EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The idea would be to bring forward a formula that actually reflects what the situation is on the ground.
Back to the orders of the day. Item 7, “Written Questions.”
Return to Written Question 010 – 2(1): Staff Housing Requirements (Clerk)
I’m tabling the reply to return to written question 10-2(1) on behalf of the minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Reply made by the Honourable Peter Kilabuk
Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation
Subject: Staff Housing requirements in relation to the new Kivalliq Health Centre
What staff housing requirements have been identified by the Government of Nunavut in relation to this project?
The Department of Health and Social Services has identified a staffing requirement of 23 positions for the new Kivalliq Health Centre in Rankin Inlet
What contracting process will be undertaken by the Nunavut Housing Corporation to acquire the required units?
The Nunavut Housing Corporation will be publicly tendering for a contract to Supply, Ship and Erect ten (10) units in accordance with established GN contracting procedures.
When will tenders for these units be issued?
The tender will be issued the week of May 24, 2004, and will close June 11, 2004.
What is the projected cost of the required units?
The projected cost of the 10 units is $2.5 million.
What is the timeline for the acquisition of these units?
The units are expected to be on-line in the late winter or the early spring of 2005.
Will any of the required units be acquired through lease-back agreements with private sector companies or real estate firms?
Once completed, all units will be owned by the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Item 14, “Tabling of Documents.”
Tabled Document 015 – 2(1): Arctic Bay Sewage Lagoon (photographs) (Barnabas)
I would like to table a document: photographs of the Arctic Bay sewage lagoon.
(Interpretation ends.) These photos clearly show that the lagoon is full beyond its capacity.
It is unbelievable that this lagoon was allowed to reach this point.
I’m pleased that the deputy minister is working to resolve this and I’m looking forward to reviewing long-term plans for the community sewage lagoon proposal.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq.
Tabled Document 016 – 2(1): Public Accounts Non-Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) & Consolidated Financial Statements March 31, 2003 (2 documents) (Aglukkaq)
I’m very pleased to meet one of the points raised in the Auditor General’s report by tabling the public accounts and non-consolidated financial statements for March 31, 2003.
Speaker (interpretation): Tabling of Documents, Mr. Curley.
Tabled Document 017 – 2(1): Skyward Aviation – Letter re RFP (Curley)
Mr. Curley: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to table a document from Skyward dated May 20, 2003.
A letter to Hon. Paul Okalik and also to the Minister of Health and Social Services Hon. Ed Picco of the Government of Nunavut.
I would like to table this correspondence in regards to a conflict of interest.
Speaker (interpretation): Item 15. Notices of motions.
Item 17, “Motions.”
It’s not to the motion. I didn’t raise my hand for item 17.
I want to go back to the tabling of documents.
Which item number would you like to go back to?
Please state the item number in the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Kilabuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to return to Item 14, “Tabling of Documents.”
Speaker (interpretation): The member is seeking unanimous consent to go back to Item 14, “Tabling of Documents.”
Return to Item 14: Tabling of Documents
Tabled Document 018 – 2(1): Condition Rating for Three Units in Arviat (Kilabuk)
Mr. Kilabuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to a request from my colleague, Iqaluit Centre member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Tootoo, I am pleased to provide this House a copy of the conditions ratings for the three units under lease to the Nunavut Housing Corporation in Arviat.
Going back to Orders of the Day, Item 17.
Bill 2 – Appropriations (O&M) Act, 2004-2005.
At this time, we will do Item 20 at 1:00 p.m, with Mr. Evyagotailak in Chair.
We’ll take a lunch break and return at 1:00 p.m.
>>House recessed at 11:40 and resumed at 12:56
Chairperson: In Committee of the Whole we were dealing with 2004-05 main estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services.
I would suggest to members that we continue with question on page H-9.
Chairperson: I would like to ask the minister and her officials to go the witness table, please.
Chairpersonn: Welcome Madam Minister and your officials.
For the record, introduce your officials, please.
