EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report that Bill 11, Loan Authorization Act, 2005-2006 has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability and that the Bill is ready for consideration in the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 004 – 2(2): Bill 12 - Write Off of Assets and Debts Act, 2004 - 2005
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d also wish to report that Bill 12, the Write Off of Assets and Debts Act, 2004-2005 has been reviewed by the Standing Committee and Government Operations and Accountability and that the Bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Tabled Document 100 – 2(2): Government of Nunavut Leased Properties Report Ending March 31st, 2004
Tabled Document 101 – 2(2): Procurement and Contracting Report for the Fiscal Year 2003/2004
Tabled Document 102 – 2(2): Annual Contracts Data Report for the Fiscal Year 2003/2004
I wish to table the following documents: Government of Nunavut Leased Properties report ending March 31st, 2002; Procurement and Contracting report for the Fiscal Year 2003/2004; and the Annual Contracts Data report for the Fiscal Year 2003/2004.
Speaker (interpretation): Please forward the documents to our Clerk Tabling of documents.
They have to be recorded.
So, that is why we’re waiting for a little bit.
Bill 9 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act No. 3, 2004/05 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Capital Act 3, 2004/05 be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 9 has had First Reading.
Bill 10 – Supplementary Appropriation (O & M) Act No. 3, 2004/05 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation, Operations and Maintenance Act 3, 2004/05 be read for the first time.
The motion is carried. Bill 10 has had First Reading.
Bill 10 – Supplementary Appropriation (O & M) Act No. 3, 2004/05 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation, Operations and Maintenance Act 3, 2004/05 be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill makes Supplementary Appropriations for Government of Nunavut to defer the Operations and Maintenance expenses of the Government of Nunavut for the fiscal ending March 31, 2005.
Bill 10 is ready for Committee of the Whole.
Bill 9 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act No. 3, 2004/05 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation, Capital Act 3, 2004/05 be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill makes Supplementary Appropriation for the Government of Nunavut to defer the capital expenses of the Government of Nunavut for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.
Bill 9 has been read for the second and is now ready for Committee of the Whole.
Item 19, Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters: Tabled Document 52-2(2); Bill 8; Bill 9; and Bill 10 with Mr. Arreak in the chair.
In accordance with the authority vested in me, by motion 3-2(2), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
We’ll reconvene at 1:00 after our break.
>>House recessed 11:54 and resumed at 13:07
Chairman (Mr. Arreak): Thank you for coming back.
We have the following items to deal with Tabled document 52-2(2), Bill 8, Bill 9 and Bill 10.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to continue with the review of Bill 8, the main estimates for the Department of Finance.
If time permits, we would commence with the review of Health and Social Services.
Are we all in agreement that we first deal with the Department of Finance?
Does the committee agree that the Minister of Finance….
Chairman (interpretation): For the record, Minister, please introduce your witnesses.
To my left is Paul Reddy, Director of Expenditure Management and to my right is Mr. Bob Vardy, the Deputy Minister of Finance.
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 would also like to suggest to members that where ever possible, you ask your detailed questions during the page by page review of the department estimates.
Do members have any general comments.
Page by page.
Turn to page E-5, Finance Branch Summary Directorate.
Total operations and maintenance, $2 million 999 thousand.
I would like to refer to her opening comments that she made.
In her opening comments the major components and the significant changes I wanted to ask her because I felt that it wasn’t complete when she referred to leases.
There are significant items too, which you stated in your opening comments.
In my opening remarks I pointed out that the $10.5 million for the cost of leasing the Legislative Assembly and the NCC Building that I included in the Department of Finance’s budget.
Is that his question?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes. Some of the leases are significant costs too, especially when they are over $15 million.
Why are they not included in there?
Are they separate?
Aside from the Legislative Assembly Building and the NCC Building all the other lease costs are covered under the Community and Government Services’ Main Estimates.
A listing of those were also tabled this morning to this House.
In terms of my opening remarks I outlined some of the examples of what was major within the Department of Finance budget and not necessarily the overall Government of Nunavut lease budget.
Those are clear through the Access to Information.
I believe that I brought this up last year, the $10.5 million, that is a significant cost.
I felt it was kind of misleading for the reason to the public and to the members.
Maybe the Deputy Minister can respond but the leases are signed by the federal government and are paid for by the federal government for probably another 15 years.
It is just passing through from the federal government.
For example, as Member of the Legislative Assembly I would think the NCC spent $10.5 million and that is very significant and some of the leases.
