EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
And I know that it’s probably a personal, I know people’s finances are a personal affair, but I know every member in this House filed a disclosure statement with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
And anybody from the public can get access to that document but not the details.
But they know, they know what companies or what organizations the member’s involved in.
So, you mean to tell me there is not going to anything in a report once a year, tabled in the House that’s going to say, okay this member received a pension plan or didn’t and to me that’s doesn’t really make much sense.
I don’t want to see how much the member got for a pension but shouldn’t there be some kind report there that says this is costing the House X number of dollars every year and these are the members that are taking it.
Mr. Chairman, the information that pertains to the basic plan, the first plan, is provided because it is a mandatory plan.
And the information that Mr. McLean is referring to in the secondary plan, it is not mandatory.
And there will be information displayed at the end of the year during budget time.
It'll give figures and numbers but I don't want to identify or give a total rather and the total cost.
We will not identify because I have indicated in the Privacy Laws that doesn't allow that.
We are beating a dead horse here.
I don't want to be difficult here.
Isn't that a double standard?
We can see everybody's, no I could be wrong there, we can see civil servants’ salaries in newspapers.
I guess we can't see their pension plan.
I am trying to figure out why this is.
You say that the regular pension plan will be in tabled form at the end of the year.
But to me there is not going to be a list of what members are receiving pension plans.
As an MLA I don't have any problems with that if people see what we are receiving.
Is this standard across every jurisdiction across Canada?
Mr. Chairman as I've indicated I don't feel comfortable sitting here and agreeing to your committee on this to release information about each individual member here about their pension plan.
That is their business.
It is personal.
If they wish to do so, that is fine.
I don't have a problem releasing my own.
But that is my personal business, my personal plan.
So I guess what I am saying is it is up to the members.
I am not going to sit here to agree to that.
Because I don't feel I have the authority.
I still have an issue with it because here is why.
The pension plan was on the street before most of the members saw it.
What is the secrecy here?
The media had the pension plan before the members in the House had it.
That is the point I am getting to here.
And I am sure the pension plan had the member’s name on it and how much they were making and stuff like that.
So you know, I don't know what the big secrecy is to it.
And I am not going to belabour it.
I guess there is stuff is personal and people can't see.
Visa does a mailing all to their customers.
I don't think they give their balances.
But they still have that information in a computer some place.
To me if we are going to be giving out one thing why don't we give out the other?
And I agree with you, Kevin.
I don't have any problems, if somebody asks me if they want to see my pension statement at the end of the year, I’ve got no problem showing it to anybody.
I am sure that grandstand in the House would probably have a problem showing it to the media, but then again we are all built differently.
A final comment on this.
Just to make it clear as to where I am coming from.
I hear what Mr. McLean is saying and from other members.
You are right, there is no secrecy.
I was told by the media that they have a full six-page document of a confidential document that we had in a committee.
That was supposed to be confidential.
That was leaked to various media.
Not only one but most of them.
And that every number was in there.
For example a member at 40 years old, finishes a term after this Assembly is up.
He would normally have with a pension say of 5 hundred dollars.
But because he is 40 or she is 40 and they haven't reached the age of 60.
That is 20 years before they reach 60.
For each year that you take a pension early.
That is 3%.
So 3 times 20 is 60.
So that is 60%.
So if you take your pension at 40 because you lost the election or didn't run again.
That 5 hundred dollars about be 60% less.
So in fact it would be about 230 dollars a month.
So we are not talking about great amounts. Nobody is getting rich. There is no money made in this deal here.
It is pretty straightforward.  When you are looking at the average age of members that may finish in their next term.
Between 45-50. They are losing anywhere between 30, 40, 50 percent of their pension.
If they take it right then.
So there is not a lot of money here.
I guess what I am saying to Mr. McLean's comment, I agree there is no secrecy here.
It is out there now.
I personally as a Speaker, do not have the authority and I don't feel comfortable in giving information that reflects what each individual has in his pension, what he is getting.
That is his business first.
If they wish to disclose that, it is fine.
We are dealing with Clause 7.
Perhaps we were on Clause 7.
It seems like we were somewhere else.
It seems we are not sticking to our agenda.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you for your comments.
