EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, I would like the Minister of Languages to clarify what is meant by the statements in the Budget Address of the Minister of Finance. It states that the government is working to incorporate the language by encouraging and promoting the Inuit languages, as well as trying to include Inuit customs and culture within the government.
“Promote” was meant with respect to government bodies and agencies or “territorial institutions” in English.
There are various bodies in that category.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Languages whether he can help me picture exactly what is being accomplished to try and promote the Inuit language and culture within the government operations as well as their institutions.
I would like to thank Mr. Tapardjuk for raising those questions.
It is obvious at this time that we will never be able to please everyone with respect to the usage and incorporation of the Inuit language or culture within Nunavut.
The issue is quite important to this government.
The Taiguusiliuqtiit language authority has been established and running for a while.
This fall in September, they distanced themselves from the government and became an arm’s-length organization so that it could not be influenced.
We also implemented the official policy on September 19 that any employee could use any of the official languages in their office, particularly within government offices throughout Nunavut.
Inuit wanting to speak their language may do so in their workplace.
This policy has already been approved.
There is also a committee comprised of senior representatives of departments which is entitled “Tuttarviit” and they generally work on Inuit language issues, including promotion of the Inuit language.
The implementation of the Inuit Language Protection Act is slowly progressing.
Furthermore, this legislation is also being applied by the Department of Education to promote Inuktitut from kindergarten to grade 3, which is proceeding nicely.
At this time, these programs continue to make improvements ever since they were first developed and after the approval and assent of the legislation in 2008.
Progress is continuing to this day as this government considers this matter quite important in protecting the Inuit language.
Many residents of Nunavut await these developments with eagerness as many Inuit are unilingual.
With the addition of the new positions, the GLOs will provide a great deal of support once they have all been hired, particularly with respect to providing understanding of the various aspects of government operations.
Even though I had some expectations with respect to the implementation of the Official Languages Act, I noticed that there was nothing identified. I believe it was enacted by this government in 2009 and later approved in the House of Commons.
It had to pass that House and also in the Senate and it became law.
Mr. Speaker, my last question is: when is the Official Languages Act going to be coming into force? When can we expect this law to come into force?
We are still working under the 1988 Official Languages Act that was grandfathered into Nunavut’s legislation from the Northwest Territories.
The new made-in-Nunavut legislation has yet to be fully enacted.
As per our earlier discussion, if we can complete the implementation plans for the language legislation, we still have plans for tabling that by the spring session.
We are still expecting it to be completed by June 11, in time for the anniversary of June 11, 2011, when an official apology was made at the House of Commons, either that or coincide it with July 9, which is Nunavut Day.
The language laws were completed last June and once the revision has been made, Nunavut’s Official Languages Act will then be able to come into force after all the requirements have been met.
Written Question 011 – 3(3): Government of Nunavut Expenditures on Overtime Pay for Indeterminate, Term, and Casual Employees (Elliott)
The Government of Nunavut now spends almost one-third of its budget on compensation and benefits for its own workforce.
It’s important that all MLAs have a clear picture of whether these expenditures are under control.
It’s also important to know whether our workforce is being stretched too thin. This is why I am pleased to ask the following written question to the Minister of Finance on the issue of expenditures on overtime, which is quite brief, so I will read it now.
Expressing the data in a comparable format to that which was provided by the Department of Finance in its return to Written Question 15 – 2(2), what were the Government of Nunavut’s expenditures on overtime pay for indeterminate, term, and casual employees during the 2009-2010, 2010-11, and 2011-12 (to date) fiscal years for each of its departments and Crown agencies?
Reports of Standing and Special Committee on Bills and Other Matters.
Committee Report 013 – 3(3): Bill 35, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act (Ningeongan)
I wish to report that Bill 35, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation 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 35 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is seeking unanimous consent for the report of the standing committee on Bill 35 to be referred immediately to the Committee of the Whole.
There being none and Bill 35 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills .
Motion 022 – 3(3): Extended Sitting Hours and Days (Ningeongan)
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that the Speaker be authorized to set such sitting days and hours that the Speaker deems fit to assist with the business before the House during the winter 2012 sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Bill 34 – An Act to Amend the Integrity Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 34, An Act to Amend the Integrity Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 34 has been read for the first time.
Bill 24 and Bill 35 with Mr. Tapardjuk in the Chair.
Thank you.  Sergeant-at-Arms.
>>House recessed at 14:59 and Committee resumed at15:27
Chairman (Mr. Tapardjuk) (interpretation): Thank you for returning to your seats.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bill 24 and Bill 35.
