EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
This is only a recommendation and I’m well aware that the cabinet, for example, if we make a recommendation in the house, it’s up to the government.
We don’t know whether this recommendation, this motion, as amended will be followed through by the government.
It is not a binding agreement.
When is a recommendation ever a binding agreement?
We want things to be done by the summer but what we’re saying now is we’re just going to be coordinating with Shell Canada.
Are you going to be delivering a compensation program or is this going to be an ongoing dialogue between the government and Shell Canada.
In the communities, the people don’t know where they will be getting money from and the main question is since we got tainted gasoline and broke our engines, we should therefore be compensated.
Shell Canada has stated that they’re going to be giving vouchers but I would like to see the government make a comment as such so that they can be compensated for the full year.
There has been damage done to motors and I appreciate the fact that the government is going to do something about it.
I think with the amendment, I am more in agreement with introducing the words Shell Canada.
I think all along that the Government of Nunavut has stated to this House that they recognize there is a problem with gasoline and the Minister Responsible for Petroleum has provided an update and progress report to this house and recognizes that there are issues there that need to be addressed.
At the same time, acknowledging that, the Minister also states that he continues to work with Shell Canada to address the matter that we’re dealing with as it relates to the concerns raised by Member Tagak Curley.
Basically what I see by this motion is the work that’s been done already and the introduction of this motion today basically is the work that has been done and it has been stated in the house on numerous occasions that this is what we’re doing.
The motion states that but as I originally stated, I found it a bit restricting in that it didn’t make any reference to Shell Canada, the provider of the gasoline.
So, I’m in agreement with the wording changing to coordinate with Shell Canada to come forward and I think it should also be recognized that the Minister Responsible has stated in the house this week that he would produce the final report of the findings again.
This really is what has been stated in the house by the Member, by the government and I support that we need to continue working with that and we acknowledge that; having said that, I’m in support of the wording change.
I too found the first one a little restricting, like Mr. Peterson, having some concerns with not having Shell Canada in the original motion.
Now that it’s in there, it’s better.
It shows that they have acknowledged that there was a problem with the gasoline that was provided in certain areas in Nunavut.
That was causing problems to people’s outboard motors and snow mobiles, and so on.
I think the important thing to hear, to reiterate to everybody listening as the mover, Mr. Curley, has mentioned this is just a recommendation.
This doesn’t mean that for sure there is going to be compensation package out there for the people that suffered losses as a result of the bad gasoline.
I think by moving this motion, we all support the idea of coming up with a compensation program for those individuals but this motion doesn’t mean that there will be one.
I want to make sure that that is very clear to Nunavummiut that we support the idea, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, of a compensation package.
As the Minister indicated they are in negotiations with Shell Canada for something like that.
I think that is very important that people see this motion that we’re going to get compensated.
That is something that is under negotiations right now.
I believe this motion, as the Minister of Finance indicated, identifies work that is already in progress, in place, but I think the one thing that does add to it, hopefully will help the government-side of the negotiation table is that they are getting pressured now to come up with something by this summer.
Hopefully that will help them to expedite the process with Shell Canada to come up with what they think is an adequate compensation package for Nunavummiut that have suffered losses as a result of this.
I do look forward to hearing the final results of the report and the negotiations, if and when they do conclude.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. To the motion.
Just to make another brief comment.
I would like the people to know, and the people who used the tainted gasoline, what we call the government are the Premier and the Cabinet members.
They are the ones who can make the decision of whether you are going to get compensated for your losses.
The regular Member cannot tell the government to pay compensation.
With this motion, it states that it would be nice if the government would get a compensation program by the summer.
If Shell does not agree to the negotiations and if they don’t want to help the government, then what is going to happen?
There is a possibility that there might be no compensation program for Nunavut residents.
I support the motion.
Speaker (interpretation): Question has been called.
All in favour, please raise your hands. All those against.
Proceed to the Orders of the Day.
Consideration in the Committee of the Whole of Bills and other matters: Bill 16; Bill 17; and Bill18, with Mr. Netser at the chair.
In accordance with the authority vested to me by Motion 3-2(2), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.  >>House recessed at 16:40 and Committee resumed at 16:41
The items before us are Bill 16, Bill 17 and Bill 15.
We wish to commence the review of the following bills in this order:
Bill 15.
Does the committee agree that we will follow Mr. Peterson’s suggestion?
Chairman (interpretation): We’ll deal with Bill 17 first.
Do you have any comments, Minister Aglukkaq, if you can make them brief?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, nice and short.
I’m pleased to appear before the Committee today to speak to Bill 17 and 16. Bill 16 is the 2005-06 Supplementary Appropriation for Capital, No. 1.
