EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Earlier this year, the government issued a request for proposals for a chief project officer for this project.
Can the minister indicate which individual or firm was awarded this contract?
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the funds that were given for the biggest project for Nunavummiut and Nunavut. It is a huge project. At this time, I do not have names for project officers or otherwise, but we do have an advisory committee and with our partners, they keep the project moving along.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, the process is moving forward and on target for scheduling and, hopefully, construction by 2014 or later this year.
Question 652 – 3(3): Status of Equipment Shelter in Arctic Bay (Elliott)
Two years ago, $800,000 was spent on the construction of an equipment shelter at the Arctic Bay Airport. To date, the shelter is not complete.
In previous sittings, I have tabled photographs of the building in its incomplete state.
Can the minister update the House on this project?
Mr. Speaker, as soon as I get the details on the current status of the equipment shelter, I’ll surely let the member know.
Mr. Speaker, the equipment shelter in Arctic Bay is just one of four equipment shelters across the territory that is in an incomplete state.
Last week, we approved $70,000 in capital carryover projects for the equipment shelter in Arctic Bay.
How much will it cost to complete this project?
This project has been ongoing with our partners at another department of CGS and at this point, the necessary completion of the plumbing and electrical is still ongoing.
At this point, I’ll have to indicate to the member that we’re looking for additional funds to complete the projects.
Actually, if I could get a commitment from the minister. He said, “electrical and plumbing.”
If I could get a commitment from the minister to have them really look at the work that has been completed on the project already.
I think there’s a lot of fill work that needs to be done in terms of having the building and having access into the building.
It stands on piles up on the ground and you can actually look under the building. So it would be great to have plumbing and electricity, but there would be no floor.
So if I could get a commitment from the minister to look at the details of it and actually make the commitment to get it correct.
Mr. Speaker, literally speaking, why there’s a higher cost of completing the project is the mechanical and electrical.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t go down to my headquarters office and check daily on the status of some of these things that are happening out there. There are a lot of things happening, but once I get the current information on the plans of completion of the equipment shelter for Arctic Bay, I’ll surely let the member know.
Question 653 – 3(3): Multiple Options Program (Elliott)
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education has recently been promoting its multiple options program for Nunavut’s high school students. In theory, there are at least six different option areas of study or training that students can choose to follow as they progress towards graduation.
In practice, the options available do not seem as multiple as promised.
Can the minister clarify for this House how the Department of Education proposes to deliver its multiple options program?
When the students go to high school, the multiple options are currently being worked on. To date, they are incomplete as to when they will come into force.
There are also certain questions that the Department of Education needs to find out. They will try to find more information from the DEAs.
The multiple options program will not come into force between the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years because they are not finished yet.
At a recent kitchen table talk discussion, which was communication from the government, the community, and the DEAs in my constituency, government officials made it clear that there are, in fact, limited options when it comes to delivering the multiple options program to high school students.
Can the minister explain how her department decides which options from the multiple options program will be delivered at the community level?
That is one of the reasons why there is ongoing feedback required from DEAs.
There are questions that still need to be answered.
Once we have all the information we need to implement the multiple course program, it will be communicated to the DEAs.
Multiple options offer the opportunity for students to work towards a career pathway, but it is actually not mandatory.
Multiple options is a major initiative and requires significant planning, including staffing.
It has been recognized by the department that it requires significant planning, including staffing, appropriate space, and capital requirements, so there is a lot of work to be done in that area.
Again, the goal for it to be implemented as career pathways is 2014-15.
I recognize that resources are limited. I further recognize that for each community, there may be different levels of interest in the various options offered under the multiple options program.
If the delivery of the multiple options program is to be limited, will the minister commit to giving communities a say and a choice as to which options will be delivered to high school students in each community?
Speaker: Thank you Mr. Elliott.
The multiple options program will provide an opportunity for students to select a major area of study from six options and these include fine arts and crafts, introduction to trades and engineering, information technology, communications/media, entrepreneurship, small business studies, history, heritage and culture, and community caregiving and family studies.
These options offer the opportunity for students to work towards a career pathway.
Depending on the student’s career wishes for him or herself in the future, they will have an opportunity to choose these multiple options to help them plan their education outcomes at the high school level.
