EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If I recall correctly, I believe this question was asked previously. The entire insurance cost to the Government of Nunavut for its assets of this nature is approximately $2 million a year.
When I look at the document that Mr. Rumbolt was referencing and he brought up some examples of under-insured amounts, but I look at one as an example.
There’s a daycare/dormitory building in Rankin Inlet. The replacement value is $770,000 and it’s got a $10 million deductible on it. I think I want to be your insurance agent.
I just don’t understand the logic of how this policy is designed to benefit the Government of Nunavut in a replacement fashion for its assets.
More than half the schools, as an example, are under the $10 million value and almost all of them have very little residual value after the $10 million deductible is put into place.
I understand it’s a comprehensive policy that covers a number of different asset lines and different categories and different deductibles, but to me, the school component of what we’re looking at today seems really out of whack.
I know the minister did say that he’s looking at a review of the insurance methodology that’s being currently utilized.
Maybe the minister can just explain a little bit. Going back to the Iqaluit high school, we all know there have been a number of renovations that have been done on that building over the last five years.
The replacement value is almost $74 million, yet the current replacement value on this document is under $18 million.
The minister has stated that they’re doing a review of these assets.
I guess my question would be: when can we expect to see updated numbers on these government assets?
I thank Mr. Hickes for his question and comments.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we didn’t bring our scheduled insurance premiums today. We could have responded more accurately with some information. As I said, the review is underway.
When we get that information, I’m sure we will be able to provide it to Mr. Hickes and his colleagues so that we can have a more informative discussion about insurance and the coverage for our assets across Nunavut.
We’re on the issue of insurance premiums and it seems that most of the communities have one school.
In my community of Baker Lake, we have two schools.
My question is: are they insured the same? Are the elementary school and high school insured for the same amount because they’re approximately the same size? That’s my first question.
Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge, they are insured the same. I have to comment there. It’s the insurer that slapped the $10 million deductible on our insurance policy for schools.
I think three or four of them burned down a few years apart.
They just said, “We’ve got to put a $10 million deductible on your policy concerning schools.” It wasn’t something we suggested. It was something the insurer imposed on us.
Is the minister correct that, for example, in Baker Lake, seeing that there are two schools within our community, it’s covered by a blanket insurance policy?
Before you respond, I would like to remind everyone that we are looking at the new school project for Cape Dorset. Please keep to that line. Minister Peterson.
Thank you for reminding us on what we’re talking about.
Mr. Chairman, I didn’t anticipate getting into a full discussion on insurance today, being it’s an O&M type item.
Mr. D’Arcy may be able to provide some information about how the insurance works concerning schools and it will address Mr. Mikkungwak’s concerns.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Are you prepared to answer the question, Mr. D’Arcy?
I think it’s fairly obvious that we can only insure what we have.
We can’t insure what we want to have in the future.
The insurance is based on what that school, what that asset looks like at this point in time, when it was built, and what its replacement value is and its square footage.
We understand that that’s difficult right now. We came across this in the Cape Dorset school.
What we’re doing in the interim is we’re taking the square footage of all the schools, so the two in Baker Lake, we’re going to multiply that by the average build cost in 2015, which is around $10,000 a square metre. In the very large spreadsheet that was provided to members, you can see that there is a column that has that new amount in there. We want to move forward with that in the interim.
Meanwhile, we’re working with Community and Government Services to get new assessed values for all of the assets and we will adjust them accordingly when we get them done.
In the interim, although we might end up being over-insured a little bit, we think that’s better to apply just a blanket $10,000 a square metre to the current size of the asset.
If you have to change that asset and it’s going to be half again as much, then it’s obviously going to cost more money.
If I read my documents, and when I consulted with my colleague, this Cape Dorset school, I believe, is a common design and they have taken that design aspect from another community.
When you look at the insurance for any upcoming schools in communities, with a common design approach, will the insurance value be equal or will it vary by community?
Just to clarify, the new school in Cape Dorset won’t be a common design. It’s a design-build, so it will be a new design.
The insurance on the facility will be the cost of the asset. If it’s $50 million or $40 million or $34 million, it will determine the cost of the insurance, not the design itself.
Go to page 2. 2015-16 Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) No. 3.
Schedule 1. Capital. $1 million.
Please refer to your legislation binder.
Bill 6. I think you have your copy. It reads, Bill 6, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2015-2016.
Chairman (interpretation): Please go to page 2 in English and page 3 in Inuktitut.
It reads, Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2016.
