EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
$232,000 to the Office of the Legislative Assembly to fund three new positions created in the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth;
$4,800,000 to the Department of Justice to cover a projected budget deficit in the policing and corrections branches;
$21,900,000 to the Department of Health to cover a projected budget deficit in a variety of health programs;
$1,286,000 to the Department of Community and Government Services to fund expenses relating to a public awareness campaign in 2015-16 and to conduct a territory-wide referendum on the alienation of municipal lands; and
$764,000 to the Nunavut Housing Corporation to cover an uncontrollable increase in water rates for the Public Housing program.
Seeing none, we will go to a page-by-page review starting on page 4.
Government of Nunavut 2015-16 Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) No. 2.
Independent Officers. Total Independent Officers. $232,000.
Total Department. $232,000.
Chairman: Page 5. Justice.
Total Law Enforcement. $2,580,000.
I have a question on this line item.
It indicates here in English that they’re projecting a budget deficit.
Will the deficit go way over or just close to budget?
That’s the department’s projected shortfall, a total of $4.8 million. It’s our best figure at this time.
We’re hopeful that that’s enough and we don’t go over.
If we do, we will have to come back in the spring sitting.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Is there any chance it could be lower?
There’s always a chance it could be lower, but that’s the projection right now.
Until we get the year-end figures, we don’t know.
We won’t know for a month or two whether funds have lapsed or been completely spent.
Total Corrections. $2,220,000.
Total Department. $4,800,000.
Health. Operations and Maintenance.
I think I might have asked this question or maybe it was somebody else, but this $21 million, it seems like the Department of Health always get a supplementary appropriation.
Is it not possible to get a number that’s accurate?
Why don’t you give an increase to all the line items when we’re drafting the budgets so that you don’t have to ask for millions and millions of dollars?
Is it not possible to get a more accurate number during drafting?
I recall being an MLA on that side starting in 2004 asking many of the same questions of the Department of Health.
It’s a very unique department. It touches on all of us every day, all of our friends and relatives in Nunavut.
If there is a medevac, you can budget for X amount of dollars for medevacs, but you could use more medevacs than you budgeted for.
Physician service contracts, because it is more expensive down south than bringing people up here… .
The use of agency nurses and casual nurses is quite expensive because we do have to keep our heath centres and our hospitals staffed.
There is no way around that. I know that the department is working very hard on trying to contain costs and understand the costs.
That was one of the questions I asked Ms. Stockley when I met her the first time.
She came from Newfoundland.
The Minister of Finance for Newfoundland and her had similar conversations that the Minister of Finance for Nunavut has. I know that she’s working very hard.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I brought Ms. Stockley in here specifically that if there are some detailed questions you want to ask, she can answer them.
Ms. Stockley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As Minister Peterson said, we’re really trying to get an idea on where our cost pressures are. We know that on average across the country, health spending increases by about 6 percent per year. Ironically, this supplementary appropriation is approximately that.
Some of the areas that Minister Peterson just mentioned, medical travel of $6.7 million, we requested and approved in Committee of the Whole a couple of weeks ago about $4,880,000 extra in 2016-17.
We think that will get us a little bit closer. We don’t want to keep going back for supplementary appropriations either.
A couple of things are happening with medical travel. The costs are going up.
We had medical travel volumes. That’s not the cost of the airplane tickets; that’s the number of people travelling have increased by 8 percent over last year, so that’s an increase.
Now, the good news is our medevacs have only increased by 1 percent.
It means that people are able to wait or be on scheduled travel.
With regard to our agency nurse contracts, we have an RFP out right now for a new agency contract that will give us a little bit better rates and bring things a bit more in line, but I can’t go into any detail on that because the RFP is out right now.
Mental health contracts, $5.1 million, are a supplementary appropriation. Some of that is toward addictions. You will recall that we requested and you approved $6.2 million for next year.
Some of that should alleviate this pressure.
Physician services contracts are over by $1.7 million.
Again, we requested and you approved $1.3 million in 2016-17 and that will cover off the cost of paediatric services.
We didn’t ask in 2016-17 for the same amount that we’re over this year because we’re also trying to do some cost-containment, try to get a little bit more bang for the buck, so to speak.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) In my humble opinion, every dollar we spend in the health service is bang for the buck.
Do we spend it or don’t we? The answer is no, we cannot not spend it. There’s no issue there.
I’m just trying to get a handle on how big or how far actuals can be from projections.
We’re out $21 million in this case.
I’m just trying to figure out if there is any way we can be like $10 million out instead of $21 million.
That’s why I ask that question and I appreciate your answers.
