EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Chairperson (interpretation): Turn to page two. Total Operations and Maintenance. Total appropriation 689 million 608 thousand.
Under Bill 6.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 6 as a whole.
Chairperson (interpretation): Do you agree that this Bill is ready for third reading?
Order, order. 3.
I have this in front of me.
Our legal counsel didn’t hear an agreement.
Chairperson (interpretation): We are done with this Bill, we have completed this Bill.
I’d like to ask what the wish of the committee is.
We still have Bill 7, Loan Authorization Act on the order paper.
It’s after six now, what is the wish of the committee?
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Perhaps we should take a supper break and then return.
Chairperson (interpretation): It’s not debateable, we’ll return after supper.
We will return at 7.
>>Committee recessed at 6.15 and resumed at 6.55 p.m.
Chairperson (interpretation): I want to call the meeting to order.
Have a good meeting and please smile at each other before we start.
I would like to first ask Minister Thompson if she has any opening comments?
Bill 9 – An Act to Amend the Property Assessment and Taxation Act – Consideration in Committee
I have opening comments, shall I proceed?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Honourable Members.
I am pleased to present to you today Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Property Assessment and Taxation Act.
The bill before you today proposes to extend the life of the existing general assessment on property taxes.
This general assessment will remain in effect until October 31, 2004.
The function of this bill is simply to allow operations to continue as they have been until the general assessment can be updated.
If passed, the act will come into force on October 30, 2000, so as to prevent a gap from appearing in the assessment coverage.
Mr. Chairman, I want to reassure members that property taxes will not be charged retroactively.
The act does not allow this to take place and this is not the intent of this government.
The amendment will allow the Government of Nunavut time to add the many new properties that have been developed in the last few years and thoroughly review the assessments that were completed under the previous government.
The Government of Nunavut will then have a complete and up-to-date general assessment.
By extending the life of existing general assessments, the government will be able to continue to generate revenue through property taxes.
Once the new general assessment has been completed, the new values will then replace the existing values when determining property tax.
I’m now pleased to be able to respond to the members’ questions.
Chairperson (interpretation): You can go to the witness table and also invite your officials.
Do you have any officials?
If you would introduce your officials, please, Minister Thompson.
John Walsh, on my left and on my right is Wayne Winter, who is in the decentralized community of Kugluktuk.
We are waiting for the Chair of the Standing Committee.
Standing Committee Chair, do you have any opening comments?
Mr. McLean: Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee on Community Empowerment and Sustainable Development reviewed Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Property Assessment and Taxation Act, with Minister Thompson and her officials on May 11, 2002.
The Standing Committee recognises that its intent is to permit the government to collect property taxes for the years 2001 to 2004.
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee is concerned however that the assessment has not yet been completed.
This is the second extension that has been undertaken by the Government of Nunavut to allow the contractor time to complete the assessment.
The Standing Committee urges the department to ensure that assessments are completed in a timely fashion.
The Standing Committee recognises that the department is currently developing a communications strategy.
It is essential that the strategy be comprehensive to ensure that property owners are aware of their tax liability.
This is important now to explain the current extension but will be even more important after the assessments are complete.
The Standing Committee urges the department to work with the contractor to ensure that the language needs of unilingual Inuktitut speakers are met in this strategy.
The department should consider the use of radio to ensure that as broad an audience is reached as possible.
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee supported the bill at the clause by clause stage of the Standing Committee review and recommends its passage to all members.
If there are no questions or comments, Bill 9 can now be reviewed.
Bill 9.
Do we agree that Bill 9 is now ready for third reading?
That was a very brief time.
If you have closing remarks, please go ahead.
We also thank your officials.
Any closing remarks?
Hon. Manitok Thompson: Thank you. I would like to thank my staff for coming out here to take a seat here and to stand up again after a few minutes.
(interpretation) Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like all the members to have an excellent summer and spring.
And if you catch a fish, think of me.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. We still have another issue to deal with.
We will begin with Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation Number 4, 1999/2000.
Do you have the copy of the Bill?
We have had a long day but we will try and conclude our meeting today.
Mr. Ng do you have any opening comments?
Supplementary Appropriation Acts 1999/2000 to 2002/2003 – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to appear before the committee today to present four Supplementary Appropriation Bills that are required to authorise expenditures for our first three complete years, as well as additional capital spending for the current fiscal year.
The bills for 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 deal with department over expenditures as well as year end adjustments for leave and severance liabilities.
The Financial Administration Act requires supplementary requirements to be brought to the legislature for approval.