We would like to begin the clause-by-clause review of Bill 35.
Following the review of Bill 35, we would like to commence the review of Bill 24 and the Department of Education.
If we have finished this department, then we will proceed with the review of the Department of Health and Social Services.
Do we agree that we will consider Bill 35 and Bill 24 in Committee of the Whole?
Bill 35 – An Act to Amend the Nunavut Tobacco Tax Act – Consideration in Committee
We will be considering Bill 35.
Do you have any opening comments on Bill 35? Minister Peterson.
Do you wish for me to proceed?
I am pleased to speak about Bill 35, An Act to Amend the Nunavut Tobacco Tax Act.
Bill 35 will increase the tax on cigarettes from 21 cents per cigarette to 25 cents per cigarette, an increase of $1 per package.
Loose tobacco will rise from 14 cents per gram to 20 cents per gram.
Nunavut’s tobacco tax rate on cigarettes will become the third highest in Canada, after the Northwest Territories and Prince Edward Island.
The main goal of this tax increase is to reduce tobacco use among Nunavummiut.
It will also increase tax revenue. The government intends to utilize some of these funds to contribute to smoking prevention and cessation programs across the territory.
Officials from my department will continue to monitor tobacco consumption in Nunavut to determine the effectiveness of this strategy.
Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table? Minister Peterson.
To my right is Chris D’Arcy, the Deputy Minister for the Department of Finance, and to my left is Anne Macintosh, Legislative Lawyer from the Department of Justice.
Please feel welcome, Mr. D’Arcy and Ms. Macintosh.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I wish to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 35, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act.
Bill 35 implements an announcement that was made in yesterday’s Budget Address.
As members will recall, the Minister of Finance announced that the government “will raise the tax by 4 cents per cigarette, or $1 per pack of 25.
We will use a portion of these new revenues for smoking prevention and cessation programs.”
Members urge the minister to publicly clarify in detail the government’s plans with respect to how it will allocate tobacco tax revenues for these purposes, and to subsequently report annually to the House on its actions.
It is also important for the Department of Finance to work with the Department of Health and Social Services to evaluate the impact that increases in tobacco taxes have on reducing consumption of the product.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments. The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 35 to all members.
Before we proceed with the line-by-line review, I would like to remind the members that we will be open to anyone who would like to make comments on the opening comments.
One of the questions that I have concerns paragraph 5, where you’re talking about the department monitoring tobacco consumption and the effectiveness of the strategy.
I’m wondering: for monitoring purposes, how will you determine if the increase in the tax is actually deterring people from purchasing? Are you expecting a decrease in sales?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are expecting a decrease in sales.
We monitor it through the reports that retailers provide to the Department of Finance when they submit their reports.
In terms of what the minister has said, the reason why this is being done is to deter people from becoming addicted to the substance and, I guess, also doing it when they’re youth.
Are there going to be possibly stiffer penalties on individuals who purchase or retail outlets that provide cigarettes to minors? If we have six-year-olds and eight-year-olds who are smoking and addicted to cigarettes, then obviously someone is providing that to them. If the legal age for purchasing them is 19 years of age, someone is doing that.
If we’re going to clamp down on this and if we’re serious about not having people addicted, then are these measures that your department will be coming forward with?
I thank Mr. Elliott for that question. He raises some very good points.
It’s unfortunate and a sad fact of life that smoking tobacco products is addictive. The earlier you start smoking, even in some cases as young as six, you will become addicted.
It is very difficult to kick that addiction.
Yes, we will be looking into it. There is the Tobacco Control Act that we can utilize.
Yes, it’s very serious in Nunavut. More than 70 percent of our entire population smoke.
One of the other things in terms of prevention as well, I know this was discussed at my last hamlet council meeting when I was attending in Arctic Bay, there was a concern of individuals smoking out in front of businesses. I think that’s something that needs to be looked at and addressed as well.
I know there are fines that can be levied if people are not smoking a certain distance from the buildings.
I don’t think that’s enforced or probably has ever been enforced.
If the government is serious about clamping down on different things like this, then maybe that needs to be passed on to the minister responsible to have the staff deal with this and follow through.
In terms of the decrease in sales as a deterrent by increasing taxes and having cigarettes go up, the last time that there was a tax increase was 2006.
Yes, the last time there was a tax increase on tobacco and loose tobacco was in 2006.
If the main determining factor for effectiveness will be the decrease in sales and there was an increase in 2006 and, as you said, all of the retailers actually report back on sales, I’m just curious: what was the percentage decrease or how many cigarettes less were sold as of 2006, when the taxes were raised?