Petition 006 – 3(3): Gjoa Haven Sewage Lagoon (Ugyuk)
During my recent constituency visit to Gjoa Haven, a petition was brought to my attention by the municipality. This petition was signed by 95 residents of Gjoa Haven who have expressed concerns regarding the location of the new sewage lagoon.
Committee Report 034 – 3(3): Bill 59, Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 59, Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the Bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 59 immediately moved into the Committee of the Whole.
There is a request for unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) so that Bill 59 can be immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 59, therefore, is immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole for today.
Committee Report 035 – 3(3): Report on the Review of the 2011-2012 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut (Elliott)
I rise today to present the report of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the 2011-12 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut to the Legislative Assembly.
*See Appendix for full text of Committee Report 35 – 3(3) filed with the Clerk.
Since her initial appointment in 1999, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has submitted a total of 13 annual reports to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Since 2005, the Government of Nunavut has tabled an annual report on the administration of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The government’s most recent annual report on the administration of the Act was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on November 2, 2012.
Its hearings on the 2010-11 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner were held on November 24, 2011.
On November 25, 2011, senior officials from the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs also appeared before the standing committee to respond to members’ questions concerning the administration of the territorial Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Following its 2011 hearings, the standing committee presented its own report to the Legislative Assembly on March 5, 2012.
The government’s response to the standing committee’s report and recommendations was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 23, 2012.
The standing committee’s reports and the government’s responses to them are available on the Legislative Assembly’s website.
The standing committee’s hearing on the 2011-12 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was held on the morning of April 18, 2013.
Senior officials from the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs subsequently appeared before the standing committee during the afternoon.
This appearance constituted the second time that departmental officials have appeared before a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly to publicly account for the government’s actions in response to recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the standing committee itself.
The April 18, 2013 appearances of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and departmental officials before the standing committee were held in the Nanuq Room of the Legislative Assembly and were open to the public and news media to observe.
The standing committee notes that the government has made progress on some issues, such as amending the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to provide the Information and Privacy Commissioner with clear authority to investigate privacy breaches.
However, further action is required in other areas, such as the application of access to information and protection of privacy legislation to municipalities and addressing the issue of health-specific privacy legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee’s report presented ten formal recommendations. A number of these recommendations follow up on issues that have been brought to the attention of the House in previous years.
The timeline for the coming into force of recent amendments to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
The disclosure of Crown agency contracting, procurement and leasing activities;
The provision of information to Members of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to subsection 48(v) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
The ability of parties to appeal a decision made by a head of a public body under section 36 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to the Nunavut Court of Justice; and
The protection of personal information provided to third parties under the Adoption Act and the Child and Family Services Act.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my colleagues for their thoughtful interventions and questions during the standing committee’s deliberations. As the standing committee has noted on a number of occasions, the increasingly complex world in which we live requires governments to ensure that their practices in the areas of access to information and protection of privacy are up to date.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to also pay tribute to the work that our Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Elaine Keenan Bengts, has performed on behalf of Nunavut during the tenure of her appointment.
The standing committee appreciated her candid replies to our questions and comments during her recent appearance.
I would also like to express appreciation to the witnesses from the Government of Nunavut who appeared before the standing committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would note for the record that the standing committee is requesting that the government provide a comprehensive response to this report, pursuant to Rule 91(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
With that, I move that the report of the standing committee be received by the House and entered into the record as read.
Do members agree that Pursuant to Rule 91(2) that the report of the standing committee be received by the House and entered into the record as read?
Speaker: There is, indeed, agreement. As such, the report will be entered into the record as read.
Tabled Document 368 – 3(3): Comic Book Titled “Choices” (Aariak)
I am pleased to table the Department of Education’s new sexual health resource, the comic book titled “Choices.”
The comic book is available in Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun, French, and English.
Tabled Document 369 – 3(3): Fuel Tax Rebate Program 2011-2012 Annual Report (Peterson)
I am pleased to table the Fuel Tax Rebate Program 2011-12 Annual Report.
