Bay and Rankin Inlet, we hope to have the plans ready for release soon.
In terms of the comprehensive report for Nunavut on all of the boarding home needs for the territory, I hope to have that report completed some time this month.
You will notice, Mr. Curley, that your time I have allowed has run out. If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Mr. Curley: I do have a couple more. The minister said that the report will be done.
Who is actually carrying out the report?
Is it done by a consulting firm, or is that an internal report? Can the minister be a bit clearer about those projects?
I’m using my discretion to allow you to ask more questions.
That report has been done in combination of both a consultant and internal staff.
I indicated to you that the boarding home requirements, particularly the northern locations are two years, at least, behind schedule.
Is it likely that we will get the same conclusions if negotiations have not succeeded; in other words, leaving it to the future?
What exactly and can the minister assure us that something will actually happen?
Will there be some dollar figures allocated, at least the GN contribution side? Is that possible?
Our preference would be to continue the discussions with Health Canada and have Health Canada cover the cost of constructing the new boarding homes in Nunavut and/or outside the territory where the service is needed. That is the current arrangement with Health Canada. The boarding homes are covered under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program.
To construct new facilities, we would have to put our cases forward as a territory and which they had asked for. They wanted a comprehensive Nunavut-wide plan for boarding homes’ current needs and future needs, which we presented to Health Canada in September to initiate our discussions.
So the plan for us is to seek the funding to operate the boarding homes from Health Canada, instead of the Government of Nunavut funding.
Having said that, I think the discussions are going quite well with Health Canada and we are able to move forward on some projects. The plan is to try and address the Keewatin, the Kitikmeot, and the Iqaluit facilities within the near future.
Mr. Curley: ... the discussion is taking place, but it remains to be seen whether these discussions will be successful or not. The only time that we’re going to be satisfied is when you actually deliver some dollars. I think it’s not good enough to have a good discussion going on because I don’t get any good marks for having good discussion points with anybody, including my wife.
I’m kidding you.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question with respect to the health centre in Rankin Inlet.
The building inspectors and whatnot have concluded, when it gets completed for occupancy, that there still remains quite of a number of exterior building deficiencies.
What is being done to address the deficiencies at the moment with the Kivalliq Health Centre in Rankin Inlet?
I’ll ask Ms. Brown, the Manager of Capital Projects, to respond to that.
There are still some issues on the roof in terms of anchors that have yet to be put on. The parking lot has been expanded for staff use.
Internally, we still have some heating problems in the lab, which the architect has come up with an alternate solution that still hasn’t been done.
A lot of the deficiencies that have been identified have been corrected.
Surely, they are certified somehow by some inspector because some would be from the fire department and some would be from engineering divisions in the government.
Have you specified exactly how much these deficiencies cost and what remains to be done, and if so, how are you carrying out correcting those deficiencies without any capital allocations submitted?
I’m going to have Ms. Brown, again, respond to that.
Some of the deficiencies were warranty items and so they were of no cost to the government.
The remaining budget that was carried over from last fiscal year to this fiscal year was $302,000. There are still some funds remaining of that carryover to correct the remaining deficiencies, such as the architects’ fee and the ventilation upgrade for the laboratory.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. In terms of the mechanical facilities and mechanical equipment, are these warranty-related in some respect, and if so, are you satisfied, the minister believes, that the mechanical equipment has been fully dealt with?
Ms. Brown advised me that CGS is dealing with that issue related to the mechanical system.
Yes, I think I did not fully get the information on the warranty matters.
Are there some outstanding warranty issues with respect to mechanical ventilation?
I would think it’s partly covered by the vendor providing the ventilation system. I just want a clear explanation of whether or not these are still under warranty yet.
We would have to obtain that information from CGS, as project managers of that facility.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. One last question to the minister.
The minister has not fully explained or anything, or convince me why I should support her budget with zero dollars for the Kivalliq region.
In view of the fact, there are a number of projects in regions that are not satisfied, why does the minister feel that she should continue on as Minister of Health?
I believe that you could voluntarily resign for failure to treat regions equally.
Why don’t you do that now?
We have another Point of Order raised.
I would ask the member to withdraw his comment when he proposes that the minister is not treating each region fairly.
In his comments he said, “Why don’t you resign when you look at not treating each region fairly?”
That is incorrect and it is inappropriate language in our Assembly.
So I ask the member to withdraw those comments.
Mr. Curley: The budget document that’s submitted is clear, transparent, that there is not one penny, not one cent, for the Kivalliq region.
I use that reference that the minister has not treated the regions fairly and I believe not having a penny for a region fits into my using the word, “not fairly represents the region.”
So in that regard, Mr. Chairman, I failed to understand why the Government Leader would be so excited about that when I’m using my privilege to call the minister voluntarily resign. I am not insisting for a vote on that.
I don’t find a Point of Order in this Point of Order.
I’ll give the minister an opportunity to answer the question, or to respond to this.
I stated earlier that the government has provided projects to the Keewatin in the past, last year and including the start of the Repulse Bay project. We completed, again, the Rankin Inlet Health Centre, the Keewatin Chesterfield Inlet facility and so on. But as a government, many investments have been made to the Keewatin.
As a government, we don’t look at it by department distribution, we base our programs based on need. Based on need the funding is allocated to each region and to finish off the projects identified in 2003. We are proceeding to move forward on the completion of projects based on need.
There are a number of projects this government has supported for the Keewatin region. We have a trades centre, a correctional facility, health centre, continuing care facility, and the Repulse Bay Health Centre; so there are a number of projects; housing units.
So as a government, the government has put forth a number of projects to the Keewatin and I think the government has been fair in its allocation of capital funding.
The minister is using other departments as a reason for trying to convince some of us that we should support the budget that she has submitted with zero dollars to Kivalliq region.
I indicated earlier, if she reads, 17 percent total of CGS Public Works budget is allocated for the Kivalliq region, 38 percent for the Baffin, and 28 percent for the Kitikmeot.
The minister does not understand these comparisons.
Since she has failed to provide leadership to the Health Department and I believe it’s best that she resign. Why not?
Again, I’ll give the minister a chance to answer or not to answer the question.
The member is, if we look at our Rules under Point of Order, under debate, under (h) and (i), the member is imputing false or hidden motives to another member.
He is suggesting that the minister has not put money in the Kivalliq region under the capital budget.
The capital budget for the Government of Nunavut is a five-year process.
Does the member suggest that the minister should go out and create a project and spend capital dollars on a budget for the Kivalliq when there is no need to do that? We have just spent over $15 million in the region in health projects in the member’s riding alone, in Rankin Inlet. Now, on top of that, Mr. Chairman, we actually built the new health centre in Arviat, we opened that up a couple of years ago.
Money has been expended.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, you would make a ruling that the member is imputing false or hidden motives to another member, as well as making an allegation that the minister is indicating profound bias in the allocation of capital resources, when indeed, the capital budget of the Government of Nunavut goes before each standing committee and goes before the Cabinet itself, where we have members representing the regions.
So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that a ruling should be made that the member is imputing false or hidden motives to another member that she is biasly allocating dollars within the capital plan, which is not the case.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I advised the Government House Leader earlier that he should not get excited because we’re dealing with a capital item that is clear and transparent.
Zero dollars, not a penny, not one cent, for the Kivalliq region. We’re not talking about last year’s budget. I voted for that and that’s completed.
Now, the Government House Leader is imputing that I’m making false allegations against the minister. No, her record is quite transparent and clear.