EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The department has looked at a number of different things that it could be doing. I believe the member had made mention in our business plan about shared services, so that’s the crux, I guess, of what we’re trying to do in terms of recentralizing financial processing operations.
There are other services that we’re looking at and we’ve had some discussions with other departments in that respect. We have started looking at other departments to possibly bring back into Finance. I think our experience in the past year has probably taught us that it’s easier maybe to deal with smaller departments and that’s likely what we would do next.
We’re also looking at some of the territorial corporations; there was discussion of centres of excellence. There are some territorial corporations where there is some commonality in terms of geography, so that’s also an area that we’re looking at. We hope that we can get to the next part of this quite soon in the next fiscal year.
I know the federal budget for 2007 indicated that there was, and I mentioned it in my opening comments, $23 million to help strengthen the financial management for the government.
I wonder if we can get an indication of this today: how much of that funding has actually been received and what specifically has it been spent on?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have Mr. Ma respond to that question.
At this point, we have not received any of the $23 million from the federal government but we have been in discussions with them to move this forward.
It’s our understanding, as of this week, that it will be going to the federal Cabinet.
With respect to where we’re going to spend it, part of the money will go towards improving our information technology infrastructure, part of it will go towards the public accounts, and lastly, part of it will also go towards our public accountability framework which, for an example, is the FAM directives that we’re working on.
Can the minister or his officials indicate why that money hasn’t flowed yet?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Ma will respond to that question.
We continue to work closely with our federal counterparts. When this was announced in the federal budget 2007 in February-March, the file was with Federal Finance. It subsequently got transferred to Indian and Northern Affairs and that didn’t happen until the fall, so we weren’t able have any discussions with our federal counterparts until that time.
I would say, since November through to now, we’ve had some fruitful discussions and the file is moving along.
Again, because of the transfer of the file from Federal Finance to INAC, I think that delayed things.
This division is also responsible for the Liquor Commission. I know in the business plan it states that how-to manuals for Alcohol Education Committees have been developed and that a workshop for committee members is being planned.
I’m just wondering if he can indicate when those workshops will be held and if those manuals will be tabled in the Assembly.
They already held a meeting, both in Iqaluit and Rankin.
The manuals are currently being worked on and our expectations are that we will table a report from the committee on the Nunavut Liquor Commission at the next sitting of the Legislative Assembly on what the committee works on, Mr. Chairman.
The business plan also states that one of the priorities for the 2008-09 fiscal year is to work with the Liquor Licensing Board and the Department of Justice “to develop a consultation plan for the review of the Liquor Act.”
When do you anticipate the bill being ready for introduction to the Legislative Assembly and what changes would you, as the minister responsible, like to see made to the Liquor Act?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk: I don’t foresee an introduction of this particular Act during this mandate, for sure, because there’s quite a bit of work that needs to be done in the consultation process.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the Act itself does require some serious thought because it is serving a dual purpose - one is the policing aspect of the liquor into the communities and the other one is to deal with addictions and trying to help individuals that may have some problems.
The mandate of the Alcohol Education Committee, that’s what it is: it’s an Education Committee.
We’ve had some discussions in that area. One is to recognize the fact that we are trying to put the controls in place so that alcohol abuse in the communities can be minimized through the committee. At the same time, the responsibility of these Alcohol Education Committees is to do just that: try to educate the public about the harm alcohol can do to others.
For that reason, we will have to define the Act in such a way that it addresses the issues. That will require quite a bit of consultation and of course, in the process, we’re also looking at possible alcohol treatment centres.
So that will all have to be considered. Like I said, I don’t foresee the introduction of this particular Act or a revision of this particular Act until our next mandate.
It’s good to hear the minister indicate something that seems to have been forgotten.
I think after a retreat in the past year, the Cabinet had directed the Department of Health to come up with a treatment facility in Nunavut, and we all know, as we’ve heard over the last few days, with the limited resources available to the government right now.
I’m just wondering if the minister would support an issue that has been raised here where having any revenues received from fines under the Liquor Act to go towards these committees for their operations and the operation of the alcohol treatment centre.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk: Yes, that’s one area that we’re looking at and in addition to that, we’re also looking at, in the Act, the possibility of giving larger fines for bootlegging and so forth.
We are looking at that very closely and it’s a huge issue that we will have to investigate.
I think the Alcohol Education Act is about 30 or 40 years old, so it’s outdated and we are quite anxious to have a look at it.
As I indicated in my opening comments, on June 2006, the Minister of Finance tabled the GN-wide annual report on grants and contributions made by all government departments during the previous fiscal year.
The GN has yet to table the annual reports for 2005-06 and 2006-07, so I’m just wondering when those annual reports on grants and contributions will be tabled.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): We will be tabling those annual reports at the May sitting, Mr. Chairman.
This division also looks after our tax system. I know in the past when amendments to the Income Tax Act had been made, there was a commitment by the previous minister to look at trying to find a way, again, as I mentioned in my opening comments, to capture...
The payroll tax doesn’t really capture all the money that’s made up here by people who are working up here but don’t live up here. The contractors and consultants get away with not having to worry about paying that versus those people who are actually on payroll that pay that.
I believe there was a commitment made to look at that, so I’m just wondering if I could get an update as to when we can expect to see something on that.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have Mr. Ma respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.