I haven’t gone through everything but I wonder if the minister can tell us why the $10.5 million that we get from the federal government that goes to the territorial government.
My question is does it come from there?
The NCC units and the Legislative Assembly building, in order to pay the leases, we have to appropriate that funding internally within the Government of Nunavut.
The Government of Nunavut pays for those leases for the Legislative Assembly and NCC buildings, which we have to appropriate through this process.
Once those payments are made, we are reimbursed by the federal government, but we still have to pay out of our pot of money.
So, we have to appropriate those dollars through this process.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, I fully understand that.
I believe that’s what’s happening, but it’s not fully explained by the deputy minister of the Financial Management Board that these leases are not Government of Nunavut generic, these are federal leases.
These leases are assigned to the Government of Nunavut.
To me, I made it quite clear it’s what sort of a misleading, if I wasn’t aware that these leases, those payments flow through the Government of Nunavut from the federal government.
I’m trying to help the minister and his officials to be really quite transparent with things because these are federal commitments.
These are federal dollars 100 percent and paid by the federal government.
It may be appropriated, but if I didn’t ask the question, the ordinary Members of the Legislative Assembly would believe that these are just territorial expenditures.
So, could the minister or the deputy minister clarify for the average person like myself on the street and this house that these leases are paid for 100 percent by the Federal Government.
The lease pre-date the Government of Nunavut leave in and those were brought over from the time before.
So, in terms of the details of the lease, I’m going to ask Mr. Vardy to explain the process that’s in place to pay for these leases.
Those leases were entered into with NCC before April 1, 1999 and the Government of the Northwest Territories, as the member pointed out was involved some.
It was mainly the OIC, the Office of the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut that was involved in that process.
What the federal government did was adjust our formula financing payments, adjusted the base that we get in transfers to allow the new government to pay for the extra costs of those leases on the commercial buildings.
The commercial buildings are appropriated in the Department of Finance including the Legislative Assembly.
There were a lot of residential units that were built in all of the decentralized communities that NCC built.
That was budgeted for under the Department of CGNS.
It is a case where the money has to be appropriated by the Government of Nunavut and that’s why it shows up in Community and Government Services’s budget and Finance’s budget.
It is very transparent.
We have acknowledged many times that the federal government adjusted our payments back in 1999 to allow us to make those payments.
There is nothing appropriated in the federal government for those purposes.
It is part of our formula financing arrangements which is a general purpose transfer that pays for over 80 percent of the expenditures of the Government of Nunavut.
I would argue that what is put there is not misleading.
It’s very accurate and very transparent.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Vardy.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to thank the deputy minister for his attempt to clarify the point.
My point is these were incremental expenditures appropriated by the federal government through the infrastructure amount that was allocated prior to 1999.
They set aside $300 million at that time for all the infrastructure. $150 million was for offices and residential housing for incremental infrastructure requirements of new government.
Am I correct in saying that, that these leases are incremental infrastructure facilities and are 100 percent paid for by federal incremental dollars.
Those buildings were entered into by the federal government or the initial contract to have those buildings were entered into by the federal government and it could have been part of the discussions on the incremental infrastructure program.
The dollars to pay for the leases come out of our general purpose revenues and they are paid for through the formula financing program.
It’s not through a cost share program or any other vote 4-5.
It’s par to of our general revenues that they’re paid for.
As I acknowledged in the first statement, the formula financing, there was an adjustment made to the base back in April 1, 1999, to allow us to pay that source.
From an appropriations point of view it is Government of Nunavut expenditures totally.
My other question now is were these leases at all, like we’re leasing that detailed cost like this subject to ‘Access to Information’ or privacy related regulations or federal or Nunavut.
With this amount, it’s one lease and the amount shown is the amount that we pay towards that lease.
I’m not sure I got the answer.
What I asked was is this lease subject to the ‘Access to Information Act’ or ‘Privacy Act.’
For that reason, that they have the concurrence of the lease holders and so on for releasing that detailed information.
They’re not subject to the Access to Information Act.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): So my information is that the lease holders which is the federal government has concurred that these are subject to full discloser and that kind of thing and third party doesn’t require any consent to releasing detailed information.
In order for us to pay the NCC leases, we have to appropriate those dollars through the main estimates process.
Any payment that the Government of Nunavut makes towards to facility or pay roll or operations and maintenance, we have to appropriate through the main estimates.
So, that is public information through this process.
