EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If the association is turned into an authority consisting of people appointed by the minister, can they hire their own manager as well?
If I understand your question correctly, yes, the appointed board of directors are responsible for choosing a chairperson and vice-chairperson.
They follow the same rules and procedures and manage public housing operations in the community once they become an authority.
I want people out there to understand this fully. They can pick their own manager that will manage housing, even though they’re called an authority now. Even though they’re a board appointed by the minister, the manager for housing has the overall say.
The minister can’t interfere with the appointed board hiring their own manager.
Am I correct in understanding that and that the housing corporation headquarters have no say as well?
Unfortunately, I don’t know if you’re talking about a staff member or the appointed board members. You’re talking about management.
I’m just asking for more clarification as to what he means. I don’t really understand what he is saying. What do you mean by management?
Can my colleague explain that a bit further?
I will give you an opportunity to explain your question further so that Mr. Kuksuk can understand, Mr. Mapsalak.
I call them Aulattiji; they’re called managers.
They manage local public housing operations. That’s what I’m asking about. If the appointed board does not like the manager, do they have the authority to remove the manager before the housing corporation gets involved?
As I stated previously, the staff who work at the housing office, whether it’s a maintenance person, manager, or tenant relations officers, there are various positions at the housing organization.
Once it’s turned into an authority, then it works through an agreement.
They would just follow the provisions of the agreement and proceed from there.
Those would be drawn up in the agreement where things that were run by the association can be run by the authority.
The time for question period has expired. We will move on to Item 7. (interpretation ends) Item 7.
Tabled Document 075 – 4(2): FPT Ministers Responsible for Culture and Heritage September 9, 2014 (Okalik)
Tabled Document 076 – 4(2): FPT 19th Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie “Pan-Canadian Showcase: Government Support of the Contemporary Francophonie” (Okalik)
I am pleased to table the FPT Ministers Responsible for Culture and Heritage September 9, 2014.
The other one is the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie “Pan-Canadian Showcase: Government Support of the Contemporary Francophonie” on June 26 and 27, 2014 in Prince Edward Island.
Tabled Document 077 – 4(2): 2013-2014 Annual Report on the Operation of the Medical Care Plan (Ell)
I am pleased to table the 2013-14 Annual Report on the Operation of the Medical Care Plan.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Tabling of Documents, Ms. Ugyuk.
Tabled Document 078 – 4(2): 2013-2014 Child and Family Services Annual Report (Ugyuk)
I am pleased to table the Child and Family Services Annual Report for 2013-14.
Tabled Document 079 – 4(2): 2013-2014 Nunavut Liquor Commission Annual Report (Peterson)
Tabled Document 080 – 4(2): Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission’s 2013 Annual Report (Peterson)
I am pleased to table the 2013-14 Nunavut Liquor Commission Annual Report.
I am also pleased to table the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission’s 2013 annual report.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): I would like to go back to Item 5 in the Orders of the Day.
Speaker: The member is seeking to return to Item 5, Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
(interpretation) I don’t hear any nays. Please proceed, Mr. Shooyook.
Actually, while I had the opportunity, I wanted to recognize a couple of visitors who have just walked in.  I am extremely pleased to recognize my daughter and my wife who have just entered the Gallery.
Inooya Shooyook, if you could please stand so that you can be recognized.
Also, to provide some background on my daughter, who is my oldest and very capable woman working here for the City of Iqaluit, her name was changed after her marriage to Ruth Arnauyumayuq, and I am very proud of her accomplishments.
Speaker (interpretation): Welcome to the Gallery. (interpretation ends) Item 14.
Mr. Mikkungwak. (interpretation) I’m sorry. (interpretation ends) Item 17.
Bill 11 – An Act to Amend the Corrections Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Member for Iqaluit-Manirajak, that Bill 11, An Act to Amend the Corrections Act, be read for the first time.
All those in favour. (interpretation) Thank you. (interpretation ends) Opposed. (interpretation) Thank you. (interpretation ends) The motion is carried and Bill 11 has had its first reading.
Bill 12 – An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act – First Reading
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Pangnirtung, that Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 13 – An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Netsilik, that Bill 13, An Act to Amend the Vital Statistics Act, be read for the first time.
Bills 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 with Mr. Akoak in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:37 and Committee resumed at 16:03
Chairman (Mr. Akoak): Good afternoon, Inuit and Nunavummiut.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to commence with the review of Bill 4, Bill 5, Bill 6, Bill 7, and Bill 9.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with Bill 4, Supplementary Appropriation (O&M) Act, No. 4, 2013-2014?