Hon. Jack Anawak: I was just going to ask what the subject or what the questioning had to do with section 7.
Mr. Chairman this section here talks about the annual allowance the members get.
Under the 3 percent number in there.
The average of pensionable remuneration received.
How did they come up with a 3 percent number?
The Speaker indicated that there were other numbers in other jurisdictions.
I was wondered how they came up with 3%?
Mr. Chairman the decision on the 3 percent was agreed to in Full Caucus with all the members I believe present including Mr. Tootoo was present at the meeting.
And as I indicated earlier with the other jurisdictions as in Yukon, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, NWT, well not including the NWT yet, but they had first reading of their Bill last night.
They are averaging it at three percent.
That was one of the numbers that was brought forth in the Full Caucus meeting and the number that was agreed to by the Caucus and that is why we are here today.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I like to ask if there were other options that were looked at.
Yes, Mr. Chairman there were other options as the member is aware.
There was an option of one, two or three.
Chairperson (interpretation): Going back to the clause.
Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering on 9 it talks about an annual allowance on the number two. And number two and number 10 talks about an additional allowance.
I was just wondering if I could get some clarification.  Is that like it’s 6% then or is it, it’s separate, let’s get some clarification on that.
Clause 9 describes the pension that’s payable on remuneration as a regular member.
Clause 10 describes the pension that’s payable on additional earnings as a minister or a Speaker or Premier that type of thing.
So, it is also a 3% plan, it’s not 3 plus 3.
It’s just that there are different levels of remuneration paid for the different positions.
Nine deals just with the regular member’s earnings.
Mr. Tootoo opposes.
Carried. Clause 13.
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I know my hand is going up and down here and you have been missing it but I wondered for the record, if you can just show on record that I am opposed to every clause in the bill.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed Carried.
Clause 19.
Clause 20.
Number 20 talks about a report on the plan, I’m just wondering if looking at the issues that we talked about earlier about reporting requirements, auditors, would this be a case where that information that some of us were asking be reported, would that be included here in this clause.
Mr. Tootoo, we are on Clause 20.
Speaker: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated myself, I don’t feel I have the authority to do that.
That’s why I make my intentions clear here.
But if in the, at the end of the day, that it was not against the privacy laws, I would then have it go to MSB and let them deal with it.
I think that’s a fair cut-off.
I’m just, regardless of what the Speaker was talking about there as far as requirements for information and privacy, but with this Clause 20, the legislation requires him to report on the plan, did that include the members that are included in the plan.
Is that something that we’re seeing here in the legislation?
Is that what this Clause means?
It is not clear as to what the contents of the report are.
So I would have to say that it would have to be sanctioned and cleared by MSB.
If somebody filed an access to information, would they be able to get the information then?
Once again I can't comment to that either.
If it violates the Privacy Act I would say no but if somebody submitted an inquiry or an application for certain information about members’ benefits or pensions, that would be up to the Commissioner to release that information.
Hon. Paul Okalik: I would just like to move forward.
I'll present a copy of my form to the press opting out and it is up to each individual to do that.
So if we can't do it the conventional way, we will do it on our own.
I'll just provide the form opting out to the press.
Clause 21.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 21 is now ready for third reading.
I would like to thank Mr. Speaker and Minister Ng and I was starting to get used to your name Mr. Vanderzan.
We have Bill 23-1(5).
What is the wish of the Committee?
Quite some time ago I was asking that I want the record to show, you never asked for or against on the Bill as a whole.
And now we got it on record for voting against the Bill as a whole.
Chairperson (interpretation): I agree with you.
We have, for consideration in Committee of the Whole Bill 23 - 1(5).
Would you like to proceed? Agreed.
Bill 23.
An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.
Mr. Speaker, do you have opening comments to this bill.
Bill number 23.
Do you have opening comments?
Bill 23 - An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act – Consideration in Committee
Speaker: Yes, Mr. Chairman, very briefly.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity today, once again, to appear before the Committee of the Whole to introduce Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.
Mr. Chairman, this bill makes changes to the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, some changes are necessitated by the enactment of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act.
Others are required for the terms of the Retirements Allowances Plan for members of this Legislative Assembly to be registered under the Federal Income Tax Act.