Vote 2: Capital. Total Supplementary Appropriation. $1 million.
Do members agree to Bill 6 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), do members agree that Bill 6 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
This is completed.
I can just carry on.
Bill 04 – Write-off of Assets Act, 2014-2015 – Consideration in Committee
We will carry on.
We will deal with Bill 4.
I’ll ask Minister Peterson, when we’re dealing with Bill 4, if he wants different officials at the witness table.
I will keep the two officials I have with me at the table.
We can deal with this right away.
I will give you a chance to make your opening comments.
I am here to present Bill 4, Write-off of Assets Act, 2014-2015.
Bill 4 is for the write-off of government assets for 2014-15 totalling $542,526.86.
The total write-off relates to six of Nunavut Housing Corporation’s public housing units valued at $542,526.86 that were damaged by fire.
Mr. Chairman, these public housing assets are still in the public housing inventory. This bill writes down or reduces the value of each unit.
By doing this, the government ensures that we do not overstate the value of our assets and provides a more realistic picture of those assets on the books of the Nunavut Housing Corporation and, ultimately, in our public accounts.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some brief opening comments as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of Bill 4, Write-off of Assets Act, 2014-2015.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members had a detailed and productive dialogue with the minister concerning a number of matters, including the methodology by which the Nunavut Housing Corporation calculates write-downs of fire damaged units and the criteria that are used to determine whether or not a fire damaged unit remains inhabitable.
Members also raised questions relating to the disposition of government owned buildings that have been condemned or otherwise rendered unusable due to contamination or other factors.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 4 to all of its members.
If there are no general comments, we will now be dealing with Bill 4.
Please refer to the bill in your legislation binder. Bill 4.
I think you have a copy of it in front of you.
It reads, Bill 4, Write-off of Assets Act, 2014-2015.
Schedule on page 2. It reads, Assets Written Off.
Total. $542,526.86.
Do members agree to Bill 4 as a whole?
Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 4 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
That bill is concluded.
Members, we will take a five-minute break.
We will return in five minutes.
>>Committee recessed at 17:34 and resumed at 17:49
Bill 05 – An Act to Amend the Safety Act – Consideration in Committee
We will proceed with Bill 5.
Minister Peterson will be at the witness table.
I would like to ask him: while we’re dealing with Bill 5, would you like to have any of your officials at the witness table?
Yes, I have two witnesses that I would like to bring in.
The minister would like to bring in witnesses.
To my left is Lisa Clarke. She is the regional superintendent for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission that is based here in Iqaluit.
To my right is Judy Kainz. She is the director of prevention.
She is based in Yellowknife, but travels between the two territories.
Ms. Kainz and Ms. Clarke, welcome to the House.
We can proceed with Bill 5.
Minister Peterson, if you have any opening comments, the floor is yours. Minister Peterson.
Mr. Chairman and Hon. Members, Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Safety Act, proposes several amendments to the Safety Act.
The reasons for the amendments set out in Bill 5 are:
New Occupational Health and Safety Regulations have been developed jointly by the Northwest Territories and Nunavut for recommendation to the Commissioner, but there is not enough authority in the Safety Act for a small portion of the proposed new regulations; and
This is an addition to what was in the previous bill, Canada has enacted new Workplace Hazardous Material Information System legislation (WHMIS) and amendments to the Safety Act are needed to enable harmonization with the federal legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendments to the Safety Act will clarify the requirement for and roles and responsibilities of occupational health and safety committees and representatives, and authorize the related regulatory provisions. Specifically, the proposed amendments will:
rename “Joint Work Health and Safety Committee” to “Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee”;
define “occupational health and safety representative”;
require every employer at a work site and in accordance with the regulations to establish a joint occupational health and safety committee or designate an occupational health and safety representative at small work sites;
set out the duties of a joint occupational health and safety committee and occupational health and safety representative;
require an employer to ensure that a worker who is required to do anything under the Act or regulations, including as a member of a joint occupational health and safety committee or occupational health and safety representative, has that time credited as time at work and will not lose any pay or benefits as a result of that activity;
clarify the regulatory-making authority necessary to authorize the proposed regulations concerned with joint occupational health and safety committees and representatives;
provide enabling legislation to harmonize WHMIS provisions with the new federal WHMIS legislation; and
repeal section 5 of An Act to Amend the Safety Act, S.N.W.T. 2003, c. 25, because the requirement for work site safety programs is covered in the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.
