EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Komoartok. (interpretation ends) Replies to Opening Address.
Petition 005 – 3(2): Petition to Hold a Public Inquiry into the Wisdom of Allowing Uranium Mining in Nunavut (Elliott)
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the honour today of presenting a petition that has been signed by approximately 46 Nunavummiut from the community of Grise Fiord.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Elliott.
Committee Report on Bills 011 – 3(2): Bill 15, Legal Treatment of Apologies Act (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Standing Committee on Legislation has reviewed Bill 15, the Legal Treatment of Apologies Act, and I would like to inform the House that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to wave Rule 68(6) and have Bill 15 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is requesting to wave Rule 68(6) so that Bill 15 can proceed immediately to the Committee of the Whole.
There are none. Bill 15 is immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 012 – 3(2): Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act (Okalik)
You are ahead of yourself for once and that is a good thing.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to report that Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 16 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Okalik. I think you have misheard me.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to wave Rule 68(6) so that Bill 16 can proceed immediately to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 16 is immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 013 – 3(2): Bill 17, Justice Statutes Amendment Act (Okalik)
I wish to report that Bill 17, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill, as amended and reprinted, is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 17 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is requesting to waive Rule 68(6) so that Bill 17 can proceed immediately to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 17 is immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 014 – 3(2): Bill 26, Securities Transfer Act (Okalik)
I wish to report that Bill 26, Securities Transfer Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 26 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is requesting to waive Rule 68(6) so that Bill 26 can proceed immediately to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 26 is immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 015 – 3(2): Bill 32, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010 (Okalik)
I wish to report that Bill 32, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
(interpretation) Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 32 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is requesting to waive Rule 68(6) so that Bill 32 can proceed immediately to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 32 is immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Tabled Document 171 – 3(2): Dry Cargo Resupply Program Activity Summary – Shipping Year 2009 (Kusugak)
I am pleased to table the following document: Dry Cargo Resupply Program Activity Summary – Shipping Year 2009.
Tabling of Documents. (interpretation ends) Hon. Tagak Curley.
Tabled Document 172 – 3(2): Knowledge Sharing Forum: A Review of Child Welfare Practices in Nunavut, December 15 to 17, 2009, Final Report 2010 (Curley)
I would like to table the following document: Knowledge Sharing Forum: A Review of Child Welfare Practices in Nunavut, December 15 to 17, 2009, Final Report 2010.
Tabled Document 173 – 3(2): Nunavut Outfitter Liability Protection Fund Annual Report, 2009-2010 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 174 – 3(2): Final Report: A Training and Development Perspective – A New Reality: Financial Operations in the Government of Nunavut (Peterson)
I have two documents that I would like to table.
I would like to table the following document: Nunavut Outfitter Liability Protection Fund Annual Report, 2009-2010.
The second document: Final Report: A Training and Development Perspective – A New Reality: Financial Operations in the Government of Nunavut.
Tabled Document 175 – 3(2): Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund (Shewchuk)
I would like to table the following document: Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund.
Bills 15, 16, 17, 20, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 36, and Tabled Documents 13 – 3(2), 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(3), and 100 – 3(2) with Mr. Ningeongan in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:01 and Committee resumed at 15:35
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 15, 16, 17, 20, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 36, and Tabled Documents 13 –3(2), 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2).
We wish to continue with the review of the following supplementary appropriation bills: Bill 28, Bill 30, Bill 31, and Bill 29.
If time permits, we will proceed with the following bills as per our sessional work plan: Bill 20 and Bill 32, and then report progress.
Are we in agreement to continue with Bill 28?
Does the Committee of the Whole agree that Mr. Peterson and his officials can go to the witness table?
For the record, Minister Peterson, could you please introduce your witnesses.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members.
To my right is Peter Ma, the Deputy Minister of Finance, and to my left is Jeff Chown, Director of Expenditure Management.
Members, yesterday, we were on page 15 of the Economic Development and Transportation.
Capital. Not Previously Authorized. Transportation.
Are there any questions on page 15?
An Hon. Member: No.
We will move on to page 16 then. Total Transportation. $13,948,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $13,948,000.
Chairman: We will go to page 2. Schedule 1.
Capital. Capital Appropriation. $109,118,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Go to Bill 28 in your white legislation binders, please.
Bill 28, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011.
Go to Schedule on page… there is no page number. Agreed?
Chairman: This is in regard to Schedule. Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2011.