The supplementary appropriation will provide funding of $1.84 million for the following capital projects: Baffin Correctional Centre, Human Rights Tribunal office, Jet A-1 bulk fuel storage facility.
Bill 17 is the 2005-06 Supplementary Appropriation for Operations and Maintenance, No. 1.
The supplementary appropriation will provide funding of $6.524 million for such items as the following: Impact of power rate increases; community-based research of search and rescue; field officer training program; compensation and grants to hunters and trappers.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions and invite my staff to the witness table.
Do any Members have any general comments pertaining to Bill 17?
Please proceed to the witness table with your staff, Ms. Aglukkaq.
For the record, Ms. Aglukkaq, could you introduce your staff?
To my left is Paul Reddy, Director of Expenditure Management.
To my right is Paul Suvega, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance.
We are dealing with Bill 17.
(Interpretation ends) We’re on page 4, 2005-06 Supplementary Appropriation, (Operations and Maintenance) No. 1, Finance, branch, not previously authorized.
Centrally Administered Funds, $733 thousand.
I’m just wondering if, for the record, if this increase in funding for the program just deals with announced rate increases as of April 1st for the power, or does it include any of the additional costs that will be coming forward in the riders, that will be announced pretty soon.
That increase only deals with the rate increases.
So then one would assume that once the riders kick into place that we’ll be seeing an additional supplementary appropriation bill to cover off what’s being asked for in those areas.
I’m assuming the Member is referring to the next steps in dealing with the power issue and not the capital rider.
The capital rider process has not been initiated or has come forward for any review to the Utility Rate Review Council at this point in time. The information that is outlined in the operations and maintenance supplementary bill strictly deals with the rate increases that were introduced and approved by this house April 1, 2005.
I realize that the Capital Stabilization Rider and the Fuel Stabilization Rider are going to be coming forward.
My question was, if those are not included in this, then, once those do come into play, will we be seeing a supplementary appropriation to cover off those as well.
That process hasn’t started yet so I can’t anticipate what the results will be.
I can speak to what I do know right now and what I do know right now is that the Qulliq Energy Corporation will be going forward with a capital rider to the Utility Rate Review Council and once that process is completed and dealt with, it will be presented to cabinet and Financial Management Board.
At this point in time I can only speculate the outcome and I would rather have the information in front of me after that work has been done to comment on the Member’s question.
Are you finished Mr. Tootoo.
I have no more names on my list, other than Mr. Tootoo.
We’re on centrally administered funds. $733 thousand.
Chairman (interpretation): $733 thousand.
Go to page 5.
Justice, not previously authorized.
Total Human Rights Tribunal, negative $315 thousand. Agreed?
Total Department. Negative $315 thousand.
Education Branch.
Total Directorate. $100 thousand.
Chairman (interpretation): Adult Learning and Post-secondary Services.
Total Adult Learning and Post-Secondary Services. $119 thousand.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department $219 thousand.
Go to page 7.
Health and Social Services. Branch.
Total Healthy Children and Families and Communities. Negative $100 thousand.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department.
Negative $100 thousand.
Environment. Branch.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here there is one under Corporate Management, there is; to provide funding of $90 thousand for travel costs applicable to the Inuit Field Officer Training Program.
Usually supplementary appropriations are for something that is new and a program like this, is it something new that has come up.
Why is it in here and not in the original budget?
The Field Officer Training Program exists and is currently in the main estimates for the Department of Environment.
Knowing that it’s in there, how come they need a supplementary appropriation?
As Members recall during the debate for the Department of Environment’s budget, there was a deletion of $150 thousand from the Corporate Services travel budget.
That $150 thousand in the breakdown from the corporate management budget for Department of Environment was for the trainee positions within the Department of Environment.
After the deletion was put forward, there was a recommendation made in this House to transfer that funding, the entire $150 Thousand that was set aside for the trainees, to a new program called the Hunters’ and Trappers’ Equipment Loss program, which is the item below.
Based on that recommendation, we have put forward a supplementary bill to include $90 thousand back into the travel file for the trainee positions with Environment, and put the remaining amount of $60 thousand to the suggested equipment loss program.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Ms. Aglukkaq, Mr. Tootoo.
I want to clarify something for the record here, and quote from the March 21st, 2005 hansard, where the motion I moved to deduct $150 thousand from the 2005/06 main estimates for the Department of Environment travel and transportation division under corporate management.
It doesn’t say anything about Inuit field officer training travel budget of $150,000.
The department had their travel and transportation budget, prior to the deletion was $479,000.
I’d like to find out how they determined that there was that program that they were going to cut $150,000 from.