Tabled Document 370 – 3(3): Chief Medical Officer of Health’s 2011-2012 Tobacco Control Act Annual Report (Peterson)
I am pleased to table the chief medical officer of health’s 2011-12 Tobacco Control Act Annual Report.
Motion 050 – 3(3): Extended Adjournment – Notice (Ningeongan)
I give notice that on Thursday, May 16, I will move the following motion:
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3, that when the House concludes its spring 2013 sitting, it shall be adjourned until September 5, 2013.
Motion 051 – 3(3): Performance Audit of the Nutrition North Canada Program – Notice (Schell)
I give notice that on Thursday, May 16, 2013, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for 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 report its office’s findings and recommendations to the Parliament of Canada.
Bill 66 – Plebiscites Act – Notice
I give notice that on Thursday, May 16, I will move that Bill 66, Plebiscites Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 59 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
Before we proceed to the Committee of the Whole, we will take a 30-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:19 and Committee resumed at 15:51
I welcome Nunavummiut who are watching the televised proceedings or listening to the radio broadcast to our committee meeting.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following item to deal with: Bill 59. What is the wish of the committee?
We wish to commence with the review of Bill 59.
Does the committee agree that we deal with Bill 59?
Bill 59 – Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act – Consideration in Committee
At this time, I would like the minister presenting this bill, Monica Ell, to go to the witness table to make her opening comments.
Minister Ell, welcome to the witness table.
I believe it’s your first appearance before the committee in your capacity as minister and we would like to welcome you. We are proud of you.
If you have any opening comments, you may now proceed. Minister Ell.
Thank you for being proud of me and welcoming me.
I am very pleased to be here this afternoon and to have the opportunity to review with you Bill 59, the Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act. This bill is for poverty reduction, but it is about collaboration.
This bill affirms in law the requirement for government to work with others to reduce poverty.
This collaboration is a commitment that was made in Tamapta and that was put into practice in the creation of The Makimaniq Plan.
With this bill, it is proposed that this principle, expressed in the Inuit language as Piliriqatigiinniq, will continue to be used by future governments as our work to reduce poverty in Nunavut continues.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, perhaps most important, when the Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act comes into force, it will bring clarity and commitment to the government’s obligations under Article 32 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
The bill ensures there is a place for the collaboration that is needed to ensure Inuit participation.
For these reasons, the government made a public commitment during the Poverty Summit to “introduce legislation for the implementation of the long-term Poverty Reduction [Action] Plan with the collaboration of our partners.”
I welcome the opportunity to review the bill with you in detail and to respond to your questions.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ell.
Before we proceed, do you have any witnesses that you would like to bring to the table? Minister Ell.
Hon. Monica Ell (interpretation): Yes, I would like to bring in Sandy Teiman, Assistant Deputy Minister for Family Services, and Ed McKenna, Director of the Poverty Reduction Division.
Members, do you agree to bring in the witnesses?
Minister Ell, for the record, even though you mentioned the names of your officials, please introduce your witnesses.
Hon. Monica Ell (interpretation): Yes, the person I stated was my assistant deputy minister is currently the acting deputy minister of Family Services. The person on my left is Sandy Teiman and the person on my right is Ed McKenna, (interpretation ends) Director of the Poverty Reduction Division. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ell, for the clarification.
Does the chair of the standing committee have any opening comments? Mr. Ningeongan.
Yesterday, apparently someone lengthened my report.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 59, the proposed Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act.
Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, Bill 59 received second reading on March 19, 2013 and was subsequently referred to the standing committee for consideration.
The standing committee has engaged in a productive dialogue with the sponsoring minister concerning Bill 59.
I am pleased to take this opportunity to highlight some of the themes that have emerged during the standing committee’s consideration of Bill 59.
The standing committee notes that a number of other Canadian jurisdictions have also passed similar legislation.
These include the provinces of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Québec.
The standing committee further notes that a number of common elements in these jurisdictions’ statutes are also contained in Nunavut’s proposed legislation, including the establishment of new annual statutory tabling requirements respecting the development and implementation of anti-poverty strategies and action plans.
The standing committee encourages the government to be mindful of the importance of ensuring that Nunavut’s anti-poverty initiatives take into account the need for adequate support programs for harvesters, as well as the need to ensure that healing and well-being are integral parts of anti-poverty initiatives.