Vote 2: Capital. Total Capital. $109,418,000.
Total Supplementary Appropriation. $109,418,000.
Chairman: We will go back to the previous page.
Under the Schedule that you had read, I have different numbers. Could you re-read the Total Capital and Total Supplementary Appropriation?
I have $109,418,000. 118?
I have 418 here.
Total Capital. $109,118,000.
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriation. $109,118,000. Agreed?
Chairman: We can go back to the previous page.
This time, clause 3. Agreed?
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 28 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 66(2) that Bill 28 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Peterson, do you have closing comments?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank yourself and the members for asking good questions on Bill 28.
I look forward to further questions on the next few bills.
I would like to ask Minister Peterson of the Department of Finance to make his opening remarks in regard to Bill 30.
Bill 30 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011 – Consideration in Committee
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Members.
Bill 30, Supplementary Appropriation (O&M) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011, will appropriate $3,623,000 in additional operations and maintenance monies for 2010-11. These items include:
$2,732,000 for the Department of Finance to provide a contribution to the Qulliq Energy Corporation to reduce an anticipated deficit in the Fuel Stabilization Fund;
$500,000 to the Department of Environment as a base adjustment for 2010-11 to fund the cost of operating the Fur Pricing Program;
$184,000 to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to continue the mine training projects and the socio-economic monitoring committees under the Community Development Trust Fund; and
$207,000 to the Nunavut Housing Corporation, which includes $132,000 to fund an indeterminate policy position to administer the Government of Nunavut’s homelessness portfolio and $75,000 to fund additional lease costs for three additional staff housing units in Kugaaruk.
To my right is Deputy Minister Peter Ma and to my left is Jeff Chown, Director of Expenditure Management.
I don’t have any general comments, but I would like to go back to your opening comments.
In the last paragraph, I did not understand the background as you stated that there is “$75,000 to fund additional lease costs for three additional staff housing units in Kugaaruk.”
I understand that this is $25,000 per staff housing unit in Kugaaruk.
For those of us who live in staff housing, we pay for the rent to the government.
Seventy-five thousand dollars seems to be a bit much. They have a housing subsidy and the staff get their pay deducted to pay for rent. The portion the tenant pays and then the government portion totals $75,000 for these staff housing units.
What is the total amount per annum for these three units?
According to our information, in Kugaaruk, the Housing Corporation will lease three GN staff housing units to support the Department of Education from the Koomiut Co-op and they’re available for a lease at a rate of $2,000 per month per unit plus utilities, and then the tenants would be charged some rent to offset the cost.
So $75,000, you feel, is pretty accurate as per your arrangement with the co-op and the housing association.
It seems to be fairly high. If its $2,000 times 12 months, its $24,000 and yes, it’s pretty close to it.
However, that doesn’t give room or at least information on how much you will be charging the tenants.
So the revenue part from the tenant to your general revenue doesn’t show what the real cost to the government is.
I guess what I’m saying is that you’re not going to pay $75,000 and not get anything back, but your net payment probably would be a lot less than that because the tenant or the staff is going to be paying the rent anyways.
Can you give me a clearer picture than that?
I’m not sure if I can give a clearer picture.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation will be charged $2,000 per month per year and then there will be a utilities cost on top of that and the tenants will be charged some rent to offset that cost.
I don’t have the details up here in front of me, but that would be in line with the way the Government of Nunavut provides housing to Government of Nunavut employees.
No, I know that.
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t want to tell my people and say, “Here is what it costs the government to rent from the private…” $75,000 is what the government pays because they don’t.
In reality, you get most of that back by charging rent to individual staff members.
There is no way to give us a true cost to the government information other than saying, “Here is what we have to pay through private deals,” as if it looks like you are paying the whole $75,000. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand what Mr. Arvaluk is asking.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation would be leasing a total of $75,000, but that is not the rent that would be charged to teachers.
I don’t know what the subsidized rent level is for teachers or the type of housing in Kugaaruk, but certainly, they’re not going to be paying the full rent if they qualify for some subsidized rental.
There is a housing shortage is Kugaaruk and if the Nunavut Housing Corporation does secure these units, then the Department of Education won’t have housing to hire teachers and that will put the Department of Education in a serious situation.
I want to assure the member that the housing will be provided to the teachers using the method that housing is provided to Government of Nunavut employees.
I don’t know what level of rent they are charged in the communities, but it would be fair and equitable.
