EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
(interpretation ends) Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills.
Committee Report on Bills 018 – 2(4): Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act (Curley)
I wish to report that Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development, 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 40 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
Do members agree that Bill 40, as amended, be referred immediately to Committee of the Whole?
There is an agreement and Bill 40 is now referred to Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 019 – 2(4): Bill 20, Midwifery Profession Act (Simailak)
I am very pleased to see one of my relatives in the House.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Health and Education has reviewed Bill 20, the Midwifery Profession Act, and I would like to inform the House that the bill, as amended, is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 20 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Do members agree that Bill 20, as amended, be referred immediately to Committee of the Whole?
Speaker (interpretation): The members agree and Bill 20 is now referred to Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 020 – 2(4): Bill 21, Education Act (Simailak)
The Standing Committee on Health and Education has reviewed Bill 21, the Education Act, and I would like to inform the House that the bill, as amended, is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 21 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member is asking to have Bill 21, as amended, referred immediately to Committee of the Whole.
Speaker (interpretation): There is an agreement and Bill 21 is now referred to Committee of the Whole.
(interpretation ends) Item 12.
Tabled Document 279 – 2(4): Correspondence with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Peterson)
I wish to table an exchange of correspondence between the Chairperson of the Board of Directors for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and myself on the issue of corporation’s services and facilities in the Kitikmeot.
I encourage all the members to review the correspondence with care.
Tabling of Documents to the attention of the House.
Tabled Document 280 – 2(4): Metal Mining Effluent Regulations - Amendments, Canada Gazette Part II, V. 142 No. 14 (Simailak)
Mr. Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) As I indicated in my Member’s Statement, I wish to table today an excerpt from part II of a recent addition of the Canada Gazette.
This excerpt concerns recent regulatory changes that impact the Meadowbank project. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 281 – 2(4): Letter to Prime Minister Harper from Peter Irniq re. Inuit Representation on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Residential Schools (Curley)
Tabled Document 282 – 2(4): Contract Awards for Resupply: NNI Evaluation Sheet (Curley)
I would like to table some documents, and more specifically the ones we were handed earlier, with respect to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to ensure that we have Inuit representatives to look at the Inuit language documentation.
I would like to include Dr. Peter Irniq, who was a Member of the NWT Legislative Assembly and a former Commissioner of Nunavut.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that this legislation taken from other jurisdictions, the Access to Information Act, was used by the Nunavut government to review the shipping companies that were awarded the contract for the annual resupply, how much Inuit content these companies had, and with respect to the statistics, as well as the evaluation sheet used for the reviews.
Can we have those documents brought forward to the table, please.
Tabled Document 283 – 2(4): Information and Privacy Commissioner Annual Report 2007-2008 (Speaker)
Speaker (interpretation): I wish to table today the 2007-2008 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Motion 045 – 2(4): Acceptance of the Report of the Acting Integrity Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly re. David Simailak, MLA – Notice (Tootoo)
I give notice that on Wednesday, September 17, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that the sanctions and recommendations contained in the Report of the Acting Integrity Commissioner be accepted.
Speaker: Thank you. Notices of Motions.
Prior to these items being approved by the House, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to return to Item 5, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): The minister is seeking unanimous consent to return to Item 5, Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
Annuraaqatik, Minister Tapardjuk, you may proceed with your recognition.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my Annuraaqatik (my dapper fellow).
I would like to recognize the members of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Committee, who have assisted our government tremendously over the last couple of years. They are currently in town to have their last meeting and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize them while they are visiting the Gallery.
Percy Pikujak from Hall Beach.
Right beside him is Rainee Audla from Sanikiluaq.
Winnie Uvingayak from Baker Lake.
Mariam Aglukkaq from Gjoa Haven.
Simon Nattaq from Iqaluit.
Peterloosie Qappik from Pangnirtung.
And George Qulaut from Igloolik.
These individuals comprise the membership of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Committee.
Please welcome them to the Gallery.
Welcome to the Gallery and I hope that you will always feel welcome to the House.
Second Reading of Bills. (interpretation) Item 19.
Bills 7, 20, 21, 40, and 42, and Tabled Document 216 – 2(4) with Mr. Kattuk in the Chair.
Before we proceed with the Committee of the Whole, we will take a 30-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:37 and Committee resumed at 16:14
Chairman (Mr. Kattuk)(interpretation): Thank you, Members.
I would like to call the committee meeting to order. Before we begin, I have some information.
(interpretation ends) On Friday, September 12, 2008, the Member for Iqaluit East raised a Point of Order.
The Member for Iqaluit East was concerned that the Member for Rankin Inlet North used the word “fraud” in discussing a specific tendering process and, in doing so, alleged fraud on the part of the government or the bidders.