I think I’ll leave it at that. (interpretation) Thank you.
In reference to this $21.9 million and as the official indicated, agency nurses, casual nurses, and medevacs are about $6.7 million, it’s very distressing at times when you’re having shortages of nurses within your community.
Having been an MLA now, it seems to be taking turns by community, but at the same time, I understand that you are trying to contain it.
My first question is: what is the difference between an agency nurse and a casual nurse, and is there a break-up of how much money for each line item on that particular area?
I’ll ask Ms. Stockley to answer that question.
A casual nurse is a nurse that is hired under a casual basis as an employee of the Government of Nunavut.
Those tend to be up to four-month increments like all casual employees that we would hire in government.
An agency nurse is a nurse that is supplied under a contract that we have with various agencies.
That’s what we have just gone out with a new RFP for and we are looking for some better rates in this RFP for the agency nurse contract.
When we look at these agency nurses, which are by contracts, as indicated, and we are aware that there is a shortage of nurses across Canada and at the same time, they are very essential services within our communities, are they fixed by a number of years or is each contract unique to its own contract’s signature per particular agency nurse or are they fixed for so many years, for example, “Three years or five years, you’re going to be in this community” or are they unique by case by case?
The contract would be with, my recollection, an agency nurse contractor because there could be as many as seven nursing agencies, so the contracts would be with them.
If the Department of Health needed a nurse or nurses for a specific community, they would contact any of those nursing agencies to supply a nurse for that community, whether it’s for two weeks or two months or six months, as the case may be.
The actual contract would be with the agency nurse and then they would submit the billings to the Department of Health with all of their backup, and then the Department of Health would process their bills through to the Department of Finance.
Total Community Services. $21,900,000.
Total Department. $21,900,000.
Total Community Services. $1,286,000.
Total Department. $1,286,000.
Total Nunavut Housing Corporation. $764,000.
Total Department. $764,000.
Chairman: Now go to Bill 11 in your legislation binder.
Everyone has their copies?
Bill 11, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2015-2016.
Schedule. Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31,2016.
Total Appropriation. $28,982,000.
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 11 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 11 can immediately be placed on orders of the day for third reading?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and your committee again for your scrutiny of Bill 11.
Very good questions and again, it’s very good that we have transparency and when we’re discussing spending public monies.
I appreciate all of your questions.
Bill 12 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017 – Consideration in Committee
We will now proceed to Bill 12.
Minister Peterson, please proceed with your opening comments on Bill 12.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. I am here today to introduce Bill 12, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017.
Bill 12 is for capital supplementary appropriations for 2016-17 totalling $14,302,000.
$1,740,000 to the Department of Family Services to implement a new case management system for the Children and Family Services Division;
$1,918,000 to the Department of Family Services to award a contract for the Rankin Inlet Group Home Renovation Project;
$1,500,000 to the Department of Education to fund part of the design costs for the new high school in Cape Dorset;
$1,065,000 to the Department of Community and Government Services to fund the Government of Nunavut portion of the Small Communities Fund part of the New Building Canada Fund for 2016-17;
$3,079,000 to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to award a contract for the replacement of the Motor Vehicle Information System; and
$5 million to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to fund the 2016-17 portion of the Iqaluit Marine Infrastructure Project.
In addition, we are increasing the original value of Bill 12 to include $1,200,000 for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to fund the 2016-17 portion of the Pond Inlet Marine Infrastructure Project.
This will bring the total of Bill 12 to $15,502,000.
At the appropriate time, I will bring forth the motion to amend Bill 12 when the committee proceeds with the clause-by-clause review.
Seeing none, we will go page by page starting on page 4.
Government of Nunavut 2016-17 Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) No. 1.
Total Corporate Management. $3,658,000.
Total Department. $3,658,000.
Total Corporate Services.
My question here is: when you look at the design model, is that a design model for all high schools within Nunavut or is that a design model concept that can be either a middle school or a high school?
I believe the design is unique to this school in Cape Dorset.
The design model is unique to Cape Dorset.
Is the design model for high schools across Nunavut or just that one community and, if so, is that a secondary high school or is it equal to a middle school design also within the territory?
Chairman: The page says that it’s for Cape Dorset.
I don’t have that level of detail in my briefing note, but fortunately, my colleague, the Minister of Community and Government Services, is here and he would like to respond to that question.
Chairman: Minister Peterson is deferring to the CGS minister.
The design for the school will be specifically for Cape Dorset and for that location where it will be built.
It will be designed to be built on that land with this specific type of foundation for that location.
It will be a unique build for the design and where it is.
Total Corporate Services. $1,500,000.
Total Department. $1,500,000.