The information that I have in front of me in the discussions; there was some discussions in the House, in the hansard of March 21st stating that this was, I’m on page 67 March 21st, states that this budget is broken down in terms of training and development for officers, and it’s in the corporate management budget.
The budget of the corporate services was $400 thousand.
The breakdown of the $400 thousand in the department’s corporate management section in the main estimates identified travel and transportation of the amount of $479 thousand.
The deletion from motion in the house was a $150 thousand.
The breakdown of the travel and transportation, the closest amount to that $150 thousand in that $479 thousand, $180 thousand is the closest amount to the $150 thousand being deducted.
That was under Human Resource and Organizational Development section of corporate services.
Human Resource and Organizational Development section is responsible for the Wildlife Officer trainees.
The $150 thousand as proposed reduction in the budget was strictly tied to the closest amount of $180 thousand, within the breakdown of that $479 thousand.
So it sounds like it was whose the closest and who’s not here, instead of trimming a little bit here and there from everybody, we’ll just cut this whole program that affects all the trainees and all the communities, is that my understanding, just based on numbers, they didn’t look at, I know the Minister of Finance cannot answer it.
I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for the Environment.
How did they prioritize this, just automatically look, ok, there’s a close number, let’s get rid of that and that will cover it off.
How do they prioritize who they are going to re-jig their travel and transportation budget based on that deletion?
Mr. Akesuk the question was directed to you.
As I stated and as I keep continually stating because I opposed the motion, staffs have to travel within a fiscal year.
Our colleagues make recommendations and they re-use that corporate travel because it is the closest to our Field Officer Training Program.
Everything has been written down.
All the transportation details have been written down by our officials.
When there was a cut there are Inuit Field Officer Training Program twice a year where all the renewable resources get together.
It seemed like it was best to delete some funding from that.
That is why we had amended it that way.
To clarify further the Disaster Compensation proposed increase, we don’t have a policy towards that.
It was best for this to be set into this one.
For the record I think the Minister is stating and I quoted the motion; just take $150,000 out of that $479,000.
The Minister just stating that it was in fact he, the Minister, that signed off on cutting off the $150,000 out of the training program for wildlife officers.
Is that for the record?
You asked Mr. Akesuk?
Yes, it was the best way to set it that way.
That is how it is currently.
How did you determine that that was the best way?
What other categories fall under that $479,000?
Maybe if I could get a breakdown of exactly what that $479,000 covers off.
I think that would be a little helpful.
Ms. Aglukkaq has her hand raised.
The breakdown of the $479,000 is as follows: $60,000 to the Deputy Ministers office; $80,000 on the program development; $35,000; Corporate Service management $20,000; Financial services $10,000; Human resource and organizational development $180,000; Field officer training program $50,000; Baffin corporate services $5,000; Kivalliq $6,000; Kitikmeot $6,000; Policy and planning legislation management $20,000; Legislation and enforcement $34,000; Regulations $18,000; Wildlife regulations section $35,000.
So that totals up to $479,000 and the training area under Human Resources and Field Officers represent $230,000 of that $479,000.
I couldn’t write that fast, could we possibly get a copy of that, please?
Chairman (interpretation): Can you give a copy to Mr. Tootoo.
Do you have any more Mr. Tootoo?
Mr. Tootoo: Could someone get me a copy right away?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It will not be translated if the Member wants a copy right now.
Mr. Tootoo: That’s fine Mr. Chairman.
I’ll take it in just the one language.
I just wanted to see the list and where we’re going to redirect things.
There is nothing in here, you have $50 thousand for the Deputy Ministers.
Under the directorate there is no Minister travel budget in there.
The department has no funds for the Minister to travel.
Chairman (interpretation): He said he had no trouble getting the copy of your statement.
It doesn’t have to be translated into Inuktitut.
You can give it to him right away while we review the details.
I will provide a copy of it.
I have to send my staff upstairs to photocopy the document that is not translated with the House.
I have no problems with that.
The Department of Environment Corporate Services budget does not include the Minister’s budget.
That is handled through the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
The Members of Legislative Assembly budgets are handled through the Legislative Assembly budget.
So, there is that separation between the Minister’s office or the Members of the Legislative Assembly budgets.
I hope that clarifies the question.
I remember the debate around that and I think that the mover would probably agree with me as well as some of the other people that spoke to the motion.
The intent of the motion was cut the travel budget for some of the senior officials from traveling around for what ever purpose.
I just find it appalling that the department turned around and cut the one program that affected Inuit in communities on that and now they’re coming back and asking us for money again for it.
How can you say no to that?
That is almost what it looks like.
I am simply appalled of that.
I have heard from employees of the Department of Environment that were asking about travel and were told that there were Members of the Legislative Assembly that cut their budget.
That’s why I wanted to make it very clear that the Members of the Legislative Assembly did not cut that program.