On my right we have my deputy minister, Bernie Blais, and on my left is Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Victor Tootoo.
Chairperson: The floor is open for questions on H-9.
This question that I referred to yesterday…. I would like further clarification because I think that we are well aware that from September and on they were quotes given by the airlines.
My question is, what type of process did your department use, because this quote was cancelled.
And then in reference to the Sanikiluaq case it was extended.
That contract was extended for a further six months.
And I would also like to thank the deputy minister for giving me that explanation.
What I wanted to know was, is it normal to extend the Sanikiluaq service for six months, or was there an option in the clause that could be used? My question was, is it normal to use that process, and are they conforming to the rules?
If I understood the member correctly, this question, I believe, was posed by the member on Tuesday or Wednesday. We’re currently working on the issue and are compiling the information.
Once the information is compiled I’ll give it to the member.
My last question is to the deputy minister.
You stated in the last reply that the contract was extended for medical travel for Sanikiluaq — the carrier was Keewatin Air — and apparently you were directed by the cabinet to do so. That’s what the Deputy Minister stated in his last response.
My next question is in regards to the charter services for Sanikiluaq.
What type of process did you use, or was that another directive from the cabinet to use only one carrier?
Chairperson: Mr. Blais.
Mr. Blais: The first question, that would be incorrect.
I don’t recall ever stating that the contract had been extended in that discussion.
I do recall saying that as it relates to the charter and the RFPs, I would look into it because I was not aware that there was an RFP requested.
Thank you, yes, you corrected me.
(Interpretation.) The information that I was reading yestereday which referred to the cancellation….
I read it. It was in regards to the resource centre in Winnipeg which was cancelled.
As I stated, it was again awarded to Keewatin Air to provide charter services.
That is one of the things on which I wasn’t clear.
My question: this charter service has not been awarded yet, to date, for Sanikiluaq?
Again, Mr. Chairman, it is part of the process that we have undertaken to review that question.
We don’t have all of the information at hand at this point in time to respond appropriately to that question.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): If that is the case, when is the information going to be available?
We’ll probably have the information available by next week.
I don’t have any more names on the list.
Page H-9.
Health and social services branch summary.
Health insurance program.
Total, operations and maintenance: $39,600,000.
Page H-10.
Health and social services branch summary. Health protection.
Total, operations and maintenance: $3,829,000.
Page H-11.
Treatment program.
I would like to ask a question in regards to travel and transportation, which is quite a huge chunk — there are well over $35 million, My question is in regards to the medivac and medical travel.
I would like to thank your department for giving us the information and for doing a review.
Prior that, there did not seem to be much accountability on the requests for proposals.
Could you give us a brief explanation on what type of policies you have and what processes you use to evaluate those RFPs?
I will refer the question to the deputy minister.
The policy is that all of these contracts are sent out for requests for proposals.
The process, typically, would entail the development of an RFP as well as putting together the criteria for evaluation of those when they are received so that there is a process in place to assess the quality and also the proposals themselves.
Normally, a team would be put in place. Usually, depending on the size of the contract, we would have a team put together to make that determination and to come forward with the recommendation based on the criteria that were pre-established going into the process itself.
Subsequently, that would be reviewed.
Also, the process would be reviewed with Justice and Public Works. Once those pieces have come together then a decision is made and everyone notified of the successful bidder.
If the process was used, then we have had an excellent process. Proper evaluations would have been done. You have the criteria.
Why is it that you did not use that process in regards to that medivac contract?
Why is it that the directive had to be given from cabinet?
We use an open process and the individuals who were involved were the cabinet members.
There were a lot of things that were not in place, but what I can say today is that we are running smoothly now.
Chairperson: Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): With my question…. There is some evaluation done, you have the criteria, you have the development for requests for proposals, then, after all of that process has been completed….
What the Minister told us yesterday was that later in the year, in 2003, the contract was awarded to Keewatin Air as directed by cabinet.