With respect to the issue of support programs for harvesters, the standing committee encourages the Minister of Family Services to work closely with the Minister of Environment, as well as the appropriate vice-president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which is a member of the Nunavut Roundtable for Poverty Reduction.
As members will recall, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated jointly produced a report titled “A Consultation-Based Review of the Harvester Support Programs of the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated,” which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on March 13, 2006.
The standing committee notes that clause 9 of Bill 59 proposes to establish a “Poverty Reduction Fund” as a special purpose fund in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The purpose of this fund is to “promote collaboration for the implementation of The Makimaniq Plan and the five year poverty reduction action plan” and to “support community-driven initiatives and initiatives of local networks of community organizations engaged in poverty reduction that accord with The Makimaniq Plan and the five year poverty reduction action plan.”
Although the standing committee does not oppose this provision, it does, however, note that similar provisions in existing statutes give rise to concern.
As members are aware, section 39.1 of the Qulliq Energy Corporation Act provides for the establishment of an “Affordable Energy Fund,” whose purpose is to “hold money appropriated to it in order, directly or indirectly, to subsidize the cost of energy or otherwise make energy more affordable.”
However, concerns have been raised in the Legislative Assembly on a number of occasions with respect to the lack of clarity regarding the extent to which the Affordable Energy Fund has actually been utilized.
The standing committee also notes that section 181 of the Wildlife Act provides for the continuation of the “Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund,” a special purpose fund established under the Natural Resources Conservation Trust Act. One of the purposes of this fund is to “promote the wise use of wildlife and habitat, through education, research and demonstration.”
However, in reviewing prior years’ annual reports on the administration of this fund, the most recent of which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on March 19, 2013, it is noteworthy that the government did not actually made any expenditures under this fund during the 2005-06 to 2011-12 fiscal years.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 59, members took the opportunity to pose a number of questions concerning the proposed Poverty Reduction Fund.
Members note that Bill 59 will require the responsible minister to table an annual report in the Legislative Assembly that contains information concerning projects funded by the Poverty Reduction Fund.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 59 to all members.
Does anyone have any general comments to the opening remarks?
Please remember the contents of Rule 77(1) and Rule 77(2).
If there are none, we will now go to Bill 59 that is in your white legislation binder. So if you can get a copy of the bill in front of you, we will be reviewing it clause by clause.
I believe everyone now has a copy in front of them.
I’ll read the English version as that is the only copy I have of the bill. (interpretation ends) Bill 59, Collaboration for Poverty Reduction Act. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Chairman (interpretation): Turn the page. Clause 6.
Chairman (interpretation): Turn the page. Clause 9.
Mr. Rumbolt. No? Mr. Elliott, I don’t have my glasses, excuse me.
Just in terms of clause 9, it talks about the Poverty Reduction Fund. I had a couple of questions regarding that.
One of the things that it states is in terms of contributions being made by partners. I just wanted clarification on whether the federal government would be considered a partner.
Minister Ell
The Poverty Reduction Fund would be a special purpose fund.
I will just give you clarification. Those funds will be used for the organizations that we will be working with and they will be used for the round-table organization.
Yes, the federal government would be considered a partner if they wish to contribute to the Poverty Reduction Fund.
Also, it mentions all throughout the document, but in No. 9 as well, when we talk about the five-year poverty reduction action plan, what date does that five years actually start or end? I know we have been working towards this. The minister mentioned about two years in development.
We have done the round tables. In terms of five years from start to finish and whatnot, are there specific dates? Are we talking 2020?
I will have Mr. McKenna respond to that question.
Mr. McKenna.  Mr. McKenna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The current Poverty Reduction Strategy, The Makimaniq Plan, was an 18-month plan that was developed, as you know, at the end of 2011. The five-year Poverty Reduction Action Plan will extend The Makimaniq Plan beginning in 2014 through 2019.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This section talks about donations and bequests.
For that, I’m just wondering. If people make donations, it’s my understanding… . Since this is a fund held by the Government of Nunavut, will tax receipts be provided where individuals who want to make contributions will actually receive a tax receipt so that they could receive the benefit at the end of the year?
Hon. Monica Ell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.