EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Speaker (interpretation): The amendment to motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Tootoo.
I think I don’t need to speak too much to the motion as my concerns and reasons for bringing forward the amendment I mentioned, earlier, but I think it is a much more prudent timeframe to work within for all those reasons that I mentioned before.
Like I said, I am in support of the process of having a mid-term review. I’m just thinking of timing-wise it might be more appropriate for all members to have it before the end of June, rather than before the end of March.
With that I’d like to ask all members to support the amendment.
Speaker (interpretation): The seconder to the amendment motion.
No comments from the seconder.
Hon. Paul Okalik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve gone through a review, and it’s very time consuming. It deserves full attention from all members.
During our winter session, we’ll be focused on our budget. As ministers, we’re here to govern. That’s our main focus.
The review will happen and we’re not scared of that. Either way it will be the wish of the members at the end of the day; so I’ve told my Cabinet colleagues don’t worry about the review. Our focus is on governing and that will continue to be our focus.
I’m concerned, like the Member for Iqaluit Centre that our focus should be on the budget, when we’re dealing with it, for the benefit of Nunavummiut, and to mix it up with a Leadership Review would be difficult at best because having gone through an extensive Leadership Review in the last session, it was very time consuming and taxing on everyone.
So I have asked my Cabinet colleagues to support the amendment for the benefit of Nunavummiut, the people that we represent. It’s 90 days more than what is proposed right now. So I’ll be asking my colleagues to support the amendment.
Speaker (interpretation): Any comments to the amendment motion?
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I also have comments to the amendment to the motion.
As we all know, the budget is going to be done before the end of March. I don’t think the Nunavut people would support us if we try to work on the review of the Executive in June because most of the people and our employees are not really interested.
I feel that the amendment to June 30 doesn’t seem to make any sense because you are going to have the entire budget done anyways.
When we were done with the review, it would be better. All of the government employees would be in a better position and we don’t want them to be concerned and have a good summer. I don’t want them to be expecting something unexpected and we don’t want them to be concerned because we have to go through the job that we are supposed to go through.
I don’t support the amendment because it’s not going to make much sense and it’s going to be depressing for everyone.
I feel that it would be a lot better to make it at the end of March. It would be a lot better for all of us to be in a better position for the summer.
I’m just going to be in support of the first motion that was moved.
I will not be supporting the amendment to the motion because I feel that I want my constituents and the people of Nunavut to be in a better position.
Speaker (interpretation): Comments to the amendment to the motion.
All of the sudden now, the government is supporting the amendment to the motion after abstaining, but the Premier is not supposed to tell the members to vote either way.
I know this is not a joke.
It would be a lot better if we can have the leadership review sooner. This is not a joke.
But looking at some of the Executive members, maybe it would be better for some of the Executive members to stay a little bit longer so that after April 1, they could spend a little bit more time; three months, because the budget comes on April 1 and they will be able to sign more fiscal spending.
What are you going to do for three months?
Are you going to do a lot more in three months?
If the Cabinet is working very hard, then what are you going to do?
Are you going to divert more money to the communities that you want more done for?
It would be better to have new Cabinet Members sooner. Like the Member for Arviat said, in the springtime, in the Kivalliq region, there are a lot of people out on the land, especially in Arviat, there’s a lot of activity like hunting and camping, and the school is finished in May.
So, from then on, they go out camping over there. I know that in the Baffin and in the Kitikmeot region, there are a lot of people that go out camping and hunting because the family activities are happening in Nunavut.
It would be better if the Premier could let his colleagues have a free vote.
Speaker (interpretation): Any comments on the amendment to the motion?
I supported the motion for a mid-term review on March 31.
What we were saying is that we’re not going to remove anyone from Executive Council; we’re just going to do a mid-term review of the Executive Council of Nunavut. It would be a lot better if we do it on March 31, or be held prior to then.
Just a little while ago, there was a motion that did not have a seconder.
There was one Cabinet Member that the member wanted to remove, but what we’re going to do is review the whole Executive Council, not just one minister.
I feel that trying to remove one minister and looking at one minister is not right as far as I’m concerned.
I will not be supporting the amendment to the motion at this time.
There is an amendment to the motion and the mover has the right to speak last.
No, I’m sorry.
I have no more hands up and I did not hear any member wanting to speak.
Mr. Curley: Recorded vote please. I’d like to ask that members stand to indicate their vote.
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear a recorded vote.
All in favour of the amendment please stand up.
All those opposed to the amendment to the motion, please stand up.
Mr. Mapsalak, Mr. Alagalak, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Evyagotailak, Mr. Curley, Mr. Arreak, Mr. Netser.