Total Community Services. $1,065,000.
Total Department. $1,065,000.
Total Transportation. $9,279,000.
Total Department. $9,279,000.
Chairman: Go to Bill 12 in your legislation binder.
Bill 12, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017.
Committee Motion 006 – 4(3): Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017 (Peterson)
I move that the Schedule to the bill…I’m sure I’m at the right place…that the Schedule to the bill be amended by:
striking out “$8,079,000” in Item 4, Economic Development and Transportation, and replacing it with “$9,279,000”;
striking out “$14,302,000” after “Total Capital” and replacing it with “$15,502,000”; and
striking out “$14,302,000” after “Total Supplementary Appropriation” and replacing it with “$15,502,000.”
Clause 3 as amended. Do you agree?
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 12 as amended?
Chairman: Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 12 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Keith Peterson, closing comments.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I again thank yourself and your committee for all your good questions and scrutiny over the last several months in standing committee and Committee of the Whole.
I would like to thank all our directors in corporate services for their work on the O&M and capital supplementary bills.
I would like to thank my officials in the gallery, Camilius Egeni and Peter Tumilty. I would like to also thank my Deputy Minister of Finance, Chris D’Arcy, and a special thanks to the Deputy Minister of Health, Colleen Stockley, for appearing today to help answer the questions on the Health supplementary requests.
>>Committee recessed at 15:09 and resumed at 15:35
Bill 15 – An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act – Consideration in Committee
The Committee of the Whole proceeds.
I would now like to ask Minister Peterson: do you have officials that you would like to appear before the committee?
Yes, I have officials that I would like to appear at the witness table.
Does the committee agree to let the minister and his staff/officials go to the witness table?
To my right is Bill MacKay, Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice, and to my left is Stephen Mansell, Director of Policy and Planning.
Minister Peterson, please proceed with your opening comments.
I am pleased to appear before the committee for the review of Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act.
With me today is Deputy Minister Bill MacKay and Director of Policy and Planning Stephen Mansell, and in the gallery is our Legislative Counsel, Thomas Ahlfors, also from the Department of Justice.
On May 9, 2016, municipal voters in Nunavut will vote on whether or not to allow municipalities to sell or otherwise transfer fee simple title to municipal lands.
A “yes” vote could mean that Nunavummiut who currently hold leasehold property title could apply to convert that title to fee simple.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that if leasehold titles do convert, the Nunavut Land Titles Office has sufficient legal authority to transfer all encumbrances and registered interests on the leasehold title over to the new title.
Without this bill, there is a concern that current encumbrances, such as mortgages or liens, may be extinguished upon transfer.
Without assurance of transfer, mortgage lenders and other institutions may stop lending in Nunavut and the extinguishment of these interests could have legal consequences for homeowners and the registrar of land titles.
It is important to stress that this bill is technical in nature and in no way attempts to impact or presuppose the May 9, 2016 vote.
The Department of Justice is simply seeking to ensure the Land Titles Office has the authority it needs in the instance of a “yes” vote.
The bill is also proposing to correct some minor grammatical and typographical errors in the current Act.
I would be pleased to answer any questions from the members of the committee.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some brief opening comments as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act.
The standing committee has no objections to the purpose of Bill 15, which was described in detail by the minister in his opening comments.
The standing committee recognizes that the proposed amendments to the Land Titles Act will ensure that instruments, such as mortgages, may be transferred from leasehold titles to fee simple titles in the event that the majority of residents in a municipality vote to permit the sale of municipal lands during the upcoming land referendum.
The standing committee recognizes that this merger may only occur on the occasion that a municipality votes “yes” to allow the sale of its municipal lands in the upcoming May 9, 2016, land referendum, and that the proposed amendments will not impact the titles of current leasehold owners if a municipality votes “no” to not permit the sale of its municipal lands, and therefore maintain the status quo in their municipality.
The standing committee notes with concern that the department has not provided explicitly clear information on the process by which a merging of leasehold and fee simple titles would occur, if a municipality votes “yes” to allow the sale of its municipal lands.
The standing committee emphasizes the importance of providing clear and comprehensive information to residents throughout Nunavut to ensure that all voters have the opportunity to make an informed decision in the May 9, 2016 land referendum.
The standing committee encourages the Department of Justice to work with the Department of Community Government Services in its efforts to undertake public outreach and consultations to inform Nunavut residents of any consequences that may arise from the upcoming land referendum.
Specifically, the standing committee recommends that these two departments work to ensure that Nunavut residents are provided explicitly clear information regarding the processes that may become necessary in the event that municipalities vote to sale municipal lands and, subsequently, if current leasehold title owners acquire the free simple titles of the land that they are currently leasing.
