EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I think that we all appreciate that the Department of Health and Social Services is a very challenging department to run and operate on behalf of all Nunavummiut.
The health touches everybody everyday. We all know someone who is sick, or has been sick, or is being treated by health. The minister mentioned a lot of worthy initiatives and I’m sure that there are many more that they are considering.
The minister mentioned that she thought that that strategy had been tabled in the House. It would be useful on this side of the House if we did see the document as guiding the Department of Health and Social Services to implement all of these initiatives.
So I’m wondering, Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit to tabling a copy of the ‘Closer to Home’ Strategy in the House for members to review before we depart later this week?
Minster of Health and Social Services, Minister Aglukkaq.
I’m going to look to see if that was tabled.
I thought it was tabled by the previous minister.
I’ll look into the file.
I’m sorry, Member for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
Committee Report on Bills 003 – 2(4): Review of Bill 4, Workers’ Compensation Act (Tootoo)
I wish to report that Bill 4, Workers’ Compensation Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability, and that the bill, as amended and reprinted, is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
And Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 4 moved into Committee of the Whole for today.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Do members agree to waive Rule 68(6) to have Bill 4 moved into Committee of the Whole?
Committee Report on Bills 004 – 2(4): Review of Bill 19, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2 (Tootoo)
I wish to report that Bill 19, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee of Government Operations and Accountability, and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.  And again, Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 19 moved into Committee of the Whole for today.
Do the members agree to waive the Rule and have Bill 19 moved into Committee of the Whole?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Item 12.
Tabled Document 144 – 2(4): Auditor General of Canada’s Report on the Audit of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut – 2007 (Speaker)
(interpretation ends) Members, I wish to table today the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on the Audit of the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation Activities.
Tabled Document 145 – 2(4): Nutrition in Nunavut: A Framework for Action (Aglukkaq)
As for my Minister’s Statement, I’m tabling the document: Nutrition in Nunavut – A Framework for Action.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Madam Minister. (interpretation ends) Can we have that document brought forward to the table, please?
I would ask my colleague Mr. ... (interpretation) I’m sorry. Moving on. Item 13.
Tabling of Documents. Item 14.
Notices of Motions. Item 15. Notices of Motions for the First Reading of Bills.
Bill 22 – Engineers & Geoscientists Act – Notice
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I first want to read back to the Member for Quttiktuq, he mentioned that I was wearing a blue tie but, for the record, it’s red, white, and blue.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, that Bill 22, Engineers and Geoscientists Act, be read for the first time. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Premier. Item 15.
Item 17. First Reading of Bills. Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Aglukkaq.
Bill 20 – Midwifery Profession Act – First Reading
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 20, Midwifery Professions Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is in order. Question has been called. All those in Favour.
Opposed. The motion is carried and Bill 20 has had its first reading.
Item 17. First Reading of Bills. Minister of Education and Energy, Minister Picco.
Bill 21 – Education Act – First Reading
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nattilik, that Bill 21, the new Nunavut Education Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is order. All those in favour. All those opposed.
The motion is carried and Bill 21 has had its first reading.
Item 19. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Bill 14, Bill 15, Bill 16, Bill 17, and Bill 19 with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
We were told there were nutritional foods out there in the foyer, so we can go out there and check it.
>>House recessed at 15:08 and Committee resumed at 15:42
Before we proceed with business in the Committee of the Whole, as your Chair, I have the following ruling:
Chairman’s Ruling
On Friday, November 2, during the proceedings in the Committee of the Whole the Member for Iqaluit East raised a Point of Order in response to comments made by the Member for Rankin Inlet North.
As I understand it the Member for Iqaluit East is asking the Chair to direct the Member from Rankin Inlet North to withdraw his comments. The issue arose while the committee was considering the proposed capital estimates for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
The Member for Rankin Inlet North was questioning the minister regarding policy development for a federal funding initiative.
At one point he directed a question not to the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, but to the Minister of Community and Government Services.
In posing this question the member stated, “We are concerned that before the policy is drafted that you don’t start dipping into cookie jars like the Government Leader normally does...”
In written context it appears that the member was attempting to express a concern about money being committed prior to policy being fully developed.
However, the choice of wording is unfortunate.
It is wording used in every day language that suggests wrongdoing or illegality.
The Point of Order also relates to comments made by the Member for Rankin Inlet North with respect to the Government House Leader interfering in the work in the House.
It appears that the Government House Leader was speaking with the Minister of Community and Government Services at the time the question was put forth.