No consultation has been undertaken with respect to this specific bill. However, during the course of the development of the proposed new Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, extensive stakeholder and public consultations were undertaken with respect to what forms the contents of this bill.
During the period September 2010 to March 2011, representatives of industry, labour, and the public in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut were engaged in consultations aimed at reforming Occupational Health and Safety Regulations that apply to workplaces other than mines and some aspects of oil and gas operations.
The overall objective was to improve the regulatory environment for occupational health and safety in ways that best meet the needs of stakeholders and the public in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
The Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories passed similar amendments to the Northwest Territories’ Safety Act in early October of this year.
That concludes my opening comments, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer questions.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation have comments?
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some opening comments as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Safety Act.
The standing committee has no objections to the purpose of Bill 5, which was described in detail by the minister in his opening comments.
As members are aware, the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission is shared between the governments of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
A number of statutes are administered by WSCC in both territories. These include the Safety Act, the Workers’ Compensation Act, and the Mine Health and Safety Act.
One of the consequences of this ongoing relationship is the need to coordinate legislative initiatives in both jurisdictions.
Last month, Bill 65, a piece of mirror legislation to Bill 5, was passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories prior to that assembly’s dissolution. This bill had been introduced in the NWT’s legislature in June of this year.
Testimony provided to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories during the proceedings of the Committee of the Whole by the chief executive officer of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission indicated that WSCC plans to undertake a rewrite of the Safety Act.
As members will recall, extensive consultations took place between standing committees of our two legislatures during our recent consideration of the proposed new Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan Act.
These consultations led to the development and passage of a significant number of amendments to the bills.
In the event that a substantially new Safety Act is developed by WSCC for introduction in both legislatures, it will be important for the appropriate standing committees in both legislatures to coordinate their consideration of their respective bills.
In March of this year, detailed new occupational health and safety regulations under the Safety Act were approved and published in the Northwest Territories.
It is the standing committee’s understanding that a parallel set of regulations for Nunavut will be approved by cabinet and subsequently published in Part II of the Nunavut Gazette following the passage of Bill 5.
The standing committee notes that WSCC has recently published new Codes of Practice for the establishment and operation of joint occupational health and safety committees.
The standing committee encourages WSCC to make efforts to ensure that these materials are available in the Inuit language for employers and workers in Nunavut communities.
The standing committee also notes that Bill 5 provides that “every employer shall implement and maintain an occupational health and safety program for a work site as required by the regulations.”
The standing committee looks forward to future annual reports of WSCC accounting in detail for such matters as its enforcement of this requirement in Nunavut’s 25 communities and its initiatives to assist small businesses in Nunavut in complying with new regulatory requirements.
This information will be of use to Members of the Legislative Assembly and the general public in evaluating the extent to which the regulatory requirements are administratively reasonable and financially affordable for small businesses.
The standing committee also notes that Bill 5 contains provisions related to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The standing committee recognizes the role of the Information and Privacy Commissioner in identifying any specific concerns that her office may have with these provisions in her future annual reports to the Legislative Assembly.
The standing committee also notes that although the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission tabled its 2014 annual report in the Legislative Assembly on October 28, 2015, WSCC’s 2011 annual report has not yet been formally tabled in the House despite its having been available on WSCC’s website for a number of years.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 5, members took the opportunity to also raise a number of general concerns regarding workplace safety in Nunavut, including such matters as mould in government facilities and language use at work sites.
If there are no general comments, let us move on to the bill.
I’m sure you all have a copy of it. It’s in your white legislation binder.
Bill 5. You all have a copy of it.
It reads, Bill 5.
I just have a question about… . I know the department did some public consultations in regard to the regulations of this proposed bill.
I’m wondering if you can tell us who you went to for the public consultations.
Ms. Kainz to my right will answer that question.
Ms. Kainz.
Ms. Kainz: The consultation was held over a period of several months and it was a written consultation, so people from across both territories, across Canada, submitted.
We received 75 written submissions that totalled about 775 comments and recommendations that were all reviewed extensively by the advisory committee.
Can you please tell us who is on the advisory committee?
Ms. Kainz will answer that question.
Chairman: Ms. Kainz.
Ms. Kainz: Thank you. The advisory committee was made up of representatives from Nunavut and NWT.
The Nunavut ones were Clarence [Synard] from Nunavut Construction; Imo [Adla], who is the Occupation Health and Safety Manager for the GN; and also on the NWT side, Stephen Moss, who is the Fire Marshal, Office of the Fire Marshal; Sonja Boucher, who is a nurse at Stanton Hospital; and [Mary Lou Cherwaty], who was the federation of labour president.