Mr. Chairman, the amendments made are of a technical nature.
This House has now had the opportunity to discuss the substantive issues of members’ compensation during deliberation on the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act.
Chairperson (interpretation): If it’s the wish of the committee, we have one of the officials there and I don’t believe that we’ll be bringing anybody else to the witness table and I believe his name is Mr. Vanderzan.
We’ll open the floor for general comments.
I will now ask the members to make general comments on the bill or go clause by clause.
Some Members: Clause by clause.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 23.
I’m sorry. Mr. Arvaluk.
We have Clause 4 and then we have Clause 6 here.
Is that section 6 repealed then?
Uqaqti.
This is to provide for the new section.
Section 6.
Chairperson (interpretation): Was that clear, Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): No, it wasn’t.
Mr. Chairman, it seems that Section 6 is repealed and the following is substituted then we have Clause 6 not 4.
Could you tell why under Contributions we don’t have a Clause 6 for the substitution?  Chairperson (interpretation): Clause 6 for the substitution.
Ms. Cooper will respond to your question.
This is an amending bill, which makes changes to another Act.
So Clause 4 of the bill came to Clause 6 of the Act.
I believe we are on Clause 4.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 5.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 6.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 7.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 8.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 9.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 10.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 11.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 12.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 13.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 14.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 15.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 16.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 17.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 18.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 19.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 20.
Chairperson (interpretation): Opposed. Carried. Clause 21.
Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.
Chairperson (interpretation): We still have under consideration 21-1(5).
Mr. Irqittuq (interpretation): I wish to report progress.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Vanderzan for being at the witness table.
I am not including Mr. Ng. There is a motion on the floor to report progress.
And it is not debatable.
Sergeant-at-Arms would you ascertain the presence of the Speaker to end our day.
Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 21 and Bill 23 and would like to report that Bill 21 and Bill 23 are ready for Third Reading and Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
The motion is in order, all those in favour.
Bill 23 - An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act  - Third Reading
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Honourable Member for Amittuq that Bill 23, an Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act be read for the third time.
Bill 21 - Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act  - Third Reading
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Amittuq that Bill 21, Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act be read for the third time and request a recorded vote.
A recorded vote has been requested by Minister Ng. All those in favour.
Remain standing until the clerk calls your name and then please be seated.
Deputy Clerk: All those in favour.
Mr. Ng, Mr. Kattuk, Mr. Kilabuk, Mr. Anawak, Mr. Puqiqnak, Mr. Alakannuark, Mr. Irqittuq, Mr. Arvaluk, Mr. Havioyak, Mr. McLean, Mr. Nutarak, Mr. Iqaqrialu, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Akesuk.
Speaker: All those opposed please stand.
Remain standing until the clerk calls your name.
Deputy Clerk: Mr. Okalik. Mr. Tootoo.
The recorded vote indicates 14 in favour and 3 against.
Therefore the motion is carried and the Bill has had third reading.
Orders of the Day for Wednesday March 6th:
This House stands adjourned until March 6, 2001 at 1:30.
>>House adjourned at 9.11 p.m.