We can certainly work out the details for the member if he wishes and provide that to him.
Mr. Arvaluk: Yes, I suppose. I think that is an accounting term more than anything else.
If whoever you are renting the staff housing from will charge you $2,000, as you say, for example, and you charge your staff about $1,300 to $1,500 a month on average, then what you really need here is $500 a month times three.
That’s $1,500 times 12. I don’t have a calculator. You know what I mean.
This is what you need, not the $75,000.
There is no way that we can figure out exactly what you really need because that’s not how your budgeting system works.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Arvaluk for that comment.
While Mr. Arvaluk was speaking, I was getting some financial information.
I can read this into the record if the members would like me to, Mr. Chairman.
The expected lease rate based on similar lease acquisitions is approximately $2,500 per month per unit.
To lease three units $2,500 a month per month times 60 months would equal $450,000. Based on unit size, the approximate amount of rent to be collected each month would be $1,350.
Therefore, revenues to the GN over five years would be equal to three units at $1,350 times 60 months, which would equal $243,000.
The total monies per year of $90,000 for five years would be required.
Once all rents for these were received, $48,600 and the net cost to the GN per year would amount to $41,400. So the net revenue collected by the government would be $41,400 and then the overage would go to general revenue.
We had to appropriate $75,000 to expenditures for the Nunavut Housing Corporation and the difference we collect from employees would go into our general revenues.
So it works out in the end.
Going back to the minister’s opening comments, you stated that $184,000 will be appropriated to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation for mine training projects.
Exactly what are those monies going to be used for?
I thank Mr. Okalik.
The $184,000 would be used to continue the mine training projects and socio-economic monitoring committees under the Community Development Trust.
I believe some of them are in Baker Lake.
I seem to recall that we can come to an agreement with the mining companies because we could decrease or subsidize their fuel instead of taxing them and in return, the mining companies would train community members.
It seems like we are paying twice through the loss of the tax revenue and then over and above that, we provide monies to continue mine training projects.
Through an agreement, the mining companies have a responsibility to provide monies and training to the people who they are servicing.
I want to ask why this is set up like that.
I believe he is referring to the development partnership agreements.
I know that there are a number of agreements with mining companies; one through the land claims, the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement and through the Government of Nunavut, the development partnership agreement.
The mines are required, depending on what is negotiated and what are in the agreements, to provide some training, employment, contracting and sub-contracting opportunities to the local community and the region.
I know that particular mining company does receive a fairly large fuel tax rebate and the fuel tax rebate is an incentive to provide lots of employment to the local community and the region.
If you want additional details, I would recommend that you ask the Minister responsible for Economic Development and Transportation.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister.
Yes, I would like further information because the mining companies are given a fuel tax rebate in order to provide some incentives. So it seems like this government is paying twice to continue this program. Exactly what are we paying for?
Are we paying double the monies?
There was a DPA agreement signed in February of 2007 with the Meadowbank Company, at that time, with Cumberland Resources, and the company was taken over by Agnico-Eagle.
The agreement is based on whatever benefits that the affected communities can get.
Of course, there is always training involved. His first question was about mine training.
Of course, we do have that.
We have the mine training round table that’s pan-territorial, with INAC, Arctic College, and the three regional organizations, including NTI.
We intend to make that into a mine training society, where we can actually benefit and access more money from the Department of Human Resources down in Ottawa for skills and development for our people in Nunavut.
On the DPA side, in order for the company to qualify for the fuel tax rebate, the department, with the help of various other departments, like Finance, Health, Education, Culture, Language, Elders and Youth, and CGS, we negotiate a DPA.
We look for ways to benefit the community, whether it’s within infrastructure. Of course, these are ongoing.
The only DPA we have at this time is with Agnico-Eagle.
We were told that this $184,000 is going to be further support for Agnico-Eagle and there is a development partnership agreement with the same company for them to train Inuit.
We saved them at least $3 million through the fuel tax rebate.
Why is it that this government is paying twice?
We are providing our own mine training projects which will benefit the mining companies when they should be the ones training the Inuit.
I would like to get detailed information on exactly what this $184,000 is going to be used for.
Is it a further contribution of this government, over and above what the mining companies are supposed to undertake?
I would like to correct myself. We do have another DPA with Baffinland Iron.
As of last year, this government rejected their application to have their fuel tax rebate returned to them.
It was a matter of getting the reporting on an annual basis. We do have deadlines, just like in everything else. They missed several deadlines.