In responding to the Point of Order, the Member for Rankin Inlet North stated that he had used the word “flawed” and that he was not suggesting fraud by anyone.
I found that the Member for Rankin Inlet North had used the word “flawed” and ruled that there was no Point of Order.
The Member for Rankin Inlet North then asked the Member for Iqaluit East to withdraw his comments.
Essentially, the Member for Iqaluit East was being asked to withdraw the Point of Order.
The Member for Iqaluit East asked that I review the audio tape to determine the precise word used.
He indicated that if he was incorrect, he would apologize to the Member for Rankin Inlet North.
I am concerned that I am being asked to essentially reconsider my previous Ruling on the Point of Order.
I am prepared to do as requested by the members on this occasion, however, once a Ruling has been made on a Point of Order, the matter is at an end and members cannot reopen the issue by raising additional, related Points of Order.
I have reviewed the audio tape of the proceedings and the Blues.
“Flawed” and “fraud” are very similar sounding.
Perhaps this is most clearly demonstrated by a review of the Blues where, in providing his explanation to the Point of Order, the Member for Rankin Inlet North is quoted as saying “fraud” when he obviously was saying “flawed.”
The member may want to make the necessary correction to the Blues.
A review of the audio tape of the discussion that led to the Point of Order does not clearly demonstrate the use of one of the words over the other.
However, when the word is read in the context of the member’s comments, it is apparent that “flawed” is in keeping with the context.
The Member for Rankin Inlet North immediately clarified the misunderstanding.
The misunderstanding having been clarified, that would normally be the end of the matter.
In this instance, the Member for Iqaluit East indicated that he would apologize to the Member for Rankin Inlet North if it was determined that the word “flawed” had been used.
Although I am not directing the member to apologize, I will now give him the opportunity to do so.
I respect and accept your Ruling and indeed look forward to the change of the Blues from “fraud” to “flawed,” as dictated on page one of your report.
At this time, I would apologize to the member in the connotation as reported by your report.
In the Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Tabled Document 216 – 2(4), Bill 42, Bill 7, Bill 40, Bill 20, and Bill 21.
We would like to continue on with Friday’s consideration, Tabled Document 216 – 2(4), Bill 42, and Bill 7. Also, Mr. Chairman, if we have time, we will deal with the other items in the agenda.
Chairman: Minister Brown, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Yes, I would like my officials to accompany me at the witness table.
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the Minister and her officials to the witness table.
(interpretation ends) Thank you, Minister Brown.
On my left is Mark McCullock, Manager from Contract Services, and on my right is the Deputy Minister of Health, Alex Campbell.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Brown. The person that had his hand up was Mr. Arvaluk. Mr. Arvaluk.
This issue was brought up by my colleague sitting to my right with respect to First Air abandoning their flight scheduling from Rankin Inlet to Winnipeg using their jet service as a result of losing out on the medical travel contract for that portion.
I would like to ask this question to the minister: what about the other carriers, such as Canadian North and Kivalliq Air I believe, perhaps it’s Bradley Air Services?
However, one of the other carriers won the contract in that region.
Is the minister or her department aware of whether or not any of the airlines stated that based upon the awarding of the medical travel contracts, they may pull out of scheduled services or wish to expand their services based on their share of the medical travel contracts?
I will have Mr. Campbell respond to that question.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) At this point in time, I’m not aware that First Air or any other airline is going to reintroduce the jet service in the Kivalliq region.
I suppose that the department is unaware of these matters and what the airline corporate plans are.
However, the NNI Policy is aimed at supporting Inuit owned firms.
If a firm is 51 percent Inuit owned, it is eligible under the NNI Policy.
However, I think the government knows that Nunasi Corporation and Canadian North are 100 percent owned by Inuit, 50 percent is for Nunavummiut and 50 percent is for the Western Arctic people, so it’s 100 percent Inuit owned.
I think we have to look at the NNI Policy again to look into these types of ownerships and how this matter can be resolved.
Was Canadian North excluded because of the Nunavut Inuit ownership percentage that I just talked about, which is 1 percent shy of this number?
The NNI Policy and the bid adjustments that were applied on the policy, as I had mentioned previously, we had sent out an addendum as a response to the questions that had come up from the bidders at the bidders’ conference.
So we sent out an addendum that explained, in great detail, exactly how the NNI Policy would be applied.
And in fact, the method of applying the NNI Policy and the addendum that we sent out was approved by the NNI Secretariat and also by NTI.
So they were in favour and felt that it was the proper way to apply the bid adjustments in these scenarios.
So in fact, the bid adjustments and the NNI Policy were applied to all of them - Kivalliq Air, Nunasi, and First Air - they all received some bid adjustments as a result of the NNI Policy.