Bill 04 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2013-2014 – Consideration in Committee
Mr. Peterson, do you have officials that you would like to appear before the Committee of the Whole?
For the record, Mr. Peterson, introduce your staff.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Chairman, to my right is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of Finance, and to my left is Peter Tumilty, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance.
I am here to present Bill 4, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2013-2014.
Bill 4 is for operations and maintenance supplementary appropriations for 2013-14 totalling $4,099,000.
All of the items in this bill are designed to address departmental deficits. It consists of the following items:
$433,000 to Finance to address the budget shortfall created by an actuarial adjustment at year-end;
$707,000 to Justice to address the budget shortfall created by a prior-year expenditure for the territorial policing contract;
$642,000 to Education to address the budget shortfall created by an actuarial adjustment at year-end;
$2,270,000 to Health to address the budget shortfall created by over-expenditures in various programs as well as year-end adjustments;
$9,000 to Environment to address the budget shortfall created by an actuarial adjustment at year-end; and
$38,000 to Economic Development and Transportation to address the budget shortfall created by an actuarial adjustment at year-end.
Keep in mind that we have translators.
I have no names for general comments. I will now open the floor for questions starting on page 4 in English and Inuktitut. Finance.
Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. Total Centrally Administered Funds. $433,000.
I just have one general question, if the Chairman will allow it. Bill 4 deals with 6 of 13 departments declaring supplementary appropriations for O&M.
Is this government still in a position to carry a surplus from last fiscal year?
To deal with page 4, this is for the Nunavut Staff Relocation Program.
Can the minister explain the $433,000 supplementary appropriation? Is this a budget shortfall of the amount of people that are leaving or coming to the territory for work?
Could the minister maybe go into a little more detail on where this amount comes from?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hickes. Minister Peterson.
Mr. Chairman, at year-end, prior to an actuarial evaluation, we were projecting a year-end surplus.
We had an actuarial firm come in and analyze our severance and relocation costs based on the number of people working in our department. They did that for the other departments as well.
They determined that the numbers that we had were too low.
They gave us actuarial figures that made us have to adjust our year-end and we ended up with a deficit. We had to record the actuarial figures as a liability.
In order to bring our budget into a positive balance, we had to request a supplementary for year-end.
We are on page 4. Finance. Operations and Maintenance.
Not Previously Authorized. Total Centrally Administered Funds. $433,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $433,000.
Now we are on page 5. Justice.
Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. Total Law Enforcement. $707,000.
I have a question regarding this number and I do know that the Nunavut government contracts the RCMP to provide the services.
Is this for that service that is provided or is it something else?
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you.
Could you elaborate further on why that $707,000, which is a lot of money… ? Is it because we needed more RCMP members or was that because there were too many unplanned events? If we can get an explanation for that.
Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the RCMP or Public Safety Canada has a different year-end in terms of when they invoice.
They invoice us after the year-end. I don’t have the particulars of the actual invoice, but the department actually did try to pay for the invoice using internal funds.
They used surpluses from other areas within the department.
We were unable to pay for the full cost of the invoice and that is why they are requesting an additional $707,000.
I have no more names. We are on page 5. Justice.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $707,000.
Page 6. Education.
Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. Total Directorate. $642,000.
Just for clarity, if you can elaborate further on the increase of approximately 75 percent.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Joanasie for the question.
Again, it’s the actuarial adjustments that were completed and submitted to us in a report in July. It was after year-end. The department, again, similar to other departments, attempted to fund within.
We were unable to and now we’re requesting a supplementary. In terms of the actual numbers, $642,000, it’s a very small percentage based on a total overall department budget of $183,589,000.
I have no more names. We’re on page 6. Education.
Total Directorate. $642,000. Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $642,000.
Health. Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized.
Earlier this year, we approved a supplementary appropriation of approximately $26 million for the Department of Health.
At that time, I made some fairly strong comments that the lack of comfort level with continually being, I’m not going to say forced to approved these types of appropriations.
I think we all understand that Health is a demand service department. At the same time, I think I would not be doing my job properly, Mr. Chairman, if I didn’t re-emphasize that concern and really put it to the department to undertake some cost savings and be a bit more fiscally responsible in their budgeting so that we are not continuously having to have these supplementary appropriations in front of us from the Department of Health.
I don’t really have a question in here. I understand some of it is the demand for services from medical travel and maybe some of the actuarial conditions that have applied to other departments.
I just want to emphasis to the Minister of Health that we are all looking very closely at these appropriations.