The Bill for 2001/2002 is required to approve three special warrants - 5 million dollars for the Department of Health and Social Services to fund increased costs related to Non-Insured Health Benefits and reciprocal health care billing.
Approximately 2 million of these are recoverable from Health Canada through the Non-Insured Health Benefits program.
A further 748 thousand dollars for the Department of Sustainable Development to fund workers’ compensation benefits for eligible Nunavut Harvesters for the 2001 calendar year.
Also 500 thousand for the Department of Community Government and Transportation to fund the emergency repairs to the Cape Dorset water line.
The bill for 2002/2003 is required to approve the carryover of capital projects not completed in the 2001/2002 fiscal year and to approve the addition of two new capital projects: the replacement of the Baker Lake community learning centre by the Department of Education and the purchase of 37 additional staff housing units by the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Minister Ng. you can now go to the witness table and also Sergeant-At-Arms if you would escort the witnesses.
Mr. Minister please introduce your witnesses or the officials.
To my left is Bob Vardy, Deputy Minister and to my right is Mr. Roger Perchard, the Director of Expenditure Management for the Department of Finance.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you and welcome.
I have the Supplementary Appropriations Act No. 4, 1999/2000. We will start on tab 6, Bill 4. Health and Social Services.
Not previously authorized 175 million 171 thousand. Total department 171 thousand. Mr. Arvaluk.
Why are there previously unrecorded employee leave and severance benefits in the total of 72 thousand?
This is Mr. Chairman to reflect the recommendation to charge all accrued liabilities for the year that they’re earned.
So, over the course of the next two or three supplementary appropriations, you’ll see that for every department.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): I didn’t quite understand, I was asking why they were previously unrecorded.
Why did we have unrecorded employee leave and severance benefits?
Why is it that they were unrecorded, that was my question?
Because Mr. Chairman, not until after the end of the fiscal year can you do the accruals, the reporting of the accounting for the accruals.
Chairperson (interpretation): Total department 171 thousand.
My question on the same page, departmental operations, can we get clarification on what the 99 thousand was for?
This is the amount that the budget was overexpended by the Department of Health and Social Services in their operations and maintenance for the 99-2000 year.
Ms. Williams: I know that’s what we’re dealing with; can the minister and the department tell us what that was used for?
Mr. Chairman, all I can tell you is O and M expenditures were over the budgeted amount for that year.
I don’t have specifics here in respect to the details of what it was but given the size of their budget it’s a small amount from the overall budget Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): That’s it Ms. Williams?
In the opening comments of the Finance Minister in the Inuktitut and English versions, there’s a slight difference, the 500 thousand that the minister mentioned, in the Inuktitut it says 5 million.
So could you make that change as soon as possible?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I apologize if there was a mistake in the Inuktitut.
It’s 500 thousand dollars for Cape Dorset.
That’s what the member’s referring to.
Not 5 million.
Anything else, Mr. Nutarak?
Not previously authorized 171 thousand dollars.
And total department 171 thousand dollars.
Not previously authorized 166 thousand dollars.
Total department 166 thousand dollars.
I don’t understand this.
For example, if we’re going to be doing any construction under contract, it’s a capital item.
The contractor makes 2 million 188 thousand dollars, for example and if this contractor doesn’t finish the project and goes over by 166 thousand dollars, does the government ends up paying the over expenditure?
Mr. Chairman, this case is actually the Department of Health and Social Services that went over their capital allowance by the 166 thousand dollars and this is to correct that.
Department of Health and Social Services Capital.
Schedule 2.
Capital 166 thousand dollars.
Total Supplementary Appropriations 337 thousand dollars.
Supplementary Appropriations Act No 4. 1999 – 2000.
Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 3, page 3.
Vote 1. Total Operations and Maintenance 171 thousand dollars.
Chairperson (interpretation): Vote 2, Capital.
Total Capital, 166 thousand dollars.
Total Supplementary Appropriations, in parts one and two, 337 thousand dollars.
Chairperson (interpretation): The bill as a whole.
Is the bill ready for third reading?
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 3, Supplementary Appropriation No. 3, 2000/2001.
We’re all on the same page.
Nunavut Government.
Supplementary Appropriation Number 3. Not previously authorized 1 million 93 thousand. Total Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, 1 million 93 thousand.
As we saw earlier with the Department of Health and Social Services they had over-expended and the Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs over-expended also.
It says severance benefits here.
Was that paid to people who are leaving the government?
Or how exactly was this 621 thousand 582 used for?
It would have been for unpaid holiday leave and severance benefits for employees of only this department.
It would be very helpful to have some of this detail and this is more than half a million dollars and there’s very few people working in that department.