The explanation yesterday to the MLA from Rankin Inlet indicated that Canadian North does not qualify under the NNI Policy, however, it is 100 percent owned by Inuit.
Only Nunasi is qualified under the NNI Policy, so they don’t qualify with the NNI Policy adjustments of I think it was 10 percent or something like that.
I’m not sure, but they do not qualify nonetheless.
How do you factor in when, in fact, you have factual information that this particular airline, Canadian North, is 100 percent Inuit owned?
It just happens to be owned by two different jurisdictions, both the Inuit of Nunavut and Inuvialuit in the west.
How do you disqualify it when it is 100 percent Inuit owned under the NNI Policy?
Mr. McCullock will also respond to that question.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. McCullock, go ahead.
Mr. McCullock: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. So Canadian North did not respond to this RFP by themselves, they responded as Nunasi.
So Canadian North did not respond to the RFP, Nunasi responded to the RFP. The bid adjustments and the NNI Policy were applied to Nunasi. Nunasi did receive the bid adjustments.
I did not get the last part because he said, “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.” He spoke again, so I didn’t get the last part.
Can you allow him to finish what he was saying at the tail end of his statement?
Chairman: Thank you, Arvaluk.
Can you rephrase the last part of your answer? Mr. McCullock.
Sorry about that. In fact, then that Canadian North did get the bid adjustment but they got it through Nunasi because Nunasi responded to the RFP.
The legal entity that responded to the RFP was Nunasi, so Nunasi received the bid adjustment.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my last question in this part and it’s in regard to the NNI Policy that is used by our government.
The NNI Policy was developed fully and it has admirable objectives to try and attain.
However, not every business is operated similarly and with the businesses all over the spectrum, there are several fields that the government neglected to include in its application.
We are not assessing blame on the government. However, when designing programs and policies, not every eventuality is foreseen. There are issues that crop up which were not even on the radar or that emerged after the policy was drafted.
To cite an example, an Inuk proprietor, corporation, or businessperson, who requires financing for their business plan, can look for funding or a partner from wherever, let’s say Vancouver.
The reason why this policy has to be reviewed is that when a business requires funding or partnership, there are many factors to consider.
What I would like to ask is: has the NNI Policy been reviewed lately? When can we expect a report on either the review of the NNI Policy or the recommendations to that effect?
Thank you very much for that question.
There is a review committee that is in place now under the NNI Secretariat and I believe that’s under the Department of ED&T, a different department.
But I do know that there is a review that is being started and I can’t tell you for sure when it’s going to be released.
You would have to speak to perhaps the secretariat about that, but I know that the review is being started.
I think we learned quite a bit from the bills that we have been reviewing; Bill 21, the Education Act, Bill 7, the Inuit Language Protection Act, Bill 6, the Official Languages Act, etcetera.
We learned quite a bit that the spirit and the intent of those bills are very important.
Spirits and intents are the beliefs of Nunavummiut how the bill can best be implemented.
The NNI Policy, from the outset, uses a lot of figures; you know, 49 percent, etcetera. No, Canadian North does not qualify but Nunasi Corporation does.
Will the spirit and intent of the policy that is being developed weigh fairly heavy so that Nunavummiut businesses, especially those who want to participate in the mining development and through catering services or the human resource services, etcetera, can be accommodated?
I think the accommodation for Inuit businesses is going to be utmost important when developing, rather than just the facts and figures and a whole bunch of details in the NNI Policy. (interpretation) Thank you.
I didn’t hear a specific question, although there may have been one in there somewhere. However, I’m in agreement with the member’s comments as he stated them.
These sections as written (interpretation ends) section 2.2.8 of the GN’s RFP indicates that “The term of this agreement will be for a period of three years with the possibility of two one year extensions.” Why was this approach taken?
(interpretation) What I’m trying to point out here so that the minister can understand the context is when a passenger is bumped off due to the number of passengers on the flight to Pond Inlet, someone who is trying to go home, why aren’t they booked on another flight? It so happened the last time that I was booked on the Canadian North flight to Pond Inlet.
We only had three passengers on the itinerary and there were quite a number of seats available on that flight, I believe there were 12 empty seats.
The contract for medical travel is with First Air and once they have enough passengers, they bump off the medical travel patients who end up having to wait for another day’s flight.
This is unacceptable. It never goes well with Inuit practicality.
When Inuit, who have no knowledge of the medical travel contract, ask why they are stuck in Iqaluit when there are many open seats on the Canadian North flight to Pond Inlet, it’s hard to explain that it’s because of the contents of the contract that they have no knowledge of.
I apologize that I used the term “okay” within the House and perhaps I ought not to have used that term.
