EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ma. Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services. Capital.
Total Capital Planning. Not Previously Authorized. $10,250,000.
Chairman (interpretation): I gave you every opportunity, Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): This will be my very last question, I promise. (interpretation ends) On page 12, it’s also on Community and Government Services, Capital, Clyde River - Cape Christian Remediation for $231,000.
Are you going to get refunds from the U.S. government for making that whole mess in that area? Why does the GN have to clean it up when the U.S. government made the whole mess?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I’ll have my deputy respond to that, Mr. Chairman.
I’m going to attempt to answer it and if I am off base, I’m sure that the Minister responsible for CGS will correct me.
As I understand it, there is an agreement in principle between INAC and CGS to initiate the remediation of Cape Christian. I think there’s a contract that’s already in place, they’re going to mobilize I believe this summer to start the work on Cape Christian, and that part of it will be funded through INAC.
I believe I’m correct in saying this and if I am incorrect, I’m sure the Minister for CGS will correct me.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ma. Minister Brown, (interpretation) do you wish to add to that?
INAC and CGS are working together for federal funding.
Since we have started working with INAC, we have been able to make much more progress.
I fail to understand this. We should be suing or at least taking the U.S. government to court for messing up our land and waters during that time, they did not pay for their mess.
That’s the part I don’t understand. Why does the GN even have to pay for their mess?
Is it because we agree with the federal government?
Shouldn’t we be suing or at least taking them to International Court in The Hague for messing up our land?
I’m sure all members would agree with what the member has just said.
If my memory is correct, I think some years ago, our federal government, on our behalf as Canadian citizens, reached an agreement with the U.S. government.
I don’t exactly remember the details of it, but we were sort of given credits to buy other U.S. military equipment and I believe that’s how the whole issue with the DEW line sites was set.
If I recall correctly, Cape Christian was one of the DEW line sites that was here in the 50s, as the member has quite correctly said, and that came Cold War era.
But if my recollection is correct, the federal government, on our behalf as Canadian citizens, reached an agreement with the U.S. government on these sites.
Not Previously Authorized. $10,250,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Page 12.
Not Previously Authorized. $373,000.
Not Previously Authorized. $10,623,000.
Page 13 which includes page 14.
On page 14, Iqaluit - Airport Safety Improvements, I just need clarification on that one.
I hear that it is a federal airport because it’s an international airport. Why is the GN paying over $1.7 million for improvements? Are you going to get the money back from the federal government after you get the work done?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Maybe the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Minister Netser, can respond to that question.
I’ll have the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation respond to that question. Minister Netser.
Bear with me as I go through my notes.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Chairman, I think we were short by that amount when we made improvements to the airport.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I didn’t get a proper response.
Was the funding from the federal government short by that amount for airport improvements? Is it because they were short that the Government of Nunavut is responsible for paying that $1.75 million?
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I believe Peter Ma would like to respond to that question.
I’ll try to clarify what Minister Netser has already said.
Because of the recent changes in operations at the airport, because of Canadian North expanding its operations, it has raised a number of safety concerns. So we’re trying to address that as a government and still provide service to people coming to and from the airport.
This particular project, actually, is a project that would qualify under the Building Canada Fund, and that’s the federal program that was announced about a year ago under their Federal Budget 2007, so this is actually our 25 percent share of that.
So I hope that clarifies it for the member.
Then is the arrangement with the federal government and federal programs? For example, our contract with the RCMP, we pay 70 percent and they pay 30 percent.
Do international airports in different provinces operate the same way, that we pay 25 percent under the Building Canada Fund?
Do they have an arrangement right across Canada for international airports where provinces pay 25 percent of it?
I will have Minister Netser respond to that question.
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I’m looking at my notes.
There was a lot of air traffic at the Iqaluit airport on April 1 and they didn’t have enough room for the planes, so we wanted to work on the Iqaluit Airport Master Plan.
We are requesting funds from the Building Canada Fund and we can get that 25 percent according to their policy to complete the Iqaluit Airport Master Plan. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
I am not asking about necessities to improve the airport, I agree with that.
It needed the improvements, it was very crowded.
All I am saying is the financial arrangement with the federal government, when, in fact, it is considered as an international airport, and I think it’s certified as an international airport, so it is 100 percent federal responsibility.
What are we doing expending the money? Why are we using the Building Canada Fund for the federal government’s airport?
We should be using the Building Canada Fund for our communities like community freezers and whatever the communities’ infrastructure needs are, leave the federal matters alone.