Another one just down, second line departmental operations under the 471 thousand 418, could the minister clarify what that was for?
Yes Mr. Chairman the 471 was the over-expenditure in the operations and maintenance side.
The 621 is for the charge out for accruals for the employee leave and severance benefits.
He just read off the paper that I’m looking at.
I’m trying to ask what it was for?
Mr. Chairman, in respect of which item is she referring to or is it both?
If I could get that clarified.
Chairperson (interpretation): Ms. Williams please clarify your question.
I’m talking about, the minister is just reading off the paper but my question is about the departmental operations for 471 thousand 418.
Mr. Chairman, the bulk of the over-expenditures for the Department of the Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs was in respect to the Implementation Secretariat for the Power Corporation when they were moving and incurring expenses in setting up the Power Corporation.
This 476 million 582 if this is for the few employees of EIA then I assume then that this was for the Deputy Ministers who were temporarily there or they were there, but had to be let go or early retirement etc., etc.
Did they actually have payments or is this a partial payment 621 thousand 582 for severance benefits package or was there more that is not in the supplementary appropriation rather in the main estimates and this one is over-expenditure from letting some Deputy Ministers go?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Maybe I should just first, first of all this doesn’t necessarily mean that this amount would have been paid out of the budget this year.
But it is an earned liability of the government because if people didn’t take their vacation for example, during the course of the year, then that money is entitled to them and they would receive it in the following year.
But it’s charged out because it was earned in the 2000/2001 year.
It’s in the appropriation here.
It may not necessarily have been just for this one year as well.
If they did the accounting, the accrual for all the employees, and it was charged out in this one fiscal year, it would be a larger than normal amount.
When we are meeting in standing committees, some times we are provided with a substantiation sheets to explain what the government’s asking us to approve.
But these particular ones, they don’t have the substantiation sheets.
Is it possible to have the substantiation sheets in the future so that we will know at least, the minister will know how to answer Ms. Williams’ question of what it was actually used for because right now we’ll never know.
The answer to that is yes, but I guess the reason why we don’t have a lot of the detail here is because this is all recorded in the public accounts that will be tabled later today because it was approved earlier for tabling.
Once the public accounts have been reviewed by the appropriate Standing Committee, and the witnesses appear before them, then all those expenditures, the over expenditures and all the details of that will be available to the committee reviewing that.
Mr. Arvaluk: I understand that only Standing Committees have the copy of the public accounts.
Nobody else has a copy.
Mr. Chairman, everyone will have a copy of the public information once it’s tabled later today.
I appreciate that, but it’s very hard to determine right now what we are approving other than accounting principles that are being used under the Financial Administration Act, Section 32.
Other than that we really don’t know.
All we know is that we are following the law of Financial Administration.
But I guess it would be more accountable on the part of the Legislative Assembly, if we were to actually approve something that we know, it would have been more appropriate I think to have the public accounts tabled and discussed and approved before we carry these Supplementary Appropriations.
I know it’s old; 2000/2001 but we did not expect not previously recorded employee leave and severance, even though they’re accruals, even though it might not have been possible to know what the contents are.
But it would have helped with this one.
This is a comment really.
Next time we should do it in reverse so we that we would know what we’re talking about.
Yes, the member makes some good comments and we’ll note it.
Are you complete?
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, page 6.
Not previously authorized 1 million 93 thousand dollars.
Total department 1 million 93 thousand dollars.
Go to page 5, I apologise, page 7 Department of Justice. Operations and maintenance. Not previously authorised 562 thousand.
Total department 562 thousand. Do you agree?
The following pages are very similar, under these accruals previously unrecorded, employee leave benefits.
Under section 36 of the Financial Administration Act and every one of them are similarly like that, and we have to approve them in order to make it legal for the government to record it as approved.
I’m not going to make any more comments on the following pages but I still urge the government to have the information for the public accounts tabled, read and discussed, so that we will know next time when we approve it.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: I agree with the member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Justice. Operations and maintenance. Not previously authorised 562 thousand.
Total department 562 thousand.
Culture, Language, Elders and Youth. Operations and maintenance. Not previously authorised, 63 thousand.
Total department 63 thousand.
Government of Nunavut 2000-2001 Supplementary Appropriation No. 3.
Department of Education. Operations and maintenance. Not previously authorised.
I’m going to ask the same question even though my colleague said that.
Anyway the Departmental operations, almost a million dollars, 933 thousand, 949 maybe if they can give us a little bit of information on what those almost million dollars were used for?
These expenditures are overall over their budget for the operations and maintenance.