Why doesn’t it go back to how it was running before there was a contract?
Apparently, it was running smoothly when medical travel was on the free market.
Will this be included in the terms of reference for the review of medical travel, or the NNI Policy, or when they are planning the next medical travel rounds?
I completely understand the context in which the member spoke to illustrate his point.
We are empathetic of our people’s plight, but this will require further review and I will ask my staff to try to resolve the matter.
I will also ask the senior staff to assess this so that we have a more streamlined approach and this may include meetings with the contracted airline management as well as our health department officials.
I just have a few questions that I would like to follow up from last Friday.
I know it was mentioned that if a proponent or anyone that submitted a complete proposal was evaluated and looked at. I’m just wondering if the minister or her officials could indicate, particularly for the route in question between Rankin Inlet and Winnipeg, if that routing, if it’s all completed or what the department saw as completed information in the proposals that were evaluated. Could an evaluation only be done on proposals that were deemed complete by the department?
Mr. McCullock: Thank you very much for the excellent question.
The RFP document clearly stated that there were evaluation criteria that were required and information that was required in order for a proposal to be complete. One of those components that are very important, you can imagine, would be price.
So if we receive a proposal for which price is not included for a certain portion of the market, then we cannot evaluate it.
In fact, it is deemed to be incomplete.
Under procurement law, the courts have upheld, through many cases, the duty of the GN, for example, to reject non-compliant proposals.
So where pricing is not included, we cannot evaluate the proposal and therefore, it is deemed non-compliant and cannot be evaluated.
So that’s the duty of fairness that we have to ensure that the process is properly conducted.
So in fact, if pricing is missing, it is non-compliant and cannot be evaluated.
Thank you, Mr. McCullock, for that response.
So I guess the other part of my question is: were all proposals that were deemed to be completed reviewed for that particular route?
I will have Mr. McCullock respond to that question as well.
Yes, we can tell you that all proposals that were received that were complete were, in fact, evaluated to the full extent.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCullock, for clarifying that.
I’m going to jump over to another issue and my colleague, Mr. Arvaluk, was talking about it a little bit, and that is dealing with the whole NNI Policy.
I know, as he said, the spirit and the intent and the goal and objectives of that program was to ensure that Inuit owned firms would get the extra edge in bidding on contracts and any jobs with the government throughout the territory.
I know that he kind of touched on it a bit, but according to its corporate website, “NorTerra Incorporated is a Canadian management and holding company, owned equally by the Inuvialuit Development Corporation and Nunasi Corporation.”
NorTerra, I believe, is the owner of Canadian North. They purchased it I believe in 1998 and we all know that NorTerra doesn’t show up on the official listing of Inuit firms through the NNI Registry with NTI. Canadian North’s own website, as my colleague pointed out, indicates that its shareholders are “Inuvialuit and Inuit of Nunavut” and the NWT.
Looking at all that, I know I had asked a question last spring and I got a response where they are showing the market share and they had a listing by region and what kind of routes, and it had indicated First Air, Nunasi/Canadian North, Kivalliq Air, and that was it for the airlines that were awarded a market share.
Later on, I got another response breaking it down even further indicating Bradley Air Services Limited doing business with First Air and Nunasi Corporation, Kivalliq Air, a division of Keewatin Air, and Calm Air International had submitted bids.
I’m just wondering why, in the correspondence that I got in April, it indicates Nunasi/Canadian North as a proponent and then later on in June, I got a letter where it just shows as Nunasi Corporation and not Nunasi/Canadian North.
These are technical questions, so I will refer them to Mr. McCullock.
The legal entities that responded to the Request for Proposals, for example, Bradley Air Services with First Air delivering the business, Nunasi with Canadian North delivering the business, Calm Air and Kivalliq Air are a division of Keewatin Air, I think that what was sent initially didn’t have perhaps all of the details that would have made it clear.
So nobody knows what perhaps Bradley Air is but they know what First Air is, and people don’t remember the last time they get on an airplane that said Nunasi on the side of it but understand what Canadian North is.
And I think that the brackets and the other information that was put in a later detail were in attempt to try and clarify that.
But the legal entities that actually responded to RFPs obviously were what they were, they responded as they responded. First Air didn’t respond, it was Bradley Air that responded with First Air delivering the business and it was Nunasi responding with Canadian North on the business.
That’s the way they responded and that’s the way the legal text read.
I think that perhaps the first way you read it, or the first way the information was given to you, we tried to clarify it later.
I thank Mr. McCullock for clarifying that.
Now, I guess it was just a little confusing. If it had two names on there, one would assume that it was a joint submission. So I’m glad again it was clarified that it wasn’t.