Just as an indication of possibly what we can see happen once this is passed, what type of a percentage decrease there will be.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, the smoking increased after the last tax increase.
So you’re actually asking us to pass a bill that will actually increase smoking in the territory, based on the results of the last go around in terms of raising the prices.
Actually, Mr. Chairman, the taxes did not increase the smoking.
As I mentioned earlier, smoking tobacco is very addictive. It’s a very powerful drug.
There are people in Nunavut who will smoke regardless.
At the time, there was a tax increase, but there wasn’t an effective tobacco reduction and cessation program.
As I said in my opening comments, these taxes would be used to help the tobacco reduction and cessation program that the Department of Health and Social Services has rolled out recently.
There has been a lot of publicity. We recently had a community feast. I was up at the Iqaluit Inuksuk High School and there were 300 or 400 people.
So there is a growing awareness in Nunavut that smoking is harmful to your health to the extent that it kills you.
When you smoke long enough, you become addicted.
Now we are hoping that we can use these taxes to fund programs that will educate people about the dangers of smoking. Don’t start smoking and, if you smoke, try to quit.
We’re putting supportive mechanisms in place to provide people with programs that will assist them to quit smoking.
So taxes don’t cause people to smoke; nicotine causes people to smoke.
Thank you for actually bringing up the part about where the funds will go and be directed in terms of the increase in taxes.
Again, I think one of the things we have often said is that we don’t want to continue to increase taxes and tax individuals in our communities because money is stretched tight already, but at the same time, I think we need to balance it with healthy living and healthy lifestyle choices. So there’s always that thin line that I think we walk to try and help our constituents to make healthier lifestyle choices.
I continue to feel, with all the pushing I have for Nutrition North Canada and the idea of a fair program coming out that way, sometimes I want to make sure I make the right decisions when we’re passing legislation.
So I was wondering, maybe to ease my mind a bit better in terms of proving this tax is effective, if he could commit to maybe coming up with other indicators than just the actual decrease in sales.
When we were having our in-camera meetings, he mentioned something about a toolbox and the increase in tax was one tool that was being used.
Perhaps if there are other tools in the toolbox, maybe he could expand on what those tools are so it could put me at more ease when we’re doing this. I don’t want to increase taxes that are going to actually be ineffective. I want it to be effective, Mr. Chairman.
I thank Mr. Elliott for the question and I appreciate his concern.
There was a framework for action tabled in the House on October 28, 2011 entitled “Tobacco Has No Place Here,” Nunavut Tobacco Reduction Framework for Action, 2011-2016.
Areas for action through this tobacco framework is there’s got to be “Strong Leadership,” that’s right in the centre, “Target Youth and Schools; Strengthen Cessation Activities; Enhance Regulatory Enforcement; Monitor and Adjust Taxation; Research, Monitor and Evaluate; and Increase Community Awareness.”
Now, this is a framework for action put out by the Department of Health on behalf of the Government of Nunavut and we can’t take these strategies and frameworks lightly. The Department of Health is very committed and very serious about reducing smoking and helping people to not even start because it does have a serious health impact on our communities.
People who smoke long enough really suffer. It’s costly to communities and to families.
Anybody who has had a relative suffering from lung cancer, 90 percent of lung cancer is attributable to smoking. I have seen the horrible effects of smoking.
We’re not raising the taxes just to collect taxes. I have indicated that the bulk of this money will go to this tobacco reduction strategy of the Department of Health.
The Department of Health will have mechanisms in place to monitor the impact of the tobacco reduction strategy over the next five years. The Department of Finance will monitor, through our assistance, the increase or decrease in the sales of tobacco products.
I think we generate about $13 million right now in taxes off of cigarettes and the sale of tobacco. I think the estimate is about $2.9 million with the increase in tax. Hopefully, with the increase in tax, that will go down so the amount coming to the government will actually be less.
You did commit in your opening comments about the utilization of funds to work towards smoking prevention and cessation programs.
I’m just wondering: what is the government’s commitment to that?
With the $13 million plus $2.9 million or let’s say roughly $3 million, there will be $16 million that will be generated annually on taxes from cigarettes and tobacco.
What’s the dollar figure that will be going to cessation programs across the territory?
I thank Mr. Elliott for his question. It will be an incremental tax, which is around, like you said, $2.9 million to $3 million.
As everybody here knows, the Department of Health, as I mentioned yesterday in the Budget Address, gets the largest amount of funding annually of all departments.