DAY 55
Wednesday March 6, 2002
2912 – 2993
Opening Prayer 2912
Point of Privilege 2912
Ministers’ Statements 2914
Members’ Statements 2919
Returns to Oral Questions 2931
Oral Questions 2932
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 2948
Petitions 2948
Reports of Standing and Special Committees 2949
Tabling of Documents 2959
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2960
Committee of the Whole Ruling 2960
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2991
Third Reading of Bills 2992
Assent to Bills 2992
Orders of the Day 2992
Wednesday March 6, 2002 2912
171 – 1(5): M’Clintock Channel Special Economic Initiative Plan (Akesuk) 2914
172 – 1(5): Social Work Week; March 24 – 31, 2002 (Picco) 2915
173 – 1(5): International Women’s Day; March 8th (Anawak) 2916
174 – 1(5): Extension of Priority Hiring Policy (Kilabuk) 2917
175 – 1(5): Selection of Team Nunavut for the 2002 Arctic Winter Games (Thompson) 2918
176 – 1(5): Ikajuruti Inungnik Ungasiktumi Network (Telehealth) Update (Picco) 2918
488 – 1(5): Reuniting with Family and Constituents (Nutarak) 2919
489 – 1(5): Coppermine River Nomination as Heritage River (Havioyak) 2920
490 – 1(5): Media Informing Public (Arvaluk) 2920
491 – 1(5): Community Hall and Airport Terminal Inadequate (Puqiqnak) 2921
492 – 1(5): National Aboriginal Achievement Award - Jonah Kelly (Picco) 2922
493– 1(5): Non-Participation in Supplementary Retiring Allowances (Williams) 2923
494 – 1(5): Inadequate Food at Kivalliq Boarding Home and Treatment on Airplane (McLean) 2924
495 – 1(5): Non-Support of Arctic Creations by Qikiqtaaluk Corporation (Okalik) 2925
496 – 1(5): Utilization of Sanikiluaq Arena (Kattuk) 2925
497 – 1(5): Inuktitut Speaking Reporters Work With Unilingual MLAs (Iqaqrialu) 2926
498 – 1(5): Letter from Minister of DIAND Regarding Grave Relocation Work (Irqittuq) 2927
499 – 1(5): National Aboriginal Achievement Award - Uqittuq Ashoona (Akesuk) 2928
500 – 1(5): Rankin Inlet / Whale Cove Meeting with Minister & International Women’s Day (Thompson) 2928
501 – 1(5): Gratitude to MLAs and Ministers (Alakannuark) 2930
502 - 1(5): Nunavut Athletes and Volunteers at Arctic Winter Games (Kilabuk) 2930
503 - 1(5): National Aboriginal Achievement Award - Jordan Tootoo (Anawak) 2931
Return to Question 460 - 1(5): Police Officer / Grise Fiord (Okalik) 2931
Return to Question 466 - 1(5): Update on Filled Positions in Decentralized Communities (Okalik) 2932
505 - 1(5): Consider Sunset Clause - Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti Policy (McLean) 2932
506- 1(5): Elder’s Assistance to Government of Nunavut (Iqaqrialu) 2932
507 – 1(5): Recommendation By Health and Social Services Regarding Consent Forms (Tootoo) 2934
508 – 1(5) Review Remediation of Mine Site (Williams) 2936
509 – 1(5): Sealskin Rebates Information – Northern & Co-op Stores (Nutarak) 2938
510 – 1(5): Soapstone Carving Markets (Puqiqnak) 2940
511 - 1(5): Negotiate with Ministers on Payment for Grave Workers (Irqittuq) 2942
512 - 1(5): Increase in Student Financial Assistance (Arvaluk) 2943
513 - 1(5): Update on Decentralized Positions Filled in Kugluktuk (Havioyak) 2945
514 - 1(5): Plans for Youth (Alakannuark) 2946
007 – 1(5): Concern and Dissatisfaction with Quality of Gasoline in Cape Dorset (Akesuk) 2948
019 – 1(5): Report on the Review of the 2001 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut 2949
089 – 1(5): Annual Report of the Director of Medical Insurance for 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 (Picco) 2959
090 – 1(5): Coppermine River - Nomination Document (Havioyak) 2959
091 – 1(5): Whale Cove Outward Bound Program and Cultural Enhancement Camp (Thompson) 2959
092 – 1(5): Nunavut Heritage Centre in Rankin Inlet (Thompson) 2959
093 - 1(5): 2000/2001 Annual Report for the Nunavut Development Corporation (Akesuk) 2959
Bill 15 – Technical Standards & Safety Act – Third Reading 2992
Bill 15 - Technical Standards and Safety Act - Assent 2992
Bill 19 - Supplementary Appropriation Act No. 3, 2001/2002 - Assent 2992
Bill 20 - Interim Appropriation Act, April 1 to June 30th 2002 - Assent 2992
Bill 21 - Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act - Assent 2992
Bill 22 - Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act - Assent 2992
Bill 23 - An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act - Assent 2992
Wednesday March 6, 2002  Nunavut Hansard
Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Mr. Ovide Alakannuark, Honourable Jack Anawak, Mr. James Arvaluk, Mr. Donald Havioyak, Mr. David Iqaqrialu, Mr. Enoki Irqittuq, Honourable Peter Kattuk, Honourable Peter Kilabuk, Mr. Glenn McLean, Honourable Kelvin Ng, Mr. Jobie Nutarak, Honourable Kevin O’Brien, Honourable Paul Okalik, Honourable Ed Picco, Honourable Manitok Thompson, Mr. Uriash Puqiqnak, Mr. Hunter Tootoo, Ms. Rebekah Williams.