Abstentions to the amendment to the motion.
Amendment of the motion, in favour, nine, opposed, seven, no abstentions.
Speaker (interpretation): To the motion as amended... Mr. Curley
Mr. Curley (translation): Thank you.
Maybe you should be clearer in your instructions. Mr. Speaker. I believe I still have 15 to 20 minutes to make comments to the motion.
Please be clearer in your instructions of the proceedings.
In that case, thank you.
The mid-term review has now been moved forward from September. It would have been better if you were given more time to do your work.
It will also make the Minister happier as they can now earn more of their salaries to that date of the review, increase their pension amount after their four year terms are up, and give them more time to sign cheques for three more months.
The way the motion is worded, we all have been given rights and we also know and understand that the end of June will not be good for the people of Nunavut, for the people of Keewatin...
A Member: Point of Order.
Curley: Ahh, shut up!
I think the Point of Order I make is that the member is implying there are alternative motives for the decision that was made by the majority of this House. Regardless if I’m a minister or not, I would take offence to those comments that the member is making, or the “wannabe” minister, is making.
Where is he getting this from? He is saying that we want to take someone out.
I thought the whole process was to review and then decide and not have your mind made up before you get into it.
So you know, by imputing these motives of Cabinet for supporting the amendments, I think is a breach of the rules of this House and actually, probably, an insult to every single one of us in here.
Speaker: Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I take offence to being associated with imputing ulterior motives.
This is not the case. If he were to listen to my speech in Inuktitut, that’s not what I said. He’s going to have to look at both transcripts; the Inuktitut version and the English version.
I will never personally impute any ulterior motive to anyone. That’s not what I said. I stated the facts and that is the case.
Speaker (interpretation): To the Point of Order I will try to make a ruling during this sitting and the session will continue.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I am not too sure what you want us to do.
Speaker (interpretation): You were talking and you can conclude the statement that you were making earlier.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, it’s true that the review if it went up to March 31, then if there were any changes to the ministers; those ministers, maybe some of them would not have made it up to June if there were changes.
But to the Nunavummiut that month is not very appropriate. We know that for Qikiqtaaluk region it is not too much of a problem but for the people of the mainland the timing of the year is not appropriate. So we wanted you to support the motion.
Speaker (interpretation): To the amendment. Are there any other comments?
Mr. Tootoo: A procedural nightmare Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amended motion. Mr. Speaker, I just got one thing to say.
I wasn’t elected not to come to work and go hunting and camping. I was selected to do my job and I will do that job whatever time is required. I have no problem coming here in the spring.
Speaker (interpretation): To the amendment. Comments. There was a motion and the motion was amended.
The motion as amended. Are there any comments? To the motion as amended.
Mr. Curley’s motion.
I’d like to ask for a recorded vote. Sorry I called you Chairman too.
I thought we were at Committee of the Whole. That is usually where we are by this time. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask for a recorded vote on the amended motion.
We already voted on the amended motion. So it seems like it’s not much use for the original motion.
Please rise to the amended motion. All those in favour of the amended motion please rise.
Abstaining.
In favour of the motion: 15.
Abstentions: 1.
The amended motion is carried.
Item 16, in our Orders of the Day.
Mr. Alagalak, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Yes, although I did, I wanted to go back to Item 13, Tabling of Documents.
We usually have the Committee of the Whole at this time and need to stand up, so I started doing that. I would like to go back to Item 13. I would like to ask my colleagues to go back to Item 13.
Speaker (interpretation): The member is seeking consent to go back to Item 13.
Tabled Document 067 – 2(3): Photos of Damaged Boats in Arviat (Alagalak)
My statement this morning, I would like to table these documents in regard to the boats that have been wrecked due to a lack of safe harbours. I would like to table them.
Speaker (interpretation): Please pass the tabled documents to the table officers. Tabling of documents.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters; Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 4, and Bill 10, with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
Chairman (Mr. Arreak): I will now call the Committee to order.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 4, and Bill 10.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 4, and Bill 10.
Are we agreed to deal with those Bills?
Mr. Simailak, (interpretation) you can go to the Witness Table along with your officials. (interpretation ends) Mr. Simailak, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my right is Bob Vardy, and to my left is Roy Green.
Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #2, 2005-06.
Mr. Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is turning out to be another one of those grumpy days. I would like to go back to page 10 if it’s allowed.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Netser. Page 10 was already approved.
Do you agree that we go back to that page because page 10 was already approved? Would you like to go back to page 10?
Page 10, Mr. Netser.