After the review, did you hand it over to the cabinet? Is that why you got that directive?
Chairperson: Madam Aglukkaq, point of order.
This morning, the question that was raised by Mr. Curley was in relation to why did that information got to cabinet.
On the same subject, and as part of the process as far as I know — the committee Clerk, or Clerk can correct me — when the question is taken as notice in the House, there are no further questions allowed until the minister responsible responds to that question.
That is a reminder to members of the number of questions asked today that were taken as notice. Therefore, those identical questions are not to be asked during Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, my question is in reference to Hansard, and I was making reference to what the deputy minister stated yesterday.
I guess that question has been taken as notice.
Mr. Curley: My point of order is this.
Reviewing Hansard this morning, the deputy minister stated very clearly that the contract that was awarded or directed by the cabinet, and I’m now trying to get him to clarify exactly how that direction was received.
And I believe as a member of this House that I have the right to ask a question for clarification on the statement she made, not only to me but to the House and Nunavummiut.
If that is not possible then I don’t know what we are doing here.
To the point of order.
Madam Aglukkaq.
As a follow-up from my earlier comment: first of all, I’m going to raise a point in regards to the quality of Hansard.
As you know, since the start of this session, the quality of the blues is ridiculous.
They had me sitting in Committee of the Whole yesterday, in today’s Hansard.
I’ve had to edit most of the statements that I’ve made in Hansard, so there is a question in terms of the quality of the blues themselves as it relates to statements made by this House.
My second point will be that the information that Mr. Curley is requesting was yesterday; the question today was taken as notice: based on the files of how contracts are awarded for the Keewatin and why it went to cabinet.
This information he is asking again today is the same subject matter.
It all intertwines, and it is all related. Today I took that question as notice, and I said I would come back to the House with a response.
Chairman: Thank you, Madam Aglukkaq.
Madam Minister does not have to speak for me.
I raised a question this morning which will be clearly spelled out in the question I raised, even through the blues tomorrow.
Based on that, I’m referring specifically in my point of order to the deputy minister’s statement where he indicated the cabinet had directed his department to enter into contract.
I’m trying to get clarification. My earlier question today during question period had to do with how the process worked with respect to contract regulations.
I guess we’ll have to remind you again that a number of questions that were asked today were taken as notice, therefore those individual questions are not to be asked during Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Curley: Actually, the question of privilege…. I think my privilege as a member of this House is being compromised and is actually being directed by the committee chairman and other members.
We are now really, actually questioning the freedom of speech in the Committee of the Whole.
There are so many issues involved at the policy level with the question raised today, this morning.
I was careful with that.
That was my question, if you read it.
Now, I’m on the management side.
How is it handled.
If the committee staff are not familiar with the rules of the House, I believe we’re either going to have to consider changing the rules so that there is at least the freedom of expression that can take place in this House.
We are dealing with a very serious accountability question.
If we can’t get to them, how will we ever get to them?
We will take a break of 10-15 minutes.
We’ll take a break.
>>Committee recessed at13:17and resumed at13:46
Mr. Netser: Thank you for returning.
The Chair had to catch his flight so I’m chairing the rest of the session until we are finished.
Thank you, members. A number of points of order and privilege have been raised during this afternoon’s proceedings.
The issues raised in these interventions around the topic: the extent to which members may pose questions on certain matters when related questions were taken at notice earlier in the day’s proceedings.
Given that these issues are arising in both Committee of the Whole and formal session, I am advising members that the Speaker will be reviewing the matter and reporting to the House on Tuesday.
I’m going to be very clear on my question and that it has nothing to do with any specific contract, or RFP, or anything.
I’m just wondering if the minister or her staff could explain the general policy and guidelines that they follow in reviewing submissions on contracts in general.
At this time I will refer the question to my deputy minister, Mr. Blais.
I stated a little earlier the process. Basically when we are doing the request for proposals on a particular issue or item, typically that’s developed by a department in conjunction with the users who may be affected by that decision or involved in a decision.