We’re not going to go to war in Afghanistan for 25 percent of our funds and the federal government pays 75 percent, it’s a federal responsibility and so is this airport.
Why do you justify or substantiate the justification of us doing the federal airport on their behalf and we pay 25 percent?
We could have been using the Building Canada Fund for very worthwhile programs in other communities, especially smaller communities.
Just because the Iqaluit International Airport has that title, it doesn’t mean that the federal government should fund it.
We have that responsibility, it was transferred over to us in 1995, I believe, when the Government of Nunavut took over the operations.
So we have the responsibility for the airport here, I thought we were only responsible for the management of the operations - security, airport management, leases, etcetera.
I didn’t know we were responsible for the capital side of the airport.
Is this arrangement the same as in other jurisdictions?
The Mirabel Airport and Pearson International, are these held by the provincial governments for their capital and operations, at least 25 percent of it?
I really don’t give a hoot of what the Toronto Pearson International Airport is responsible for, but we are responsible for the safety of the Iqaluit airport and like I said earlier, it was transferred over to our responsibility back in 1995 or pre-Nunavut.
I don’t want to be off-track, but it’s just that I give a hoot because I don’t want to pay unfairly with the small funds that Nunavut has.
A very small portion of the Building Canada Fund that comes to Nunavut is very small compared to other provinces and I don’t think they pay a penny for the upkeep of those international airports.
I think we should revisit our arrangement with the federal government to ensure we’re not unduly or unfairly treated, or treated lesser than other provinces where federal responsibilities are concerned in jurisdictions including Nunavut.
I think this is more or less a comment by the member. But I do not think we are wasting precious funds in terms of addressing the safety issues that are occurring at our airport here in Iqaluit.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that second opportunity.
I’m not arguing with the minister on the requirement and the necessity of improving the airport here in Iqaluit.
I applaud the minister for that.
All I’m saying is the funding arrangement could have been done differently with the federal government, especially with the federal government. The Building Canada Fund could have been used for... you know, $1.7 million is only 25 percent.
The rest, the 75 percent, is quite a bit and the small communities really need that precious money.
The financial arrangement with the federal government and Nunavut was made to make improvements for the Iqaluit airport.
That’s all I am saying, that we should have explored different ways of improving our airports here.
That was just a comment (interpretation) and that is all I have to say.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. That was just a comment.
We’re on (interpretation ends) page 14. Economic Development and Transportation.
Not Previously Authorized. $11,685,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $11,685,000.
Chairman: Go back to page 2 of the bill.
Capital. Total Capital Appropriation. $98,208,000.
Go to Bill 29 in your legislation binder. It’s your white binder on your desks.
Bill 29, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No.1, 2008-2009.
Chairman: Go to page two.
Does the committee agree to clause 3?
Chairman: Now, go to page 2. Schedule.
Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2009.
Total Capital. $98,208,000.
Total Supplementary Appropriation. $98,208,000.
Chairman: Now, go back to page 1.
Chairman: And clause 7?
Chairman: Is the committee agreed to Bill 29 as a whole?
Chairman: Thank you. Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 29 can immediately be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) That’s it for Bill 29.
Now, Bill 30. (interpretation) We will continue on with Bill 30.
I would like to ask Minister Tapardjuk if he has any opening comments for Bill 30.
Bill 30 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee
Bill 30 appropriates $7,818,000 for 2008-09 supplementary appropriations and maintenance funds.
The funding will provide for items such as:
$4 million to establish the Nunavut Outfitters Liability Protection Fund;
$800,000 to provide transitional assistance to communities and individuals in Nunavut’s mining industry that are impacted by changes in the commodities markets;
$427,000 for Nunavut Arctic College information technology infrastructure;
$2,292,000 for interdepartmental transfer of the Fisheries and Sealing Division from the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to the Department of Environment;
$500,000 to provide funding to the Hillside Co-op retrofit project; and
$2,091,000 to cover the costs of the Rankin Inlet power outage.
$3.8 million of the funding for the first two initiatives that I mentioned will come from the federal government’s Community Development Trust.
Monies for the Nunavut Arctic College initiative is from the federal government’s Post-Secondary Education Infrastructure initiative, while monies for the Hillside Co-op retrofit project will come from the federal government’s Affordable Housing initiative.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening comments on Bill 30.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that members may have, Mr. Chairman.
Would you like to have the same witnesses who are with you now or would you like to bring in different witnesses?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, my witnesses will remain at the witness table, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): For the record, please introduce your witnesses.