The standing committee notes with concern that the proposed amendments in Bill 15 do not explicitly indicate how the merging of leasehold into freehold titles may affect the priority ranking of different instruments against the same property.
The standing committee recognizes that issues involving multiple instruments against a single property may be uncommon and may be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 15 to all members.
Seeing none, we will now proceed to the clause-by-clause review of Bill 15 in your legislation binder.
Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act.
Is the floor open for general questions about this now?
This is just a request for clarification about the bill.
In its legislative proposal for Bill 15, your department indicates that it is “asking for an amendment that mirrors the Ontario model, which will clearly preserve existing encumbrances registered against leasehold properties...”
Perhaps you can allow me to ask two questions, Mr. Chairman.
Have you considered any other options to address this issue besides the Ontario model and why do you feel that the Ontario model is best suited for Nunavut?
Yes, we did look at other legislation in other jurisdictions in Canada. We looked at Ontario and we felt that the language Ontario had was more straightforward and best met our needs.
It’s a very technical language and we just thought that we could borrow their language and use it for our needs, but we did look at other jurisdictions’ legislation.
As the minister stated, the contents of the bill are very technical.
I’m not an expert on land titles. The only thing I know is that I own a house and I’m leasing the land. I don’t have any other knowledge in regard to that.
Let me ask this question. (interpretation ends) If Bill 15 passes, it would provide for the addition of section 108.1 to the Land Titles Act, which would provide for the merger of leasehold into fee simple estates and provide for the transfer of instruments in the event of such a merger.
If Bill 15 is passed, subsection 108.1(2) would also provide an exception for certain instruments that may not be transferred in a merger.
Can you explain why subsection 108.1(2) is necessary and what specific instruments may be included under the exception that is described in this subsection?
Section 108.1(2) will be where a lender and borrower would agree that that security doesn’t need to be transferred.
It just specifically excludes that if they agree and it could be any type of asset that the bank or lender loaned to the borrower.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) And it’s that simple, yeah?
(interpretation) In the event that a municipality votes to sell municipal lands… . I’ll use myself as an example.
In Pond Inlet, if there was a “yes” vote and they were able to sell the land, do I have to apply for ownership of the fee simple title on my property or would the owner of the leasehold title in the municipality automatically acquire the fee simple title?
In the event of a “yes” vote, if the leaseholder wants to acquire fee simple, they would have to apply to the hamlet or the city and then land titles.
Everything else after that would be automatic. For example, the security would transfer. They wouldn’t have to do anything with their bank or anything.
The lands titles office would take care of that.
If my understanding is correct, and I own my house and once the plebiscite results allow the purchase of said lands, would I have to apply for the lot where my house is located? That is if there is a “yes” vote in my community.
Alternatively, does that mean they can deny my application to purchase the lot although I own the house sitting on it? Can they deny my application?
Just for clarity, an individual doesn’t even have to apply if they don’t wish. If they don’t want to own fee simple, they can just do nothing and they will still have a lease.
If they applied for fee simple and they owed money to the city or the hamlet, it might present an issue for the applicant.
That confuses the issue further in my mind. Now I am even unsure of where I stand on this issue, as I am rather perplexed.
Let me use an example. Let’s say I own a house today as a private homeowner and my house has leasehold on the lot currently, at least that is what we do today, perhaps from the hamlet. If our community votes in the affirmative to allow the purchase of municipal lands, I am referring to the lot that I lease for the home I own.
Do I have to apply fee simple title to my lot or would the municipal government automatically transfer the ownership to me?
Do I have to file applications towards this lot?
Yes, the leaseholder would have to apply for fee simple.
I believe I understand that I would have to apply for the fee simple title.
Can this application be denied?
Did I understand correctly that there are cases whereby my application could be denied? I believe a reference was made to monies owed to the hamlet as a possible reason.
Does this mean I could be faced with a landowner even though my house is sitting on that lot? Perhaps Qulliq would own the fee simple title, yet I own the actual house on that lot.
I see my colleague, the Minister of CGS, is looking like he’s very eager today to jump in here and answer some questions.
With your permission, if I could defer that question to him.
Minister Peterson is deferring the question to the Minister of CGS. Minister Savikataaq.
For clarity there, I’ll answer Mr. Enook’s question there. He asked that if they had a “yes” vote to sell land in Pond Inlet, would he have to ask for his land.
There are four communities where they already have it written in their administrative by-laws that in the event that fee simple land is available, they will automatically be offered their land if they want, if the equity lease is all paid up.
It just so happens that Pond Inlet is one of those communities.