A quick question here. During the Minister of Environment’s appearance before the standing committee earlier this fall, maybe September, we understood that the Alijjivik Park Project was on hold.
Why are we carrying over the funds for this project? That’s my one quick question.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Netser. Minister Simailak.
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, we don’t have that information. Unfortunately the Minister of Environment is not here.
That would be really nice to have when we do the Cabinet review. I don’t want to go back to it.
Chairman: Do you have any more questions on Page 10?
Actually my question is on Page 11, but I think it’s part of the same.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister and his officials for coming again today. My question concerns the Government of Nunavut Iqaluit Contribution Agreement.
They were proposing to carry over, or carried over $4,697,000.
I think the annual contribution is $4 million. Could the minister clarify what is happening? Which projects are not being implemented by the City of Iqaluit with their $4 million contribution?
Bear with us for one second; we’re just looking for the answer. One moment please.
Mr. Green I believe has the answer for that question.
The government has entered into an agreement with the City of Iqaluit for the contributions for the capital infrastructure for the city.
The reason why the request was carried over was because the city did not have the resources this year to be able to deliver all the programs as originally projected. The funds have been re-profiled for the 2005-06 fiscal year.
There is a section in the agreement that states that any unused funds must be carried forward from the prior year.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Green.
I thank the minister and Mr. Green.
When you say Mr. Green, that the city didn’t have the resources, can you be more specific? They didn’t have people, or they didn’t have the matching funds? Exactly what didn’t they have?
Based on the information that was provided to me from the Department of Community Government and Transportation that the reason is, they indicated that the funds could not be spent in ’04-05 is because the city just didn’t have the resources to be able to carry out the number of projects that it had undertaken for that particular fiscal year.
Thank you, Mr. Green.
The Department of Community and Government Services didn’t tell the Department of Finance what the specific projects were that they couldn’t fund? Is that correct?
I’m just going to follow this through to a logical conclusion. Can we be sure that the City of Iqaluit is going to come up with the resources to implement the capital projects for the city?
I keep reading in the newspaper and hearing in the media and elsewhere in the city that there are all these capital projects that are desperately needed. And then we give them the $4 million and then we find out that they can’t use the funds.
If they can’t use the funds I could think of 24 other communities in Nunavut where we could certainly use the funds.
I’d like to get a little bit of clarification on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m sorry, we just simply can’t provide any more information at this point without the Minister of Community and Government Services.
How long can the City of Iqaluit carry the funds over? Can it carry over one fiscal year, or can they carry over for two fiscal years, if they don’t use the funds in 2005-06, do the funds become unavailable to them?
If so, what happens to the funds?
Can it be re-profiled to other communities in Nunavut?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. Vardy.
In the agreement the funds can be carried over from one year to the next.
I don’t have the contribution agreement here in front of me but I would imagine that there are no restrictions on the amount of time it can be continually carried over from one year to the next.
If the monies are not spent, it shows up in our fiscal numbers.
Each time that there’s monies appropriated for any purpose that don’t get spent, it is referred to as drop balances. That shows up in our fiscal numbers and eventually that money is there for allocation by the government based on the priorities as they see fit.
There is a provision, automatically, for monies if they don’t get allocated to be spent.
The next capital-planning season we’re bringing in a new procedure that requires a lot more monitoring. There’s monitoring of any projects, I think it’s over $300,000 a year, it is going to be monitored at least on a quarterly basis, and as they get into it, on a monthly basis.
So hopefully, we have a better system of dealing with those sorts of things. It’s a concern that’s expressed by FMB members about the size of capital carryovers. This year, with the hospital projects, that they were used.
We need to tighten up the system. So this doesn’t happen on such a regular occurrence.
I thank Mr. Vardy for those comments. He was echoing what I was thinking that we need better monitoring of the capital projects process.
I don’t think any of the members want to necessarily deprive any community of vital resources for capital projects because the communities need them.
But if they are not going to use them for the purposes intended, then we should be moving very quickly to reallocate them to those communities elsewhere in Nunavut that require the funds so that they will be used during the season when it’s the best time to do those kind of projects.
I’m very concerned about this large amount as it jumps out at me when I see the documentation.
I’m glad to hear you talk about monitoring and I hope that’s a serious intent of the government, Department of Finance in working with the Department of Community and Government Services that this will happen and we don’t see it occurring too often in the future.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. (interpretation) I didn’t hear a question.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I totally agree with the member. We are going to be tidying up the structure; that’s our goal at this time.
Are you done, Mr. Peterson?
I would like to follow up where my colleague left off with a very good line of questioning; however, he limited his questions to that one project.