For that reason, we never released the fuel tax rebate to Baffinland Iron.
For the mine training, there are a number of initiatives. We do have a lot of partners. As I mentioned, Agnico-Eagle Mines being one of them, the Kivalliq Mine Training Society, and with these bunch of individuals and companies that make up this mine training initiative.
For this year, 2010-11, the Kitikmeot Corporation is going to be training individuals in heavy equipment operating at the Hope Bay site.
Agnico-Eagle is going to be training a specialized mill helper and the Kivalliq Mine Training Society is going to help us establish a headquarters in the Kivalliq region.
With this society being set up, it will give us more access to federal funds for more training and skills development for our people.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister, Taptuna.
I apologize but I am not quite clear on what $184,000 is for based on his answer.
He just named a number of different bodies. Is this $184,000 going to be spent on these bodies?
What exactly is this $184,000 going to be spent on?
I don’t have those numbers in front of me, but a portion of that is going to be used for the three regional socio-economic monitoring committees that we have.
These are chaired by our regional directors and what they do is they go into communities and evaluate/assess information from the community members on what the benefits and the social impacts are for the mine.
Using that information, we use that data to negotiate for the department and the Government of Nunavut. We negotiate that development partnership agreement using that information.
I don’t mind that at all because we have to be prepared at the community level and I am happy to see that.
However, I don’t want to be paying double to those companies, especially in the financial restraint era, since it is also their responsibility to provide training and to provide opportunities for the communities.
That is why I asked that question.
If they are just using this to make preparations, then let them proceed as it will allow them to proceed near the communities.
I know that there will be benefits arising from that, but I wish to receive detailed information to make sure that we are not paying double for those types of projects.
Minister Taptuna, I did not hear a question, but you may want to respond to him.
I will try to get all of the information pertaining to the mine training round table that is led by the department.
Also, whatever information that is not confidential under the development partnership agreement, I will be willing to commit to getting it to the members here for their information.
The $207,000 to the Nunavut Housing Corporation which includes $132,000 to fund the indeterminate policy position to administer the Government of Nunavut’s homelessness portfolio.
As everybody knows in Nunavut, this time of the year, a lot of young men, fathers who are kicked out of homes due to family violence, usually end up in camps or shacks.
I would like to know if this policy position is going to give the housing authorities in local communities some kind of policy in place for homelessness.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Ugyuk.
I thank Ms. Ugyuk for that very good question.
I remember asking a lot of questions on homelessness in the Second Assembly. It is a critical issue across Nunavut.
The government continues to recognize this.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation is moving to establish a secretariat. I believe the Minister for Homelessness is here and he might be able to provide some more detailed information to the member.
Hon. Hunter Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Minister of Finance, and Ms. Ugyuk.
This position is something that this government brought forward and felt that it was important in the past, but the homelessness portfolio just went along with whoever the minister was at the time.
In the last Assembly, it was the Minister of Education who was the Minister responsible for Homelessness.
So it really didn’t have a home and it didn’t have a body.
There was just funding there to be provided to the existing shelters that are in place right now for their operations.
What we are trying to do is to establish a position so that we can fill it to have an individual who would be able to coordinate and develop these activities.
There has been work on developing a policy for funding shelters.
Also, we’re looking at being able to further develop just a general, overall homelessness policy for Nunavut, which is something that hasn’t been able to happen in the past because the only funding that has been there has just been provided to the existing shelters for their operations.
So this is going beyond that to try and identify policies and things in place to be able to address the homelessness situation not only where existing shelters are but throughout the rest of the territory.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): I am very pleased that the policy position is also included in here.
At least we will have a policy for Nunavut’s homelessness.
I know that in the Kitikmeot, people usually go to Yellowknife and they stay at the shelter there.
However, those of us in our communities should be responsible for the homeless people because they’re our people.
I didn’t hear a question. (interpretation) I think that your comment was understood.
In the minister’s opening comments, he said that his department would provide $2,732,000 to the Qulliq Energy Corporation to reduce the anticipated deficit in the Fuel Stabilization Fund.
What is the reason for the shortfall in the Fuel Stabilization Fund?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you.
Chairman: Mr. Arvaluk, do you have a Point of Order?
Mr. Arvaluk: I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, if it’s a Point of Order, but I need your guidance.
We were just reviewing the minister’s opening statements. Are we now in the page-by-page?