They are part of education and again once the public accounts are reviewed, the deputies or officials come before the appropriate committee and explain why the expenditures happened.
Maybe Mr. Chairman, you can advise me.
I’m having a hard time approving anything when we don’t know what this money was used for.
Maybe you could advise me, maybe the magical thing that we need to do without knowing what we’re approving.
This is the deal with over expenditure in departments, the correct appropriation authority is this legislature and of course if you don’t approve it, then we would be in violation of the Financial Administration Act.
Having said that we know there are over expenditures, it’s reported in the public accounts.
The auditor general certainly comments on over expenditures, the departments as well as committee members when they review it and they’ve reported back.
So there are lots of mechanisms for internal evaluation on the over expenditures but in this case here, this is just a formality from the perspective of legal authorities and the legislature to correct those over expenditures for that fiscal year.
That’s the public accounts that are going to be tabled later today.
The official financial statement.
We’re on page 9.
Not previously authorized 10 million, 451 thousand dollars.
Total department 10 million, 451 thousand dollars.
I find it very difficult to approve some things without comprehending it and any paperwork showing the clarification when we don’t know what the funds are for even though we’re going to get information later on.
As a government, when there are over expenditures and without any reasoning, when we have to approve the over expenditures the explanation and the information should always be provided.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, like the response to Ms. Williams, this is to legally allow for the expenditure to correct the public record with respect to the over expenditure that’s already taken place.
A detailed review of the over expenditures themselves come with the review of the public accounts; the formal financial statements of the government that will be tabled.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Although the public accounts committee will review that I don’t want to see this happen again like this.
Quite frankly, I don’t like to see this happen as well.
It’s not my preference Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Financial Management Board that the departments exceed their authorities.
In some cases for the accruals of the employee leave and severances that is understandable because they requested to account for them.
But in the case of where this has gone over in departmental operations or the authority for spending that’s given in this legislature we certainly don’t support that either without it being totally justified.
Similar to one of the appropriation bills later on, where departments have started now to correct the procedure to bring forward before, you know in the year that’s undertaken to catch up in the appropriate fashion versus two years later.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Since there’s the Financial Administration Act, I guess we have to keep up with that and I’m sure there is other legislation to make sure that we have clarification along with the numbers.
I believe that was a comment.
Do you have any legislation or rules that state that when you’re going to bringing out some figures that you’ll bring them out along with the explanation and clarifications?
I guess the Financial Administration Act is what we fall under for expenditures.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Did you say yes.
Is there such a provision or rule?
There are no specifics on itemized detail but certainly the fact that the amounts have to come forward to the legislature for approval and explaining as far as what the rationale is.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Are you finished?
No matter what the department is or what minister it is we always want to get information as to what the money was expended for and we always want to get detailed information and usually that’s what we like to see or that’s what we request.
When we don’t have detailed information and since the ministers don’t have that, usually the answer is they don’t have the detailed information at hand.
So, I was wondering if we could improve the system next time so we can have detailed information on what was expended.
For what reason Mr. Chairman, I’m sure that there are confidentiality issues, like the Assistant Deputy Ministers that were asked to resign and I know that when ADMs resign and they’re given severance pay I’d be very interested to see the severance pay.
So perhaps before you come up with a supplementary appropriation perhaps you will have more detailed information as to what they were expended for?
The bulk of the amount the nine and a half million dollars for Education, the member is right in respect of it’s unearned severance pay, unpaid vacation leave, I mean, certainly he’s right in his perspective of we can’t bring information of each employee what they’ve earned, what they are entitled to, what as far, you know, their leave credits and their severance pay and stuff, that’s why it is in a global amount.
And I it would be an awful chore quite frankly to be doing that for every single expenditure under this item, but again it’s not to say that it’s specific to just severance payments for one or two individuals.
I mean this is all the employees who earned severance leave that they would be entitled for the period, based upon the agreements that they are under, whether it’s a collective agreement amount or you know, a contract amount under HAY plan or separate contracts that they may have as a senior official within the department.
As the minister has stated that the employees accumulate severance benefits under their pay, I know more than one ADM, previous ADMs when they are asked to resign they are given a year of severance pay, is there any rule or regulation to this effect?
So they get paid for all the accumulation for their severance pay?
Mr. Chairman once again I’ll try and explain it.
It is the accrual; it’s not to say that the individual would have gotten paid for this year.
It’s what they would have been entitled to be paid if they had left on March 31, 2001 in this situation.
If all the employees within the Department of Education left and had to get paid out for all their severance benefits and all their employee leave it would have been a total 9 and a half million dollars, but having said that, we know that not everybody quits at one given time.