EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
There are more specific requirements that allow for what type of aircraft, their speed, the cabin, seating capacity, runways, stretchers, and the exact routes proposed within each aircraft.
Those are the types of things that were all taken into consideration and I do hope that that answers the member’s questions.
Thank you, Mr. Akeeagok, for pointing that out.
If you look at it, aircraft speed is the only thing that could be looked at in saying that’s something that determines how quickly someone gets there.
From the point of view of a comfort issue for anyone, I don’t think that adequately covers that off in the process.
Maybe the department would look at including passenger comfort over a period of time, whether it is six hours versus two hours, to get someone from one place to another could be weighted or taken more into consideration based on that because I don’t think aircraft speed covers that off.
I will have Mr. Campbell respond to the question.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I will try and answer the first part of the question and maybe a more technical answer from Community and Government Services.
I just wanted to point out that the scheduled medical travel is for people that have appointments going south. If they have appointments in Rankin Inlet, or in Winnipeg, or Churchill, those are the people that are put on the regular scheduled service.
If there is urgency for medical travel patients that have to see a doctor immediately, those are medevac services that fall under a different process. I just want that to be kept in mind that these are medical appointments, that if my appointment is tomorrow, I can travel today on the scheduled medical airline.
From the department’s perspective, we are very sensitive on how we accommodate this, but the airline, at the end of the day, is the one that provides the airline service, the comfort on the airline, and all that type of patient services provided when people are travelling.
Again, there are two different issues here.
We’re not going to leave Nunavummiut waiting to see a doctor if it’s an urgent matter and they have to see a doctor immediately. Those are medevacs.
I will just note in a letter of April 8, it says from communities to Ottawa and there’s a split between First Air and Nunasi/Canadian North, and then from other regional centres south, there’s not much of a split.
Those are the only two that provide jet service. I’m just wondering if you can explain how, like here for example, it’s able to be split between the two jet service providers and yet, in Rankin Inlet, it wasn’t.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have Mr. Campbell respond to that question as well.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I just want to point out again just to reinforce, the airlines that did submit for that portion of the contract were all evaluated based on their proposals. We can’t evaluate airlines that did not put in a proposal for that portion.
For the other airlines that submitted, we did review those proposals and we did allocate what we thought the percentage breakdowns should be for that service.
I guess as I see it, the contract was put out and if you look, for example, from here to Ottawa, it’s split, certain percentages or a certain percentage. Obviously, both of them didn’t come in with the same price. Did they both come in with the same price and that’s why it was split up like that?
If that was the case for here, how come that avenue wasn’t looked at in the other regional centres to points south?
If it’s okay with the committee members, I would like to ask Mr. McCullock, the Manager of Contracting and Procurement, to go up to the witness table as he is well versed in these matters.
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Mr. McCullock to the witness table.
(interpretation ends) Welcome back, Mr. McCullock.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): I will have Mr. McCullock assist me and he’s the Manager of Contracting and Procurement.
Is he going to respond to the question that was posed earlier?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Are you going to answer that?
Thank you, Mr. Tootoo, for the question.
When we considered the evaluation of the proposals that were submitted, in the RFP document and throughout the RFP document, we had mentioned in the RFP document in several sections that we were looking at awarding this contract in proportionate shares.
So it wasn’t our intent necessarily to preclude any airline from this bid of the business knowing that this is an important piece of the industry, so proponents were invited to respond, in full, to providing this service.
We had one airline that put conditions on their proposal whereby pricing only started at a certain level of award, such that if they didn’t get an award over a certain market share, they had submitted no pricing and with no pricing submitted, it means, from a procurement perspective, that the proposal is incomplete and cannot be evaluated.
So we have a situation where we have an airline who hasn’t submitted a complete proposal for all portions or proportionate shares. And hopefully that will help for you to understand how some airlines got shut out of the marketplace.
The rest of the evaluation was done largely mathematically based on the evaluation criteria that were outlined in the RFP document.
Just to go back a little bit on customer service, we held a session with all of the vendors together in one room whereby they could ask us questions and we would submit answers.
One of the questions specifically that was asked by one of the airlines and we had submitted in Addendum 4, that went out to everybody, the questions and then the answers went out in Addendum 5.
They asked us specifically about the efficiency of routes and where and how that would be evaluated, and the questions that were asked were in sections 2.3.2 and 2.4.2, and we submitted a response that stated that it was going to be part of customer service.
So there’s no question as far as the efficiency of the routes. The question was asked and it was important to us.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Keep your responses as brief as possible and to the point. The same applies to questions from the members.
You didn’t hear that?
When you’re responding to a question, please make it to the point and speak slowly, Mr. McCullock, (interpretation ends) but thank you.
I would like to thank Mr. McCullock for that. I think that clarifies it.