A committee or small task group is put together to identify what are some of the key issues related to that particular RFP.
At the same time, they will also develop key indicators or an assessment criteria that will allow them, when the RFPs are received by the department, to assess the quality and the request that has been made to those individuals, companies or organizations.
In an RFP typically we will have clauses such as the government can decide to cancel at any time the request for proposals — change it, award part of it.
So, these are fairly broad parameters that allow the department and the Government of Nunavut, to some extent, to be able to make those kinds of decisions.
So, compared to a tender this is a much stricter process.
Normally, those like the building of a hospital would be a tender, where that process is much more contained in terms of the ability of what we can and can’t do.
And the department is not typically the one that initiates those.
So, the RFP process is pretty straightforward.
I hope that answers the question, Mr. Chairman.
Just to thank the deputy for his response.
Again, I am speaking in very general terms, not targeted to any specific thing. Under general terms, after that review is done and the decision is arrived at on where or for whom that RFP or contract is going to be successful, what is the usual authorization process that is followed in approving and then signing off on the awarding of such things?
Typically, on most contracts the deputy minister has the signing authority on those things that have been delegated, in regards to what it can and cannot do.
There are some contracts that we do not do. The Department of Community and Government Services, for example, would be ones that might be responsible to do RFPs in certain matters.
On those matters where we have delegated authority, the deputy minister can sign off on those.
Typically, that recommendation would be made by the committee to myself. I would review the recommendation and then make sure that the process has been followed and make sure that Justice, in this case, and sometimes the Department of Community and Government Services would also be consulted, as it relates to some of the contents on those RFPs.
At that point in time, if I feel confident that that has been done, then I would sign off on the contract, for example, as we did currently on the group home.
On those matters where we are directed to initiate a process, an RFP process, then it would go back to, in some cases, that particular party.
But where I am delegated authority, I feel that I have the ability — when the process has been followed and the consultation has been done — then I have the right, I guess at that point in time, to make the decision to authorize that we are entering into a contract.
I understand and I know that the Financial Administration Act has guidelines for signing authorities and contract authorities in it.
Under those processes, given that the authorization and that is there, is there any requirement for the minister responsible to be informed or involved in that process, or is this something that is typically done, or not done?
I am just wondering if this was in the signing limits and authority of the staff.
Is it generally that the minister is involved and made aware of any of the contracts or things that are signed off on behalf of the department?
Mr. Blais: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was just….
Typically we would develop, on complex contracts…. For example, we would provide a briefing note for our minister.
I know, given the nature of the beast in Nunavut not being a very large population, that that there are sometimes — in most cases, I would imagine — some competitive bids out there. And if a component of any contract or RFP felt that they were not treated properly….
Is there a process in which they have the opportunity to appeal or ask for something to be looked at again?
(Interpretation ends.) I would just like to inform the members that I have to be at the airport in half an hour, and if we do not get anything done I am going to ask somebody to report progress.
Mr. Blais: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if it would be possible to ask Mr. Tootoo to respond to that particular question.
I don’t feel I’ve been here long enough to have that knowledge base.
I haven’t encountered that issue since I’ve been here.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Victor Tootoo.
The appeal process…. As I understand it, there is an appeal process, or proponent for RFPs, designed through the Department of Community and Government Services. In the past I believe it was public works and services, who are responsible for the majority of the government tenders and contracts.
That’s the department that develops those systems and processes.
I’m not intimately aware of the exact process, but I believe members of that department would be.
Chairman: Thank you Mr. Victor Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: A joy to be put in that opportunity, eh, Mr. Chairman.
Recognizing the clock, and I know we are not on extended hours, I’d like to move that we report progress.
Chairman: We have a motion on the floor to report progress.
All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? Motion is carried.
Excuse me just a second. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed?
Just going back to the process of filing appeals. I may just ask the minister and her staff if any of the proponents in any of the contracts have received any appeals on that. Then what process is followed once that appeal has been filed?