There is no other way around it.
So, the questions around the access to information whether this should be up front or in our books, those are two different issues.
To appropriate funding for the Government of Nunavut, we have to show those publicly in our books.
It has to be approved by this house.
If you’re concerned about the whole issue about access to information and whether, NCC or the federal government or whatever are concerned about that, there is no way around paying this lease unless we show it in our books.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): No, there is no need to get excited about this thing.
I’m just asking questions whether they are subject to the Access to Information Act.
I would think that the federal government have leases all across the country.
I am not 100 percent sure they release the lease holders.
They normally release the figures in totals in general, and not directly generic leases here and there released publicly.
That’s a good turn, actually, hopefully that we will get to see other leases; that they be released annually because I see this figure comes out annually, and I am not 100 percent sure of whether that if you had concurred with them.
I spoke to them and they were a bit startled because it had been going on for the last two years.
All that amounts are normally, what I know for lease holder agreements or whatever, but I have never quite seen anything that it could have been an individual in there with the company.
So that’s the only point that I am making that it’s probably a good precedent that we would like to see in the future with all of the other leases.
Madam Minister Aglukkaq.
I can’t comment on the federal government leasing policy practices and accounting practices, of how they disclose or not disclose lease costs.
So, those are just comments, and I have nothing to add.
We are dealing with (interpretation ends) Finance.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $2,993,000, Mr. Peterson.
Welcome to the minister and her officials.
I would like to ask the minister about that new agency we have there, the Crown Agency Council established last year; we have talked about it at the standing committee last summer with the Auditor General, and Mr. Vardy was present.
We were wondering how effective the Crown Agency Council’s activities are.
I noticed in the business plan for the department this year that there’s no mention of the crown agencies in there.
I am wondering why the Crown Agency Council’s activities are not discussed in any detail.
The Crown Agency Council is a subcommittee of Cabinet, so they mention that in the finance business plan.
As I understand, the Crown Agency Council is an important, I guess, subcommittee, for the GN to sort out the problems of the crown agencies.
Could the minister outline, for the record, what specific decisions the Crown Agency Council has taken to date; what is being accomplished?
The Crown Agency Council, as I have stated in the House before, has been working with the agencies in trying to get a full understanding of the government’s structure and legislations for each crown; Qulliq Energy Corporation and Nunavut Arctic College, the business credit corporation, there’s a whole bunch of different crowns that govern or have different processes, policies or governing structures.
So the research has been going on with staff and working with each of the agencies of trying to get a handle on that.
It’s very important for us to have a good understanding of the different governing structures of each agencies to be effective in putting forth a recommendation for improvements in areas that would identify to the Auditor General.
So part of the work has been to try and get a handle on that before we move forward.
We need to understand the differences in each agency, so most of that work has been done.
We are also in the process of putting out mandate letters for each agency and appropriate ministers will be signing those to outline, on an annual basis, the requirements of them to provide business plans as an example, they are reporting to us of their finances, just to use that as an example.
But, once those mandate letters are finalized and developed, we will be sharing that with the House, as soon as they are signed and delivered.
Leading to that, we needed to research the concerns that have been raised by the Auditor General, look at their governance models and number of other things to put forth the final mandate letters for them to start addressing on a regular basis, the reporting requirements to this House or to us.
Thanks to Madame Minister for that explanation.
For the record, can the minister tell us who the members are on the Crown Agency Council?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: That would be myself, I chair the Crown Agency Council, the premier and Mr. Tapardjuk.
And for the record, could the minister explain how much authority they have to make recommendations or write these letters of expectation.
Madame Minister Aglukkaq.
The final decision goes to cabinet or Financial Management Board, depending on the nature.
We basically are looking to try and move forward on information that we can share to cabinet, on directions to deal with crown agencies.
But, the final decision rests with Cabinet members or the Financial Management Board, not just the three of us that report or make final decisions.
So, when a letter of expectation is issued to a crown corporation and although it comes from the Crown Agency Council, the Crown Agency Council reports to the Financial Management Board and Cabinet, so it has full authority and weight of the Cabinet behind the letter of expectation?
In drafting the mandate letters, we’ve been working with the departments as well, the appropriate minister responsible for the particular crown corporation or agency will sign the letter.
The authority for that, it is approved through Cabinet and it has the Cabinet backing on meeting those objectives, outlining the mandate letter.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madame Minister.
If the letter of expectation is issued to a crown agency and the crown agency fails to live up to the letter of expectation, what is the penalty to the crown agency for failing to live up to the letter of expectation?