If you would like to respond to Mr. Hickes, Minister Peterson.
Just a brief comment. It is very difficult for the department based on the nature of the delivery of health services in Nunavut and a lot of the work is based on estimates.
They do send patients out of the territory, so we have out-of-territory hospital costs and out-of-territory physician costs. It is very difficult at times to estimate the amount of billings that will come in after year-end.
In this particular case, they thought it would be $26 million to cover them until March 31, 2014 and they were short by $2,270,000.
It is difficult for them, but they are working and I understand that we have given them FMB directives over the last couple of years. My officials at the Department of Finance are working with the new deputy minister to develop strategies and to address their budget.
We’re on page 7. Health. Operations and Maintenance.
Not Previously Authorized. Total Health Care Service Delivery. $2,270,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $2,270,000.
Environment. Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized.
Total Program Management. $9,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $9,000.
Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized. Total Corporate Management. $38,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $38,000.
Schedule 1: Operations and Maintenance. Operations and Maintenance Appropriation. $4,099,000.
Go to Bill 4 in your legislative binder.
Bill 4, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2013-2014. Clause 1.
Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2014. Total Supplementary Appropriation. $4,099,000.
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 4 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 4 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I thank yourself and your committee for your questions on Bill 4.
Chairman: Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms.
We’re moving on to Bill 5. Minister Peterson, you can proceed to your comments on Bill 5.
Bill 05 – Write-off of Assets Act, 2013-2014 – Consideration in Committee
I am here to present Bill 5, Write-off of Assets Act, 2013-2014.
Bill 5 addresses the write-off and write-down of certain government assets, which are as follows:
$287,317.40 for the evaporation and shrinkage of petroleum products within the Petroleum Products Division of the Department of Community and Government Services;
$277,071.43 for the write-off of eight housing units that no longer have any economic value. One of the units is beyond economic repair and the remaining seven units were destroyed by fire; and
$199,309.03 for the write-down of two housing units that have been damaged by fire.
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 5, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2013-2014.
The standing committee has no objections to the purpose of the proposed legislation, which is to write off petroleum products inventory lost due to evaporation and shrinkage, in addition to writing off or writing down assets of the Nunavut Housing Corporation that have been destroyed or damaged due to fire.
Mr. Chairman, the most recent bill of this nature to have been considered and passed by the Legislative Assembly was Bill 56, Write-Off of Assets Act, No. 1, 2011-2012, which received assent in March of 2013.
During the Minister of Finance’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 5, he indicated that a bill to write off assets lost during the 2012-13 fiscal year will be introduced in the House during the upcoming winter sitting of 2015.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee noted that although prior years’ bills of this nature referred specifically to “evaporation and shrinkage” of petroleum products, Bill 5 only makes reference to “shrinkage.”
It is the standing committee’s understanding that the Petroleum Products Division of the Department of Community and Government Services has decided to adopt a single term to encompass all petroleum products losses.
Information provided by the government to the standing committee indicates that the volume of petroleum products inventory lost due to evaporation, shrinkage, and other causes has decreased in recent years.
This is a positive development, and the standing committee encourages the Minister of Community and Government Services to report annually to the Legislative Assembly on the operations of the Petroleum Products Division of the department and that this reporting include detailed information concerning evaporation, shrinkage, and spillage rates in different communities for different classes of petroleum products, as well as information concerning the department’s inventory management practices.
This information would be of use to all members in noting any abnormal trends with respect to fuel losses due to evaporation, shrinkage, spillage, or other causes.
The standing committee is also mindful that the 2015-16 capital estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services include $1.5 million in funding for a new electronic point-of-sale system and fuel management software for the Petroleum Products Division.
Mr. Chairman, during the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members noted that sections 24 and 82 of the Financial Administration Act currently provide that no asset, debt, or obligation owed to the government that exceeds $20,000 may be written off “without the express authority of an Act,” the Write-off Act.
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, members raised the issue of the current appropriateness of this threshold.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 5 to all members.
I have a question when the floor is open for questions.
Chairman: I have no names for general comments.
Go to Bill 5 in your legislative binder. Bill 5, Write-off of Assets Act, 2013-2014.
It’s not an actual question. I’m just asking for more clarity so that our fellow residents of Nunavut will understand what write-off of assets means.
It’s obvious here that the $277,000 is the cost of the material that will be written off for eight housing units that no longer have any economic value or damaged by fire.
Right below that, the $199,309, I’ll read the Inuktitut.
It’s for the write-down of two housing units that have been damaged by fire.