It was suggested that this is improper.
This is not improper. It is quite acceptable for members to speak with each other and share information. Indeed, this might be seen as facilitating the work of the Assembly, as it may assist in providing complete information to members.
I find that there is a Point of Order, and I ask the Member for Rankin Inlet North to withdraw both comments.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, gladly, as usual, I withdraw my comments.
The member has withdrawn his remarks and this matter is closed.
We will proceed with the business of the committee.
We wish to continue with Bill 16 and the review of the Capital Estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services.
Are we in agreement we first deal with the Capital Estimates for Health and Social Services?
Minister Aglukkaq, do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Does the committee agree to bring in the witnesses?
(interpretation ends) For the record, please introduce your witnesses.
To my left is Alex Campbell, the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, and to my right is Rosemary Brown, Manager of Capital Projects for Health and Social Services.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Welcome. (interpretation ends) Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Education have comments?
As a Member of the Standing Committee on Health and Education, I am pleased to make some opening comments on the 2008-09 Capital Estimates of the Department of Health and Social Services.
The proposed capital budget of the Department of Health and Social Services represents close to 15 percent of the Government of Nunavut’s overall capital spending for 2008-09.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by recognizing an important milestone in the completion and opening of the Qikiqtani General Hospital, the third new regional health facility in Nunavut.
The standing committee would like to congratulate the minister and recognize the other MLAs who have been a driving force behind this project since its inception.
Members recognize that the facility will not be fully operational until nurses and other medical professionals can be hired to staff the facility.
The shortage of staff for the Kivalliq and Kitikmeot regional health facilities has also been an ongoing problem and neither of these facilities has been fully operational to date.
Committee members will continue to monitor the minister’s efforts to promote the training, recruitment and retention of health professionals for Nunavut.
Members look forward to reviewing the upcoming Nurse Recruitment and Retention Strategy as directed by Cabinet during the recent retreat held in Kugluktuk in early September.
The department’s proposed capital budget for 2008-09 includes ongoing renovations to the Baffin Regional Hospital.
Members are in support of the older facility being renovated as an extension to the Qikiqtani General Hospital, where various related services will be provided.
However, cost estimates for these renovations appear to have doubled since last year.
Given that plans for establishing a long term care unit within the older facility appear no longer feasible, it is unclear what the additional funds will be used for.
The standing committee continues to have concerns with boarding arrangements for Nunavummiut who fly to the regional centres to receive medical services.
For example, the current boarding home in Iqaluit is often full to capacity.
Renovations to the Kitikmeot Medical Boarding Home in Cambridge Bay have been delayed until 2011.
For some time now, members have been given to understand that boarding arrangement contracts for communities such as Rankin Inlet or cities outside of Nunavut will depend on the final outcome of negotiations with Health Canada with respect to the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program.
Members continue to await an update on the department’s consolidated plan for boarding home arrangements for Nunavummiut. It is important that the lack of accommodation for patients not become an obstacle to providing as many health services as possible closer to home.
Committee members recognize that efforts have been made to achieve progress on the Continuing Care facilities in Igloolik and Gjoa Haven.
Members have noted that the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2008-09 Capital Estimates include funding for staff housing units for both Continuing Care facilities.
It is also important that training opportunities for future employment in these facilities be made available to local residents.
Members will be paying close attention to this issue when they scrutinize the department’s 2008-09 Business Plans and Main Estimates.
Members were once again disappointed to see that the proposed 2008-09 capital budget for Health and Social Services includes very little funding for community health centre projects.
While funds have been allocated for 2008-09 for Taloyoak’s Health Centre, the Repulse Bay Health Centre Project remains deferred until 2009-2010.
The Arctic Bay Health Centre Replacement Project had been on the Capital Plan since the 2005-06 Capital Estimates when funding was allocated for a Functional Program to be completed.
It is not clear why the Arctic Bay Health Centre Replacement Project is no longer included in the Five-Year Capital Plan.
It is important that the minister clarify how projects are prioritized, especially when comparing the age and technical status evaluations of the buildings.
Last spring, Members of this House approved capital carryovers from the 2006-07 fiscal year for three health centre replacement projects in the communities of Pangnirtung, Igloolik and Pond Inlet.
Members are aware that there have been various problems with each of these projects and it is unclear whether they will be completed on schedule and within budget.
From time to time, the standing committee receives correspondence from the GN that outlines budget transfers between capital projects during the course of the fiscal year.