It all depends on what the issue is, and how severe that is.
Obviously, if the crowns are not dealing with what we’ve asked them to provide, then we’d have to deal with that, but again, it all depends on the situation and what the issue is.
I know there are probably varying degrees of seriousness with a crown agency.
Would any senior officials in the crown agency, if they fail to live up to or achieve the objective of the letter of expectation, could they possibly lose their jobs?
In the worst case scenario, yes.
I’d like to thank the minister again.
What would be the worst case scenario?
It all depends with the worst case scenarios, and I can come up with my own guess, I guess because it isn’t basically guessing what the consequences may be of a particular situation or non-existent situation.
So I suppose the worst case scenario would be set, I suppose another worst case scenario would be mismanagement of operations.
These are things that are hypothetical in nature, and that doesn’t lead to a certain subject.
So I will just keep my response general.
The reason I asked that question is because the minister mentioned that the worst case scenario.
It was not under my list of questions to ask, but then she gave me that opening.
When will you be issuing or tabling Government of Nunavut letters of expectation to the Members of the Legislative Assembly for our consideration or oversight?
I reviewed the draft yesterday.
So hopefully before the end of this month I will be releasing that information.
He is finished.
We are in (interpretation ends) Finance.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $2,993,000, do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): You agreed.
Turn to C-6.
Finance Branch Summary.
In the bullet here it says that it manages the territorial tax system.
There was a tax break announced in 2002.
I am wondering if the minister could update us on whether the tax break actually resulted in any benefits for Nunavut, or if you have measured the impacts of the tax break.
The information I have on that is that there’s more businesses that have been completing their returns in the territory on that tax break.
Does the Department of Finance have a mechanism in place to measure the impacts of tax decreases?
There’s a delay in the allocation by two years.
So, it just starts to show up, the tax break of 2002.
On page C-14 of the department’s business plan, there’s a mention of a new capital planning process that was presented to the Financial Management Board for consideration.
Could the minister explain what specific change to the Government of Nunavut’s current capital planning process would be proposed?
The capital planning process is still in the works, but one of the changes that we are dealing with here is to have more consultation and input from municipalities, but the planning process has not been finalized, and we are looking at consultation sometime before we finalize this, I will be talking to each member about it.
So there’s really been no specific area that we have put forth as recommendation to changes; that we are also working with the Community and Government Services in that process in trying to improve proper planning for hamlets as an example that’s forward looking.
That is still in the works, it’s nothing finalized at this point, so I can’t speak to any specific change as yet because it is still in the development stage.
I’d like to thank the minister for that.
Could the minister give us a more specific time line for the changes.
When will consultations begin with in the hamlets and regular members, when might we expect to have some input?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Some time over the summer or early fall.
Yesterday in our opening comments, we talked about the growth of the public service.
It is over 3000, I have the paper in front of me here.
There are over 3000 people in the public services now, Government of Nunavut public service.
I’m wondering if the minister could comment on what she thinks about the surging growth in the public service and how it could potentially affect our economic situation in the future.
The opening remarks from Mr. Peterson yesterday, made the observation that since 1999, there has been a huge increase in the public service.
I think with the creation of Nunavut, and the establishment at headquarters operations in Nunavut, particularly in Iqaluit area, there is that expectation that the public service in Nunavut would grow.
Those positions, in the past, were out of Yellowknife, so there is an expectation from 1999 that we would eventually have a public service of more than 10 people when we started in OIC, so I think generally that is being the trend in Nunavut.
An increase in the population, such as teachers, students in schools, so there’s an increase in PY’s that way, in management positions, of course, because those management positions were in Yellowknife in the past.
To comment on the impact of continuous growth, of course we have to monitor every department’s activities.
Each department has a target to work with, and manage their salary dollars and their PY’s and O&M’s, so we have to just basically monitor on a regular basis, the growth.
One of the other things that we are doing with the Department of Finance and Human Resources is that we’re looking at reviewing the process of establishing positions with the government, how that process is done.
With the new system that we also have in place that will be launched, P2K.
There will be a better tracking system of the actual positions in the system.
Budgeted positions and processing pays on approved positions.
So, there is that management aspect that’s also being worked on to monitor the growth of the public service more closely.
I’m just thinking back to the days when we were part of the Government of the Northwest Territories, prior to 1999.
That government had significant growth, and it seemed like every three or four years they were stretched to the seams.