Please help us understand the difference between the two. The two building units are still usable.
However, the price of the building has gone down. I just need that clarified.
Yes, for the $277,071.43, the houses were burnt down and they were beyond economic repair in one case, so they’re uninhabitable.
In the case of the two houses to be written down, they were damaged by fire. The Nunavut Housing Corporation technical people went in and assessed them and lowered the net book value because they still have economic value to the Nunavut Housing Corporation and the government.
Not being a Nunavut Housing Corporation technical person, I presume that, because they have economic value, they would be repaired and brought up to standard where people could live in them again.
I am not sure who to direct a question to, you or the hon. minister.
I don’t think I can direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation, even though he is here.
With units like that in that write-down condition, are they habitable?
As I indicated earlier, the houses were damaged by fire and I know that in my own community of Cambridge Bay, when a house is damaged by fire, it is inhabitable for a period of time until the Nunavut Housing Corporation either contracts someone to repair it or repairs it themselves and then they are habitable.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): That’s all. Thank you.
Chairman: We are on Bill 5, Write-off of Assets Act, 2013.
The minister indicated that there are housing units that are no longer having any economic value. I have raised questions to the minister of NHC on a social housing unit in my constituency which has had a very detriment longing; it has been a very sensitive social issue.
Would the government consider writing off housing units that have no social value?
That is not on Bill 5, but if Minister Peterson would like to respond. Minister Peterson.
I’m not familiar with the situation in his riding.
What we are dealing with here are accounting entries. These eight houses were burnt down or beyond any economic repair. The housing corporation assessed and came forward and wanted to write them off.
In the case of any other houses in any of the communities, the Nunavut Housing Corporation would have to asses and determine whether they have any economic value or if they have to be written off, then they would come forward to the Financial Management Board with a request for a decision on that, and then we would appear before the committee for a decision.
I just have a question regarding the assets written down. There are two housing units on the substantiation documents that we went over earlier.
It has those two units were part of the same housing unit number, one was “A” and one was “B,” yet one was valued at approximately $82,000 and the other one was the remainder of $117,000.
If it is a duplex, why is one worth substantially more than the other?
Thank you, Mr. Hickes, for that question.
Yes, I recall that question. We did ask for clarification for those two units. It looks like a duplex.
We didn’t get a reply. However, there are units out there classified as burnt down. I don’t know how they ended up with two different values, but they are classified as burnt down and that’s why they’re being asked to be written off.
As you had put that question to the department and you didn’t get response, I was wondering if you would be interested in deferring that question to the Minister of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
I don’t know if I should defer it to the minister. We are dealing with burnt down units.
Unfortunately, it was not the minister himself who didn’t provide the information; it was someone else in the Nunavut Housing Corporation who failed to provide that information.
I guess I’m just having trouble wrapping my head around it.
Most duplexes that I am aware of have identical units from one side to the other, yet one is valued at basically more than 50 percent more than the other.
For me to understand the nature of this write-down, I would feel a lot more comfortable if I could get an answer to the question I had asked previously.
I thank Mr. Hickes for sharing his concerns.
Mr. Chairman, based on the information we do have here, it is not even clear that it was a duplex.
It could be a four-plex or a six-plex for all we know.
It’s 137 A and 137 B. It could be 137 C, D, E, F, and G. We get nine-plexes in my community and six-plexes and seven-plexes, I believe.
We are not even sure that this is a duplex. There are also different amortization values.
Without that information, I can’t say whether it is a duplex, but what I can say with certainty is that the Nunavut Housing Corporation has submitted it to be both units be written off.
I’m hoping the Minister of the Nunavut Housing Corporation is taking notes on this question because maybe I will approach him after these proceedings and get some further information.
We are on Bill 5, Write-off of Assets Act, 2013-2014.
Chairman: Go to Part 1 Schedule on page 2.
Part 1. Petroleum products inventory lost due to fuel shrinkage. Total. $287,317.40.
Chairman: Go to Part 2 Schedule on page 2.
Part 2. 8 housing units. $277,071.44.
Chairman: Go to Part 3 Schedule on page 2.
Part 3. 2 housing units. Total. $199,309.03.
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 5 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62 (2) that Bill 5 can immediately be placed on the orders of day for third reading?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you and your committee for your consideration of Bill 5.
Please proceed with your opening comments on Bill 6.
Bill 06 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2014-2015 – Consideration in Committee
I am here to present Bill 6, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2014-2015.
Bill 6 is for capital supplementary appropriations for 2014-15 totalling $34,524,000.