On my left is my Deputy Minister, Peter Ma, and on my right is Diane Moebis, Manager of Budgeting Development with our Expenditure Management Division.
Before we proceed with Bill 30, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
I suggest to members that wherever possible you ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review of the government’s mandate.
Before I get into general comments, I would just like to ask the minister a very general question. In his opening comments, he indicated that Bill 30, it says, “This funding will provide for items such as,” and the first bullet there is “$4 million to establish the Nunavut Outfitters Liability Protection Fund.”
I’m just wondering if the minister could let us know if that is in fact the Act that he gave notice to do first reading for on Thursday.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I stated in my notice for first reading that I would be giving the members information on the Nunavut Outfitters Liability Protection Fund on Thursday, Mr. Chairman.
Given that, I do have some concerns and believe me, it’s more of a procedural concern. I don’t think there will be any opposition to the Act, but I guess my concern is that we’re being asked to vote an appropriation for an Act that doesn’t exist yet.
It hasn’t been passed and it hasn’t been set before the House. I think we’re voting on an appropriation for something that is going to happen.
I know we’re not allowed to ask hypothetical questions here in the House, but to me, this kind of sets a dangerous precedent for that.
I would suggest maybe we look at deferring the bill until the appropriate legislation has been passed before the House and that way, we would cover ourselves off as well.
We’re being asked to approve funding for something that doesn’t exist and I’m a little worried about that.
I’m not anticipating any opposition to it but to me, it potentially sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
I’m not saying we don’t disagree with it.
I think it’s a great idea and everything, but I think procedural-wise and precedent-wise, it would be more appropriate for this Assembly to vote on something that’s there and not for something that’s non-existent right now.
It’s just a matter of next week … I don’t know if you do the first reading on Thursday… it’s how quickly the government can move forward and get that done, but I think it just makes more sense to do it that way.
That would be my suggestion and I ask the minister if he would agree with that.
We knew that that would be a concern and we have discussed it already.
For clarification, I will have my deputy elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman.
The member does raise a good point in the fact that normally, we would do the appropriate Act first and then we would have the supplementary appropriation done near the end.
However, because of time, obviously, we’re doing the sup bill first in this particular instance.
I should point out to the member that if Bill 30 is passed and the Nunavut Outfitters Liability Protection Act is not passed, obviously, that money would then just lapse, I mean it would just not go anywhere.
The money has also not been specifically appropriated to the fund. It’s actually been specifically appropriated to the Department of Finance to Centrally Administered Funds. So if the Act is not passed, simply, the money would just die and would just come back into this House.
The other thing I should also point out to the member is that this funding is actually coming from a federal program, as he quotes it himself and said it during his response to the minister’s opening comments.
It is, in fact, coming from the federal Community Development Trust program.
So I understand his point about setting a precedent. I’m obviously not a legal expert but from my perspective as Deputy Minister for Finance, the money would simply lapse if the Act itself, as he refers to, is not passed by this House.
I know, when we approve monies, this would be money that would go into the Department of Finance’s O&M budget and we all know that, and I’m not saying it would happen here, the minister and the Cabinet have the ability to transfer funding within the O&M section.
Again, I’m not saying that it would lapse. I said the intent is there that if it doesn’t go through, it would lapse, but there’s also a mechanism to move that money potentially.
I’m not saying it will happen but I’m just worried about the precedent of it.
The other concern I have is that it presupposes a decision of the House and I have concerns with that, too.
I think bills are important things, and to Mr. Ma’s earlier comment, the only reason that we’re dealing with the supplementary bills first is because we’ve got nothing else to do, it’s not because of timing.
The government wasn’t ready to bring in any other bills. We had nothing else to look at, so we had to do what they do best which is sup bills.
For those reasons, when presupposing a decision of the House and the fact that it’s appropriating funding to something that doesn’t exist, again I would like to ask the minister if he would reconsider in dealing with this bill, that bill that he gave notice for today, and I believe it was called the Nunavut Outfitters Liability Protection Fund Act, once it has been approved by the House.
At our last session in March, it was identified in the Budget Address that Nunavut outfitters need support since they can’t afford insurance or liability protection.
The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, Chuck Strahl, had announced that the funding will be provided by the federal government.
As a result, we were able to submit the bill for your review now that this funding is expected to go ahead within this fiscal year for outfitters’ liability protection, Mr. Chairman.
I think this might be one of the few times in history where money actually moves faster than legislation.
Usually, legislation is in place and you’re trying forever to get the money to go along with it, especially coming from the federal government.