One of the other things, I guess you can’t evaluate something that’s not there.
Also, were there any proposals that had additional information that wasn’t asked for in the proposals?
Mr. McCullock: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for the question.
In the RFP document, we requested that all proposals would give us their best pitch on providing a very broad service of medical travel.
So in fact, to say that something wasn’t asked for and requested really doesn’t happen because we ask them for proposals and we ask them to pitch the businesses that they have to give us.
And certainly, those pitches can include things such as scholarships for nurses, which was pitched by one organization, different levels of Inuit training, different levels of Inuit employment, all of these things are included. We included those in under what we had called the broad category of customer service.
However, none of those additions like that would have, however they were all evaluated, made a significant difference in these awards.
Hopefully that answers your question, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank Mr. McCullock for clarifying that.
I think now we finally know what was meant by the word “perks” that had been mentioned here in the past and I know that there was a concern of that.
Can the minister indicate whether all those pitches, if you want to call them instead of perks, were brought up and described when the decision was being made on whether or not to go along with the recommendation brought forward by the department to her Cabinet colleagues?
I will have Mr. McCullock respond as well.
Mr. McCullock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The evaluation of those components were, while I would hate to say insignificant but by point comparison, small.
So those pieces of additions would not have, in themselves, made a difference in the award.
So when the information was brought forward to Cabinet, some of those specifics would have been verbalized and communicated, however, the actual points allotted to them would not have been.
Your time was up, so my next speaker is Mr. Simailak.
Mr. Simailak (interpretation): I think we’re almost coming to the end of the committee meeting, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps I will give Mr. Curley the opportunity to ask questions.
Chairman: My next speaker on the list is Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Simailak just stated that we’re running out of time and I have a question that may require more time, so I would like to give Mr. Curley an opportunity to make an extension to what he asked earlier.
Both my colleague and I would like to hear the response prior to asking our questions. I would like to ask that Mr. Curley be given that opportunity. Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Yes, let us proceed in that manner then.
Mr. Curley: I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up a number.
It appears that the contract tenders were a bit confusing. They were made complicated to only about five, or six, or less airlines in the Kivalliq region and I believe they all participated. I don’t think, without question, that not one existing airline was either represented or eliminated, they all participated.
It also included other holding companies that really should not have been in the call for proposal. I believe this call for proposal, Mr. Chairman, was flawed and not clear.
Would the minister agree that that has resulted in the way in which the contracts have now resulted?
I believe there is a Point of Order.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the debate can be intense at times and that we have to be careful of the parliamentary language we use. I would ask that you ask the member, Mr. Curley, to retract his comments that the proposal in the context of fraud be withdrawn because that is not the way we do business and indeed, through the transparency of public government, that is not acceptable in any term or way to use that type of language.
So I would ask that you, Mr. Chairman, ask the member to withdraw that statement on the award of this contract, that there was any fraud involved because that has never been the connotation and that has never been proven, and that should not be said in this forum.
Point of Order…
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I have not used the word “fraud.” Never would I consciously think of that or accuse anybody of that.
I would like the member to withdraw that accusation.
I said, in my view, that the contract tender was flawed.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation) Minister Picco, is that all?
(interpretation ends) There is no Point of Order.
It was not “fraud,” it was “flawed.” (interpretation) Who was it that was speaking?
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the Government House Leader would withdraw his accusation against me that I was insinuating fraud when I, in fact, was continuing on the discussion of the contract tender. Would you ask him to withdraw his accusation?
Minister Picco, withdraw your comment.
If the member did indeed use the word
”flawed,” then that is pretty upsetting also. I thought I heard the word “fraud” and I guess you would have to review the Hansard and the tapes to ascertain exactly what has been said.
But if I am wrong and the member has used, indeed, the word “flawed” and not “fraud,” then I apologize to the member and would withdraw my comment to him and apologize profusely because I know that the member is an honourable member and wouldn’t use that type of verbiage out of context. However, it does upset me that he would say that the contract process was flawed and not fraud.
Again, I would ask that the Chair review Hansard and the tapes to ascertain exactly what the verbiage was that was used, and then in that case, Mr. Chairman, I would be most humbly obliged within this aspect to withdraw my comments concerning the verbiage that was used.
I will check the Hansard and the tapes tomorrow or whenever.
It is unfortunate that we had to be put into this level of discussion.
Mr. Chairman, the medical travel contracts issued and awarded regionally have caused and resulted in suspension of one major airline’s jet service, which is very critical to all regions, including Baffin, Kivalliq, and Kitikmeot.
The airline in question is First Air and it stated on September 14 that it is withdrawing service on this route caused by the loss of the medical travel contract.
Would the minister at least agree that the government is responsible for the suspension of air service in the Kivalliq region, yes or no?