Speaker (Mr. O’Brien): I would like to call on Mr. Alakannuark to say the prayer.
Speaker: We have a Point of Privilege. Mr. Ng.
Mr. Speaker, I rise at the earliest opportunity to make some points of privilege regarding Tabled Document 87 – 1(5) entitled “Speaking Notes for Hunter Tootoo on the Motion to Refer to Committee of the Whole.”
My points of privilege Mr. Speaker, to the writer of the document are as follows.
Firstly…
Speaker: Which members cannot hear?
Try turning up the volume.
Mr. Irqittuq can you hear?
Mr. Irqittuq can you hear? Mr. Clerk can you assist Mr. Irqittuq.
All right we have a Point of Privilege.
Mr. Speaker, my points of privilege to the writer of the document are as follows. Firstly, there are several references to the Government of Nunavut and the Bathurst Mandate.
And I quote on page 1 in the opening comments.
It is clear that this motion proposed by the government to refer the bill to committee of the whole.
On page 2.
The government recommends a process which keeps our constituents from directly participating.
My point of privilege Mr. Speaker, is that the writer has not been able to distinguish the difference between the Legislature and the government.
It is clear to all members of this Assembly, that Bill 21 was not a government bill, but in fact a bill of the Legislature.
I want to firstly clarify that for the record in my first point of privilege.
On the second one Mr. Speaker.
The writer references on page 2, and I quote. It is not an unimportant bill, it is not a so-called housekeeping bill, it is not a bill that won’t cost a lot of money to put in place and it is not a simple bill.
In the next paragraph it says.
So why are we bypassing this process, through public meetings and our standing committees that our public has come to expect when important pieces of legislation…Unquote.
Bill 22, The Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act was introduced and referred directly into Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent, waiving of our House rules, including the consent of the Honourable Member for Iqaluit West.
Was that bill unimportant?
Were there not significant financial factors within that bill?
Members’ pay and benefits, transitional allowance, committee pay, cabinet and speaker’s payments etc.
Bill 22 dealt with the entire structure and rules of how our legislature would operate.
The point of privilege here, Mr. Speaker, is that our rules allow for this Assembly to deal with all matters before it as we see fit.
Our rules, which we regularly utilize, allow us to bypass our own rules.
All members have a say into those decisions when that decision is made.
So the point of privilege Mr. Speaker is, it is not out of the ordinary for us to waive our rules when dealing with matters before this House.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the third point of privilege.
On page 5 of the tabled document.
Then we talked about the bill secretly in Caucus.
The point of privilege Mr. Speaker, is the suggestion that discussions on this matter were out of the ordinary. My point of privilege here is that, in our consensus system, whether it is reviewing proposed government legislation, business plans, budgets, policies, etc, within our Standing Committees or the Regular Members’ Caucus, meetings, briefings, full caucus meetings, it is accepted practice to have in camera meetings.
Dealing with Bill 21 Mr. Speaker, was no different than dealing with any other bill of the Government of Nunavut or this Legislature.
And those are the points of privilege that I want to raise to clarify the record.
And that I might have inadvertently said the Member for Iqaluit West, instead of the Member for Iqaluit Centre and I would like to correct that for the record.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Ng. Your Point of Privilege is noted and thank you for the clarification.
Yes and duly recorded in Hansard.
Minister’s Statement 171 – 1(5): M’Clintock Channel Special Economic Initiative Plan
Mr. Speaker, in 2000/2001 the Department of Sustainable Development agreed to provide one-time special funding to the communities of Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak, and Cambridge Bay to assist them in overcoming the negative economic effects of the moratorium on polar bear hunting within the M’Clintock Channel.
I rise today to inform you on the progress made in implementing this funding.