Currently the department has, in total, 450 contracts.
So, we as a department have quite a lot of these issues that we deal with.
But, in my recollection of the last ten months that I’ve been here I have not received one appeal to date.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Mr Blais.
Sure that none of them filed?
Chairman: Sorry, we don’t have a quorum anymore.
Don’t we need 10?
>>Committee recessed at 13:59 and resumed at 14:16
Members, I understand that due to a lack of members, you were unable to conclude your proceedings in the Committee of the Whole.
And in accordance with Rule 7 (4) I will allow the bells to ring for another 15 minutes.
>>House recessed at 14:17 and resumed at 14:28
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. Barnabas.
I move, seconded by the Member for Hudson’s Bay, that the Assembly adjourn for the day, pursuant to Rule 46.
Speaker (interpretation): The motion is not debatable.
Opposed? Motion is carried.
Orders of the Day, Mr. Clerk.
Orders of the Day for Tuesday May 25:
Speaker (interpretation): Today, since it’s Friday today, I would like to thank our pages, who were here for the whole week.
I would like to thank the pages Robbie Laisa….
Moses Arlooktoo, Ulaaju Peter, and Annie Kilabuk.
Thank you for being pages to the Legislature.
The House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 25, 2004.
We will start at 13:30.
>>Session Adjourned at 14:31  Nunavut Canada
Tuesday May 25, 2004
Pages 368 – 431
Opening Prayer 368
Speaker’s Ruling 368
Ministers’s Statements 373
Members’s Statements 374
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 379
Oral Questions 379
Tabling of Documents 398
Notices of Motions 398
Consideration of Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 399  Committee Motions 399
Reports of Committee of the Whole 429
Orders of the Day 430
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 368
019 – 2(1): Hamlet Deficits (Kilabuk) 373
020 – 2(1): Inuinnaqtun Interpreter Translator Program (Picco) 374
087 – 2(1): Homelessness in Nunavut (Peterson) 374
088 – 2(1): Triplet Girls (Evygotailak) 375
089 – 2(1): Member Absent from the House (Netser) 375
090 – 2(1): Arviat Cod Fishing Derby (Alagalak) 375
091 – 2(1): Beluga Whaling in Hudson Bay (Kattuk) 376
092 – 2(1): Workshop in Taloyoak (Aglukkaq) 376
093 – 2(1): Spring Seal-Hunting Incident (Kilabuk) 377
094 – 2(1): Physical Activity Week (Tapardjuk) 377
095 – 2(1): Speech and Hearing Month Fundraising (Tootoo) 378
091 – 2(1): Clyde River Breakwater (Arreak) 379
092 – 2(1): Number of Students Enrolled for the Translator Program (Curley) 380
093 – 2(1): Update on Whaling in the Sanikiluaq Area (Kattuk) 382
094 – 2(1): Capital Investment Plan by Region (Peterson) 383
095 – 2(1): Minimum Standard of Condition on Contracted Houses (Tootoo) 384
096 – 2(1): Trades and Technology Program – Transportation and Boarding Covered (Curley) 387
097 – 2(1): Reason Hamlets Are in Deficit Situations (Peterson) 388
098 – 2(1): Fuel Rider Update (Tootoo) 390
099 – 2(1): Policy in Place for Escorts (Kattuk) 391
100 – 2(1): Homeowner Savings – Other Options (Tootoo) 392
101 – 2(1): Statistics on Homelessness (Peterson) 394
102 – 2(1): Update on School Inspections (Tootoo) 397
019 – 2(1): RCMP Telecom System - Letter to the RCMP Commanding Officer (Okalik) 398
Motion 011 – 2(1): Extended Hours and Days (Evyagotailak) 398
Committee Motions  Committee Motion 003 – 2(1): Deferral of Consideration of the 2004-05 Main Estimates of the Department of Health and Social Services (Curley) 399
Tuesday, May 25, 2004