In addition to the notification of such transfers, members would appreciate a detailed update including the overall budget and timeline status for each of the capital projects affected.
The standing committee has noted that the department’s proposed 2008-09 Capital Estimates includes funding for Minor Projects such as vehicles and medical or dental equipment.
Members urge the minister to take into consideration requests that have been brought forward by communities requiring adequate transportation services.
I am confident that individual members will also have opening comments and questions.
Welcome, minister and your officials to the Committee of the Whole.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, as we review these 2008-09 Capital Estimates, I am deeply troubled by the latest five-year capital plan proposed by the Department of Health and Social Services.
In 2004, this committee was very pleased to see the Department of Health and Social Services commit capital funding for the 2005-06 fiscal year to begin planning for the replacement of the Arctic Bay Health Centre.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, the design and planning phases were scheduled for 2007-08 with construction planned for the two fiscal years following that.
Although the Arctic Bay Health Centre Replacement Project was deferred twice over the next two capital plans as tabled in 2005 and 2006, I was surprised and shocked to note that this year the Arctic Bay Health Centre Replacement Project has been dropped completely from the five-year capital plan before us today.
Mr. Chairman, the community of Arctic Bay feels betrayed by what appears to have been an abrupt change in the department’s plans and priorities.
Mr. Chairman, it is not at all clear to me or to my constituents how certain projects can suddenly become prioritized while other projects with long-standing commitments are simply dropped off the plan.
Mr. Chairman, when we see strange things like this happening, it makes us wonder what purpose the government’s five-year capital planning process is actually serving.
Mr. Chairman, it is not clear to me how a 24-year old facility with serious structural problems, that I have discussed and displayed in this House a number of times over the years, can suddenly be considered less of a priority for replacement than a 19-year old facility that has already had a significant amount of funding approved for its renovations over the past few capital budgets.
Mr. Chairman, in 2005-06, this House approved $15,000 to begin planning for the Arctic Bay Health Centre Replacement Project.
I will be seeking clarification on what this money was spent on and what the results were.
Mr. Chairman, I will also be asking what justification was used to drop the Arctic Bay Health Centre Replacement Project from the five-year capital plan.
Mr. Chairman, it is not clear what criteria are being used to determine the scope, status and priority level of the capital projects under the Department of Health and Social Services.  I look forward to a full and comprehensive accounting of this information and all related decisions.
My constituents deserve a full explanation on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) The standing committee only reviews documents presented.
We are not given information, for example, when the Health Department is preparing plans on which communities need replacement or renovations.
We are not given complete information on what the health centres need before we have reached this stage with the numbers here.
It is only when everything has been included into the plans that we finally see them.
So when we, as a committee, finally see what has been put into the documents, we note things that we thought had been put in previously into the five-year plan. As an example, in Arctic Bay, certain items were no longer on the five-year capital plan.
I wonder how we’ll be able to know, especially with the buildings that urgently need to be replaced.
We have an idea that FMB and Community and Government Services usually know which buildings are the oldest and which needs to be replaced on an emergency basis.
For myself, I was shocked. For an example, only when we ask, only when the committee asked to get more information, especially for the two communities; there are probably more; but we’re only aware of the two.
In Arctic Bay, the health centre is 24 years old and hasn’t been renovated, maybe except for the stairs. The one in Gjoa Haven is a 20-year old facility, which is about four years newer, and has been renovated maybe just about every year because it’s in a very poor condition. Gjoa Haven definitely needs a health centre.
The one that was in the worse condition was dropped off the five-year capital plan.
What we’re trying to say as a government are those communities that are not represented by a minister.
I can’t understand why it was dropped off because here they’re saying that they use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
According to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, we should help those who are in more serious situations.
This is not Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
We’re not saying to build one in Gjoa Haven, but what we’re saying is I don’t think you utilized Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit during the planning stage.
We ask that Community and Government Services examine closely the standards and criteria to see whether they need replacements or improvements because they really needed to make those new facilities and now the two health centres are dropped off.
I will be raising questions.
I might want to include FMB and Community and Government Services when we’re under the Health Department because not everything is handled by the Department of Health.
There’s engineering and planners, where FMB makes the funding available, especially if there needs to be renovations.
So that we could get adequate answers, I think they will have to answer some of our questions during Committee of the Whole, or if possible, the Premier will have to be held here, too.
When we get back to our communities, we’ll have to inform our constituents the reason why it was put like this using these standards or criteria.