It was the Minister and his staff and the senior, who ever is sitting in the fourth floor here or wherever their office is in the Brown Building that made that decision.
It wasn’t the Members of the Legislative Assembly.
We just asked them to cut $150 thousand out of a $479 thousand budget.
They decided to cut the Inuit Field Officer Training Program.
That is almost pathetic and shameful.
With that Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a motion.
Chairman (interpretation): I am not Mr. Speaker, I am Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tootoo, you want to make a motion.
I think I would like to respond to that comment.
I think the records show very clearly in the Hansard for March 31st.
I have about 10 pages of it here where the Minister did state, as well as his officials, the impact that reduction of $150 thousand would have on the travel for the training positions.
If you look on page 57 of the Hansard, the officials basically said that the training budget is a new allocation for the Field Officer Training Program and that the travel was for that.
The Minister also goes further to say that it will have a negative impact to the Wildlife Officers Training Program and the Member himself can see to those motions but the March 21 Hansard is very clear in that information was shared with this house outlining the impact the reduction would have.
The recommendation and the motion in the House to reduce $150 thousand didn’t say: ‘take it out of senior officials’ travel, take it out of that’.
What was stated was: ‘$150 thousand be reduced and removed from the Corporate Services.’
So the $150 thousand in the breakdown of the $479 thousand, the closest amount was $180 thousand, which I read out in the House as a breakdown of the budget was in the Human Resources Development Division section and that was where the reduction came despite the fact that the Minister himself has stated in the House on numerous occasions on that day, and I have the Hansards here to confirm that the negative impact that would have on the training program.
So this is not something new and this is not something that was presented to the House.
We took that recommendation and we left the recommendations of this House halfway through.
We took the recommendation and its previous recommendation earlier on in the House, the Member Tagak Curley says in the motion he introduced earlier: ‘the government is not binding, it’s a recommendation.’
So we used the recommendation, we met the Member halfway through in the recommendation to continue on with the Inuit Training Program.
We allocated $90 thousand, also recognizing the Members had some interest in to activate the Hunters’ Support Program.
We sat down and introduced the $60 thousand to keep the two processes rolling, and I think that was a fair compromise based on the overall reduction that was made in this House to the Department of Environment Corporate Services’ budget.
Just first off, you know your officials have that list; I would like to see that list before I make my motion.
And I also want to, in response to the Minister’s comments, I am sure if you ask the wildlife officers they would have found somewhere else to cut the $150 thousand from.
I am sure they probably would have: ‘Well, how can we share this so that it impacts everyone the least?’
instead of someone sitting here in Iqaluit deciding: ‘We are not going to cut our travel budgets.’
Wasn’t the Deputy Minister or Financial Services or the Corporate Services Management people here in Headquarters saying: ‘Oh, no.
We can’t cut anything out of our budget; let’s cut the poor Inuit’s Field Officers’ Training Program, they are not here to defend themselves.’
So I just find it appalling that that’s what the department did.
You can hide behind and say whatever you want for what was said.
Nowhere in the motion does it say to take it from there, and it’s only the Minister and yourself now saying that this is what they said they were going to cut.
It’s like they were threatening, they were going to cut this if you guys cut that.
We never said cut that and we never said to cut the Inuit Field Officer Training Program.
It was a decision of the Minister to do that.
For all we knew, we didn’t have this list and maybe it’s a good idea for the record to get a list like this when we do get the main estimates, and then we will know what we are talking about because when I assume that it’s a Corporate or Directorate travel and transportation is for Headquarters, and that was, in my mind, the intent behind that motion and that’s where the money was supposed to come from; not from the wildlife officers.
Committee Motion 010 – 2(2): Funding for the Inuit Field Officer Training Program and Disaster Compensation for Hunters and Trappers
I move that this Committee recommend that the Department restore full funding for the Inuit Field Officer Training Program by reallocating resources within the existing travel and transportation budget of the Corporate Management Branch of the Department; and that the Government bring forward a Supplementary Appropriation Act in the 3rd Session of the 2nd Legislative Assembly to increase the total funding available for disaster compensation grants for hunters and trappers to $150,000.00
Mr. Chairman, the motion that I would like to make would be that this Committee recommend that the department restore full funding for the Inuit Field Officer Training Program by reallocating resources from within its existing travel and transportation budget of the Corporate Management Branch of the department and that the government bring forward a Supplementary Appropriation Act in the Third Session of the Second Assembly to increase the total funding to the disaster compensation grants for hunters and trappers to $150 thousand.
I think what that shows, as regular Members of this assembly, that we fully support this Inuit Field Officers Training Program.
Despite what some of them were told. It wasn’t us that cut their budget.