A portion or perhaps all of the taxes are collected on the other $13 million or $14 million. It does go to the Department of Health indirectly to help people with health issues, including health issues attributable to smoking.
Again, when we’re actually looking at Bill 35, I’m just wondering if his department is serious about diverting funds to continue to go to cessation programs and smoking prevention programs.
How come there is nothing within the bill that actually says a certain percentage will be allocated? To me, that would just make it stronger within what they want to do with the funding.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliott. Apparently Mr. Elliott doesn’t trust me.
I’m very committed to this and I said $2.9 million to $3 million growth in incremental funding. This is not a matter for law, but it will be a policy.
So you can rest assured that we’re not going to tax people and then use the money for something else.
I don’t think it’s a matter of trusting the minister.
There is a minister, but there’s also a bureaucracy and there are also policies.
I know it’s a big department and he has a heavy load with both Health and Social Services and Finance, and sometimes things get slipped through.
I still constantly reflect back after three years of doing this and listening to other ministers, especially former ministers responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation, telling us, I think the quote was, “delivered on time and within budget.”
There were policies there. There were regulations there and stuff went awry. I’m not putting into question the minister’s trust and I hope he’s not taking it that way.
We’re talking about taxes and increase in taxes.
Is his department also thinking about possibly putting taxes on things like alcohol and other ways of creating revenue to try and deter individuals from becoming addicted to other addictive substances?
I thank Mr. Elliott for the clarification and question.
Mr. Chairman, not at this time.
Firstly, I will make general comments with respect to Bill 35, which is the only means of taxing our residents, generally regarded as sin taxes for consumption of alcohol and tobacco products. These are our only means of raising taxes as the Nunavut government.
We ought to thank our residents who smoke and drink alcohol since they provide extra revenues to our government.
That is how I understand Bill 35 to mean.
With respect to that, I personally dislike this bill.
The reason why I don’t like the bill is because it has a hopeful foundation. The government hopes that if it raises the costs of smoking, more residents will be forced to quit.
However, this addiction is one of the strongest addictions and most smokers will not be quitting anytime soon.
If we’re trying to stop smoking, we have to work on an anti-smoking strategy as a government. The focus should not just be on school age children, as the current strategy is being done right now, but all workplaces in Nunavut ought to be included to outline the dangers of tobacco for all of our residents. This government should not be raising taxes on the backs of our smokers.
If we drafted a bill or strategy that promotes the dangers of smoking to all facets of our society and to notify them of the dangers, I think that this would be more effective.
Most smokers are being informed that due to their bad habit, the cost of cigarettes will be raised.
On the other hand, to have false expectations that this will lead to more people quitting smoking is, in my opinion, not conducive to making progress in this field.
It is quite obvious that the government expects to raise extra revenue, but I cannot agree with raising revenue from our poorest citizens who smoke.
I believe that this government has the option to raise other kinds of taxes to ensure that we have the needed tax revenue.
However, we should be strengthening our public health promotional programs on smoking cessation in order to get our residents to see the health effects and to quit with the assistance of these programs.
At this time, this government seems to be saying that we are trying to keep our people addicted by virtue of drafting this legislation that will become Bill 35.
It will be noted that across the board, every package of cigarettes has been increased by $1. So if you buy a pack, you are paying that extra dollar.
With that being enacted, I have some concerns about this initiative because I think our focus should be on anti-smoking campaigns that promote quitting smoking.
Another reason is that tax revenue raised is a limiting factor for our Nunavut government, especially since every dollar we raise in tax revenue is automatically reduced from our federal government operational funding.
This annual funding has several contingencies. When our government raises taxes past a certain amount, the federal government deducts the additional funds via a claw back of tax revenue overage.
I want to ask about this aspect of the revenue we have to return.
Based on the figures, the extra tax revenue raised will be over $20 million if Bill 35 is approved, at least close to an additional $20 million taxes raised for smoking cigarettes. My question is: does the federal government claw back some of the GN’s funds if they surpass a certain amount?
That is my question, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. Minister Peterson.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, under the TFF, a certain amount would be clawed back.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, one of the other reasons that I would like to state under general comments is I’m hopeful that there will be a reduction in the number of cigarette smokers out there. It is something that would be wonderful, but I’m also concerned that we are applying this only for the cigarette smokers.
There are two main taxes that we apply to the cigarette smokers and alcohol consumers and petroleum. The minister stated that there’s a certain percentage that is clawed back by the federal government. What he didn’t say was how much of that percentage is clawed back by the federal government.
That would be useful information to us.
I do support the idea of setting up a strategy by this government.
I’m concerned about the people who are addicted.