If you look at all of the projects over the years, is there a timeline for any capital project that the departments have for how long they can carry them over for?
For those on the right side of the room, quiet down a little bit, please.
No, there is no set timeline right now, but one of the long-term goals is we try to tighten up the process for capital projects.
Do you have any ideas of what they may be looking at for timelines; one year, two years, three years, four years, five years, how long can funding be tied up for capital projects that don’t proceed for whatever reason?
I would just like to get an idea of if they have given any thought to how long.
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) We don’t have any set timelines at this point, but we will be looking at the amount of dollars that were allotted to projects and others items into consideration.
The carryovers are a concern for everybody, especially people waiting for that work to get done in their communities, but if for whatever reason, it’s not going ahead, I would like to know.
Maybe just for a way to try to have a better understanding of how long some of these things go on for, would the minister be willing to, in the future, when they have these carryovers, list it in here to show when the initial appropriation was made so that we can see how long it has been sitting there tied up, and then it would help members decide for whatever reasons to address it or re-channel those resources to projects that could happen right away if, for some reason, those ones can’t?
We will in the future and I think that it will be better if we have more details.
It might be helpful as I look through some of these carryovers and I’ve been around here for a little while and they look very familiar and we keep seeing them year after year.
There is one here the Gjoa Haven water thing. I remember when the former Member brought in a sample of water and it had bloodworms in it and it was quite some time ago.
I am sure there are other examples. I remember the bloodworms. I know there are a lot of them in here like that.
I think it would be a good idea for us to see how long or that funding that funding has been tied up for without being able to be used and assist us in making a decision whether, okay that one is going to take a few more years or whatever those reasons are and re-profile funding for projects that move forward.
There was a motion here the other day for a school project to move forward in the capital plan.
If for some reason and I am not saying any particular reason or for any particular project but you know sometimes you run into site contamination and you get into a dispute over who’s responsible for it and who’s going to clean it up.
That happened here, or delayed for a number of reasons. If you know if it is going to take two to three years to solve that outstanding issue then you know it should give you time to budget in those years ahead for different projects to bring forward and switch them around to get things resolved.
It is a much more common sense approach to using and maximizing the limited resources that we have for addressing the needs across the territory as far as capital goes.
I look forward to seeing that information and hopefully we can use it as useful fiscal management tool in the future.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank is not a question.
That is more of a comment. Mr. Minister.
Yes, I understand the Member’s concerns. And as a department we will try to resolve this.
I have no more names on my list. We are page 12. Capital.
Not previously authorized. Total Capital. Planning and Technical Services.
Special Warrants. $13,064,000.
Chairman: Not previously authorized. $1,840,000.
Chairman: Next page. Page 13.
Petroleum Products Division. $2,484,000.
Chairman: Total Petroleum Products Division. $2,484,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $15,548,000.
Chairman: Page 14.
Under Chesterfield Inlet Airport Granular Stock; $998,000.
It says they will award the contract in the winter of 2006, and what month are we looking at?
Are we looking at January of 2006, or December 2006, or June 30 2006?
Yes, that money would become available on April 1.
So it would be up to the department of Economic Development and Transportation to do it when they’re ready I suppose, some time after that date.
If you want Minister Kilabuk to respond to part of the question, it’s up to you, Mr. Netser.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): I didn’t really understand.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The money will be available on April 1, and the Department of Transportation would be able to tell you the specific date.
Chairman (interpretation): We’re on page 14.
Capital. Special Warrants. Not Previously Authorized.
Transportation. $2,742,000.
Chairman: Not previously authorized. $500,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Total Transportation. $2,742,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Not previously authorized. $500,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $2,742,000.
Special Warrants. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Not previously authorized. $500,000.
Nunavut Housing Corporation Capital.
Nunavut Housing Corporation. $1 million. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Total Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Not previously authorized. $1 million. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Go back to Page 2.
Oh, I’m sorry. Page 15.
Not Previously Authorized. $1 million.
Chairman: Now, you can go to Page 2.
Schedule One. Capital.
Total Capital Appropriation. $58,188,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Bill 2 is in your white binders.
Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #2, 2005-06.
Definitions, clause 1, do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 2. Application.
Chairman: Clause 4? Oh I’m sorry. I’m reading a little too fast now.
Supplementary amounts appropriated for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006. Vote.
Capital 1. Total Supplementary Appropriation. $58,188,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Bill 2.
Chairman: Clause 5?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 6?
Chairman: Clause 7?
Chairman: Is the committee agreed to Bill 2 as a whole?
Chairman: Are you agreed that Bill 2 is ready for third reading?
Chairman: Thank you, very much.