There was one more from Nunavut and I’m sorry I have forgotten the name.
Out of the submissions, how many would you say as a percentage were from small businesses?
Ms. Kainz advises that we don’t have an exact number.
Going forward with the bill, how do you envision providing support to small businesses so that they do comply with the Act?
I thank Ms. Angnakak for her very important question.
I’ll ask Ms. Kainz to respond to that question.
Ms. Kainz: WSCC has several small business initiatives and there are several templates that small businesses can use that are available on our website.
As well as in 2016, we have a rollout that is directly for small businesses with tools for them to start with developing or to enhance their OH&S program. Our safety officers are out there as well and when they’re doing inspections in locations, part of what they’re doing is education for small business, for any employers, really; small businesses to understand compliance with the legislation.
While you were speaking, I was thinking about like a business in Qikiqtarjuaq where a unilingual person owns that business, they own a hotel and that.
How would you meet his needs when it comes to providing support to be in compliance with this Act? He’s not going on the website.
Unless you have people who speak Inuktitut, which I’m assuming that you would… .
Maybe you can explain a little bit to us.
I again thank Ms. Angnakak for the question. That’s a very important question as well.
Ms. Kainz will respond to that.
Ms. Kainz: Thank you.
Our officers go out and do inspections.
In that case, when we’re in the community, if they’re asking us, we’re always open for it.
If they make requests into our office here in Iqaluit, we work with them. We do provide language translations.
In one of the comments, it talked about our codes of practice being available in Inuktitut and they are away actually being translated now. I don’t have a specific timeframe for them, but I know that they are in the process.
All of our literature is available.
I’m wondering: how many officers do you have that would help monitor compliance of this bill?
I guess my second question would be: if a business didn’t know about these regulations or that they had to comply with this, how do you reach those people who may not know about it?
Maybe there is a language barrier. I don’t know.
That’s two questions, sorry.
I believe we have four employees who do a lot of travel to the different communities.
On the specific details of how we reach them and work with the employer, I will ask Ms. Kainz to respond.
Ms. Kainz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have four officers based here in Iqaluit, but all the officers are appointed for both territories. We travel back and forth as needed.
If we need more here, we move where the need is.
Also, the rollout plan that we have with the new legislation, we have a communication plan in place to make sure that we’re trying to get it in the hands of as many employers and workers as we can across the territory through community advertising and presentations. We’re planning on travelling to the communities to do presentations.
We have a whole plan in place to get that message out as quickly and as best we can to everybody in the territory.
I’m wondering if you can tell me how many of your officers speak Inuktitut.
Ms. Kainz informs me that none of them speak Inuktitut.
I would assume that it would be a pretty big challenge. I guess you would have to work through interpreters all the time.
What are your plans to change that so that you can have workers who can actually speak with their clients directly?
Ms. Kainz will respond.
Ms. Kainz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is something that we’re always striving for every time we go out for recruitment. That’s one that we’re always striving for. The other thing that we have developed is what we call a junior safety officer program, where we’re training and mentoring people that are from the north that will be able to fit into the safety officer role.
That is going into its second year of a two-year program right now.
When we went out for recruitment of that position, the candidates are Yellowknife-based currently.
When we go out next June, it is offered to both territories. The successful candidates came from there.
I’m a little concerned about that. When we talk about an Act and compliance, these kinds of things are very important, yet we still have a language barrier today.
I do know how hard it is get the proper people to be employed, but I think the sooner you really put a lot of effort into this and maybe you can get some help at the community level to find somebody from the communities that could do the job.
I didn’t hear a question. I don’t think you’re expecting any response for that, so I’ll move on.
In your opening comments, you have a joint occupational health and safety committee.
This Act is for all employers and workers in small communities.
In small communities, we have hamlet offices and housing associations that have employees. They also have hamlet councillors and board members.
Would these board members and councillors be considered as an occupational health and safety committee?
I thank Mr. Akoak for the question.
If I understand him correctly, he’s asking if politicians would be members of a joint occupational health and safety committee. I believe it would be the employer and employees, the employer being, perhaps, the senior administrative officer and other officials.
If the minister didn’t quite understand it, maybe you can rephrase it, Mr. Akoak.
You say that board members and hamlet councillors are politicians, but they are also on the board to look after the safety of the workers in workplaces as in hamlets and housing associations.