No, the government is not responsible for that.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, the airline stated on September 14, 2008, that it is withdrawing Kivalliq air service due to the loss of the medical travel contract. Is the minister saying in this House that she does not believe First Air executives withdrawing of the service is as a result of the loss of the medical travel contract?
I will ask Mr. McCullock to respond to that.
Mr. McCullock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
In a procurement process, we strive for it to be open, fair, and transparent in giving all proponents equal opportunity to ask questions and to respond to the same proposal and the same evaluation criteria.
The evaluation committee has the responsibility to make sure we do that evaluation based on fair process. The proponents have a responsibility to reply to the RFP to the best ability that they can.
In an open, fair, and transparent process, where we have an open market, where we have competition between vendors, the vendors and the contractors make their decisions as to whether or not they’re going to increase, or decrease, or continue their airline service.
So this decision of First Air to discontinue service in a certain market is a result of their response to the RFP process.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The airlines themselves cannot help themselves by dipping into the cookie jar and saying, “We’re going to continue on the service.”
Someone has to award the contract, they can’t just rely on their proposal and say, “Now, we’re going to continue on for the next four or five years.”
It’s going to depend on someone signing a contract and the parties agreeing to it. So therefore, that is a result of that action.
If you look at the actual implementation of the contract and you look at the RFP, you look at the airlines that are providing services right now. For instance, Calm Air, without ever bidding on the proposal, is now carrying on at least 31 to 35 percent of the service, or 65 percent for that matter, to and from the Kivalliq region to Manitoba. How did that come about?
So therefore, I use the word “flawed” because it was a convoluted RFP, it involved all kinds of partnership deals to propose bids other than operating companies to issue.
Why did the government choose to use a convoluted proposal instead of asking the operating airlines to actually provide a clearer, transparent proposal to the government?
To my understanding, Calm Air had put in a bid; they bidded.
To make an addition to that, I will ask Mr. McCullock to speak.
Mr. McCullock: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.
Certainly, Calm Air did bid. The RFP process and the document itself were fairly clear and quite simple in its content.
However, we, as the government evaluators, do not have control over the complexity that the vendors choose to respond in. So the RFP, in itself, was quite straightforward and asked for prices on certain routes.
The vendors choose to put conditions on or the manner in which they respond and certainly, they weren’t necessarily complicated. The outcome, we feel, reflected exactly what was bid.
So while I understand that it’s the government’s responsibility to award contracts, it is the responsibility of the contractors to bid on the contracts and to bid on the sections of the contracts.
In view of the time, I would like to ask that this committee report progress.
Thank you, Minister Brown, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. McCullock.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Going back to the Orders of the Day.
Your committee has been considering Tabled Document 216 – 2(4) and would like to report progress.
Bill 39 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 39, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009, be read for the third time.
Bill 39 has had its third reading and is ready for assent.
Since there are no more, Item 22.
A reminder for meetings, at 2:30 this afternoon, a meeting of the Standing Committee on Health and Education in the Tuktu Boardroom. A reminder for Monday meetings, at nine o’clock, the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development in the Nanuq Room, and then at eleven o’clock, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability in the Tuktu Room.
Orders of the Day for September 15:
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. This House stands adjourned until Monday, September 15, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 14:13
Monday, September 15, 2008
Pages 4835 – 4908
Opening Prayer 4835
Ministers’ Statements 4835
Members’ Statements 4838
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4848
Oral Questions 4848
Revert to Item 5: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4870
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills 4870
Tabled Documents 4872
Notices of Motions 4874
Revert to Item 5: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4874
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 4875
Report of the Committee of the Whole 4906
Revert to Item 5: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4907
Orders of the Day 4907
Monday, September 15, 2008 4835
214 – 2(4): Small Communities Initiative Program (Netser) 4835
215 – 2(4): Implementation of Aulajaaqtut as a Graduation Requirement (Picco) 4836
216 – 2(4): Women and Elections Forum in Iqaluit (Brown) 4837
525 – 2(4): Successful Bowhead Hunt in Kugaaruk (Mapsalak) 4838
526 – 2(4): Appreciation to Crew of First Air Flight 951 (Curley) 4838
527 – 2(4): Update on the Meadowbank Gold Mine Project (Simailak) 4839
528 – 2(4): Congratulations to Sanikiluaq Graduates (Kattuk) 4841