Mr. Minister, like I said, I’m not arguing the merits of the bill or the funding and the need for it.
What I’m saying is right now, you’re asking us to vote on funding to a fund that doesn’t exist yet, and I know that, like you say, it could lapse and I’m not saying that it wouldn’t, but there is also a mechanism in place where the government can transfer money within. So once it’s approved and it’s in your budget, you can decide tomorrow after it’s approved that, as a government, we want to transfer that money some place else.
I’m not saying that that would happen, but the possibility for that ever happening is there and I would rather be sure.
I don’t anticipate any opposition to the legislation. I don’t know why, as you correctly stated in your Budget Address, that that was something that we’re going to come forward with. So what’s taking so long?
We finally had first reading. If the bill was such a priority and urgent need for the government to do, it should have been announced first reading on day one, or notice of motion for first reading on day one.
For that reason and for the reason that it’s presupposing a decision of the House, and I’m not saying that there is going to be any opposition, I totally support the concept, but more from a procedural thing, I don’t believe that we should deal with that right now until the appropriate legislation is passed.
And obviously, if you don’t want to go along with that and if you don’t, I would be prepared to move a motion to defer it until that appropriate legislation is passed.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I don’t really understand the procedure myself, so perhaps I will need the assistance of our House Leader as to how we could best proceed with this.
Maybe I could ask the House Leader to elaborate on how we will deal with this.
The House Leader will respond to the question, Mr. Picco.
We became aware of this as a government yesterday that there was a concern with the way that the supplementary appropriation and the dollar values were brought forward.
This morning in Cabinet and again, during the CCL meeting, I had asked our legal officials, because I was aware of the concern to our justice people and to our lawyers:
Are we circumventing or breaking any law by doing this?
Are we setting some type of precedent when we are bringing this forward within the supplementary appropriation? And probably more important;
Is there anything in the Financial Administration Act, or indeed, the Financial Administration Manual, or any other legislation or financial instrument that would be a cause of concern?
The answer back to us was no, that wasn’t an issue. The government has the opportunity and the right to bring forward dollar values to be spent.
Indeed, if monies still aren’t spent for a specific purpose, then they are lapsed.
If the government tried to take those monies that were identified within a piece of supplementary appropriation for an insurance deal, or for a pair of glasses, or for something else and we decided not to use it for that, although it was targeted for that, we would have to come back to the House and have that spending approved saying, “No, we don’t want to spend that on glasses now, we want to spend it on cups and saucers,” then that approval would still have to be sought from the House.
So the concern that money would somehow would be approved or appropriated by this House and then used for some other reason is without basis, I think, because of the checks and balances that you have in place.
At the same time, I do understand the concerns of the member, but we feel that with this legislation, we want to ensure that the legislation goes through.
If, for whatever reason, we get to a point where we’re not able to complete the session in two or three days, and we have a lot of other legislation coming forward, and something happens, we pray to God it doesn’t, I can’t see into the future if something happens that we’re not able to get the legislation passed.
Although we have earmarked the money through this supplementary appropriation process, and then the summer is upon us and our outfitters and so on are out, there could be a problem because of the insurance issues.
So should we hold up the bill and the approval today because there’s a concern that the money is not being used appropriately, according to the legal opinion that we have had and I have asked for it, my colleagues were in the House this morning and we heard from the Department of Justice saying, “No, there were no legal ramifications.” Could we do it?
Yes, we could. Is it outside of something that has happened in the past? Probably, but does that make it wrong?
I think the member has done an excellent job of informing the House and the people in Nunavut that the legislation has come before the amount in the supplementary appropriation, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be spent.
But if something does happen, and again I don’t know what it could be, it could be anything, and we get to the point where this supplementary appropriation is delayed, or it doesn’t get passed, or we lose quorum for whatever reason, then that money is not in place. If there is an issue with anyone’s outfitters and insurance hasn’t been approved in this Assembly, it could be a concern. That’s all I’m suggesting to the House.
If it’s an issue where somehow we’re breaking the law, it’s not the opinion that was given to us.
Could we have done it a little bit better and been more expedient about it?
Should that stop the bill from being approved right now and having Mr. Tapardjuk and Mr. Ma and some of our senior officials explain the bill?
No, that should slow down that process.
Committee Motion 016 – 2(4): Deferral of Consideration of Bill 30, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2008-2009 (Tootoo)
I would like to thank the House Leader for that and maybe just say, as he said to my colleague earlier, “When we say this, we really mean this.” Hopefully this isn’t another one of those incidences.