If we’re going to approve this, what conditions are we agreeing to? We have to be very careful.
We have to agree if we are to explain to our constituents because it’s going to be very difficult if we’ll be able to do that because they’re funded by tax.
We all pay taxes and that’s why the funding has to be utilized wisely using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
I will also be raising questions.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to welcome the minister, the deputy minister, and the capital planner to the Committee of the Whole.
We’re not doing this personally.
We don’t want to attack you personally. I just want the minister to know and I think she understands, as well as the Government Leader, (interpretation ends) this is the election year budget, obviously. I think you must remember that it’s an election year next year.
To some of us, the document, as it is, is not reflective of fairness to the region.
I’ll be very hard pressed to try and explain how the health budget is like for a place like Kivalliq, let alone my constituency. Not one penny, not one cent, is in the health budget or capital for Kivalliq.
So Mr. Chairman, how am I going to explain my role?
When you look at Iqaluit for instance, there’s $4 million allocated for the coming capital budget. In total, $8.6 million for the region, $4.7 million for Kitikmeot, prominently mainly for one location or so. I believe, to be fair, I think the budget for the other constituencies or other regions is fine but we need to expand that budget.
I believe that the capital budget, as a whole, has a contingency allocation, if not, I might be wrong. But if there’s such a contingency, we should ask the Cabinet or the Health Minister to work on that, and come back and re-draft her budget within the next two days.
I have nothing good whatsoever to say about it for the Kivalliq region because there’s not one penny. I believe it’s not a proud moment for Kivallirmiut and I am ashamed of it.
There are needs, there are patients that continue to look around for accommodation when the weather often gets bad in Rankin Inlet and the Minister of Health has promises. We are exploring a health transit, patient care, patient facilities, boarding homes for Kivallirmiut and nothing whatsoever.
I don’t know how the minister is going to explain to us but it’s possible that if she is willing, she could recommend something for this coming fiscal year. I’m not sure how I’m going to vote for this proposal when it has not… I repeat, I think I’m quite clear, Mr. Chairman, when I say, “How can I support the budget when it has not a penny, not one cent, for the Kivalliq region?”
It’s a significant region, I say, for Nunavummiut.
(interpretation) I know, Mr. Chairman, that if our elders hear this, they will not like the Cabinet very much, especially the Health Minister.
We’re not saying we want to delete them but rearrange it, or maybe to Repulse Bay because you have contingency authority.
I would echo some of the concerns my colleagues have raised in the committee’s review of the Department of Health’s Capital budget.
There seems to be a lot of questions that need answering and I look forward to hearing those answers here in the Committee of the Whole.
Some of the concerns that I have raised with it, I’m not going to go on with the ones that my colleagues have already mentioned, but in some of things that I’ve mentioned and we’ve seen over the years of projects proceeding, or not proceeding because the bids are coming in way over the budgeted amounts and I have raised that issue with the minister and the Minister of Finance.
Are these numbers that we’re looking at reliable as part of the whole, not just this department but the entire capital budget? It always seems like the government will look good if they can put 20 projects on the capital list but we know in reality they’re only going to be able to do 10 of them.
And, when it comes to the approval of the budget that’s approved by all Members of this House, and once it’s approved, then the bids are coming in way too high, we’ve got to cut 10 off.
It’s not this Assembly that gets a say in which 10 get cut off. It’s the Cabinet.
I have issues with that and, again, not just with this department, I’ve raised this with other departments. My colleague from Arctic Bay said he supported it when he saw this project for Arctic Bay that was on there before. There’s no money around so it gets bumped off.
That never came here in the House.
It was a decision that was made in Cabinet.
As far as which projects go ahead and which ones don’t, I think that, as a government, they should be coming forward with more realistic numbers so that we actually know what we’re voting on.
If you look at the department’s budget this year, one of the projects that it has in there, it says the number is determined by using class C estimates and the numbers are not reliable.
To me, if I’m approving that project, I want to know a reliable number to be able to look at.
By approving a non-reliable number, to me, that’s like writing a blank cheque.
If it comes in double that, well okay, if we would have known that now or even going into this, maybe it wouldn’t even be on there. Maybe the department wouldn’t even put it on there if it knows.
So I have concerns with this matter, and I also have some concerns on how projects seem to come and go and fall off the five year capital plan. I’ll be looking to hear some answers from the minister on exactly how that happened or didn’t happen, and some questions relating to how some projects stayed on.