529 – 2(4): Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Apology to Canada’s Aboriginal People (Netser) 4841
530 – 2(4): Rotary Fall Fair (Tootoo) 4842
531 – 2(4): Passing of Allyn Burrill on September 12, 2008 (Brown) 4843
532 – 2(4): 2008 Federal Election (Peterson) 4843
533 – 2(4): Annual Terry Fox Run (Okalik) 4845
534 – 2(4): Terry Fox Program (Picco) 4846
655 – 2(4): Renovations for Inuksuk High School (Tootoo) 4848
656 – 2(4): Update on School Issues in Sanikiluaq (Kattuk) 4851
657 – 2(4): Impact of MOU on IIBA Negotiations with Baffinland (Peterson) 4853
658 – 2(4): Who is Reviewing GN Fuel Policy (Curley) 4857
659 – 2(4): The Need for Real Docking Facilities in Nunavut Communities (Arvaluk) 4860
660 – 2(4): What’s the No-Smoking Policy near Entrances on Public Buildings (Simailak) 4862
661 – 2(4): Justice Issues in Nunavut (Peterson) 4864
662 – 2(4): How Does NNI Policy Apply to WSCC (Tootoo) 4867
663 – 2(4): New Marshalling Contract (Tootoo) 4868
017 – 2(4): Report on the Review of Bill 7, Inuit Language Protection Act (Mapsalak) 4870
018 – 2(4): Report on the Review of Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act (Curley) 4871
019 – 2(4): Report on the Review of Bill 20, Midwifery Profession Act (Simailak) 4871
020 – 2(4): Report on the Review of Bill 21, Education Act (Simailak) 4872
279 – 2(4): Correspondence with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Peterson) 4872
280 – 2(4): Metal Mining Effluent Regulations - Amendments, Canada Gazette Part II, V. 142 No. 14 (Simailak) 4873
281 – 2(4): Letter to Prime Minister Harper from Peter Irniq re. Inuit Representation on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Residential Schools (Curley) 4873
282 – 2(4): Contract Awards for Resupply: NNI Evaluation Sheet (Curley) 4873
283 – 2(4): Information and Privacy Commissioner Annual Report 2007-2008 (Speaker) 4873
045 – 2(4): Acceptance of the Report of the Acting Integrity Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly re. David Simailak, MLA – Notice (Tootoo) 4874
Bill 42 – Miscellaneous Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 – Consideration in Committee 4903
Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Mr. James Arreak, Mr. James Arvaluk, Honourable Levi Barnabas, Honourable Levinia Brown, Mr. Tagak Curley, Mr. Peter Kattuk, Mr. Steve Mapsalak, Honourable Patterk Netser, Honourable Paul Okalik, Mr. Keith Peterson, Honourable Edward Picco, Mr. David Simailak, Honourable Louis Tapardjuk, Mr. Hunter Tootoo.
I would like to welcome the residents of Qikiqtarjuaq.
Minister’s Statement 214 – 2(4): Small Communities Initiative Program (Netser)
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Members of this House will recall that in 2006-07, the government made a commitment to direct $5 million from the federal Northern Strategy funding to support economic development in our smaller, non-decentralized communities.
I want to report to members on the progress that has been made by our small communities in the past two years.
Following the government’s commitment in the budget for 2006-07, my department created the Small Community Initiatives Program.
Members will recall that 14 communities are eligible for this program, which allocated $100,000 to each community for their immediate economic development priorities and an additional $3.6 million for larger projects, which are approved on an individual basis.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, $3.7 million of the funding has been committed to a wide range of economic development projects in our small communities.
This leaves $1.3 million that is still available and I would like to encourage the small communities to apply for this pot of funding.
In eight communities, floating docks will be constructed to serve local outfitters, commercial fisherman and subsistence harvesters, and to support our tourism industry.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, during the construction of these docks, four jobs will be created in each community.
Other examples of projects funded by the Small Community Initiatives Program are the construction of a storage facility in Kugaaruk, upgrades to the Ittaq Cultural Centre in Clyde River, and a test winter char fishery by the Arviq Hunters and Trappers Organization in Repulse Bay.
Mr. Speaker, the Small Communities Initiative Program, like all programs funded under the Northern Strategy, is a three-year program, and it will expire at the end of this current fiscal year.
The department this year has received expressions of interest from our small communities for more than 16 new projects.
This shows us, Mr. Speaker, that our small communities do have opportunities for economic development and the capacity to undertake new projects.
The Small Community Initiatives Program has demonstrated that even a small investment in our local economies can produce great results. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister’s Statement 215 – 2(4): Implementation of Aulajaaqtut as a Graduation Requirement (Picco)
I would like to announce to the House that the Department of Education has implemented the completion of Aulajaaqtut in grades 10, 11, and 12 as high school graduation requirements.
The Aulajaaqtut curriculum focuses on Inuit values, healthy relationships, and personal wellness.
Aulajaaqtut is an Inuktitut word from the Kitikmeot region which means a V formation of geese. The symbolism, Mr. Speaker, of the flight of geese connotes freedom through the support of others, supported leadership, and supported participation. Being in flight also provides an ability to see the big picture from a new perspective.