The department expects to be in a position soon to make some sort of recommendation. What we’re struggling with is if we impose some sort of tax on consultants, they simply pass on that tax to us in terms of the cost to the GN. So as a result of that, there would be no net benefit to us to go towards that.
We are examining the issue closely and we expect to have something that we can bring forward shortly.
The other commitment that was made to look at was adding another sin tax on of looking at a tax on junk food.
We know that if we put sin taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco because of the high cost that those products cost the government in health related costs down the road, or through our justice system and everything, there’s no secret that, I was hearing it on the radio today that because of junk food and that, the diseases related to that are much higher in the north than they are in a lot of other jurisdictions. So where are we at as far as looking at imposing or bringing forward a recommendation to address that issue?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk: The Department of Finance has examined the issue of the junk food tax and after carefully considering all aspects of using a blunt instrument like tax regimes to try to address health and social issues like this one, imposing a tax on junk food would not be in the best interest of Nunavummiut.
I think there was some research done… I’ll get Peter to explain further on that. I think it’s worth mentioning it to the members here that we found that it wasn’t all that great.
So if I can ask the Chair for Mr. Ma to expand on that further.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Ma.
As the minister said, the department gave careful consideration to junk food tax. In the end, the recommendation was not to go ahead with the junk food tax. Basically, there are other jurisdictions in other countries that have looked at a junk food tax and none of them have imposed a junk food tax.
The primary reason for not imposing a junk food tax is what we call the inelasticity of the net. So basically what that really means in economic terms is that no matter how much you increase the price of a particular product that people really want, they’re going to keep paying it. In our particular case in Nunavut, kids love pop and they love junk food, so even if a can of pop was $1.50 to $10, they would probably keep paying for it.
So that’s just not good because we’re actually taxing the people that can least afford it.
There are other ways, as the member has said, to deal with health care issues. We have a very successful campaign here that’s run by Health; I think it’s called ‘Drop the Pop.’
So it’s those kinds of initiatives that other people participate in, not just government but businesses participate in, I think are more effective in dealing with it.
I kind of don’t understand the rationale there; I think they’re saying, “Well, they’re going to keep buying it.” Why don’t they use that same argument on alcohol and tobacco?
The result is the same. People want it, they’re going to buy it and they do. If it goes up, then they’re buying less.
So I don’t understand that rationale. If it is not a good enough rationale to use for imposing alcohol and tobacco taxes, why is it a good enough rationale for junk food when, I would say, the treatment costs for health and justice issues and everything related to junk food are just soaring; they’re going through the roof?
And, that’s the whole idea of imposing those taxes on alcohol and tobacco is if we’re going to have to pay to look after these people, whether it’s through the legal system or through the health care system, then at least they’re contributing a little bit through the taxes to pay for those costs. Why is that a different rationale for junk food when the issues are exactly the same?
I concur with the member.
There is a cost to our health system, whether it’s tobacco, liquor, or junk food. Having said that, as I stated earlier, what we call the inelasticity, or in other words, the demand for pop or other junk food, is higher than it is for alcohol or tobacco.
Kids will continue to drink pop or eat junk food versus people that can choose to smoke or not smoke; it’s easier to give up alcohol or tobacco.
The other thing I didn’t point out earlier in our analysis for the junk food tax is that in order to set up a junk food tax, it would be a fair amount of work administratively, not to say it’s impossible but there is a fair amount of administrative work to do that.  So I don’t disagree with the member in terms of the health care costs; it’s just the demand for this particular product continues to be there no matter how much more you increase the tax.
So if I interpret that correctly then, if the demand for alcohol went a lot higher like that, too, then you would drop the tax from that, too. Is that basically what you’re saying?
It’s highly unlikely that we would drop the tax on alcohol, but if we raise the price of alcohol through taxes to a high enough level, people may not buy from us but they may go to other sources like bootleggers. In fact, they probably do that now because of the tax we impose.
I think if people went to the bootleggers now, their prices would be a heck of a lot more than what they would be paying at regular prices.
It’s almost like the government is saying, “Well, it’s an issue. It’s costing us lots of money to deal with it but we’re going to ignore it because too many people like it.” That attitude will never change unless something is done and that’s why governments across the country have imposed sin taxes to try and curb the use of alcohol and tobacco; to deter it.
And to say, “Well, it’s too much in demand, so we’re not going to bother,” why ignore the problem? If you want to ever get to that level for junk food, you’ve got to start somewhere. Why doesn’t this government want to make that part?
As I stated earlier, Nunavut is not the only jurisdiction that looked the issue of a junk food tax. Countries, internationally, have looked at this, provinces across Canada and states in the U.S. have also looked at this, and as I said earlier, none of them have imposed a junk food tax.
I don’t know how to quite put it, but yes, as I said earlier, we’re taxing the people that can at least afford it and Nunavut prides itself on having a progressive tax system and I think this would work contrary to that.
I share the member’s concern and I think, certainly, the government and the department shares his concern in terms of health care costs that we would eventually pick up.
Like I said earlier, there are more effective ways to deal with this, like the ‘Drop the Pop’ campaign, which I think, and I think the member would agree, has been a successful campaign.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ma. Thank you, Mr. Tootoo.
One of the responsibilities of your department, according to your business plan, is to monitor performance of the economy and provide the Government of Nunavut with an economic outlook for the territory and you mentioned that you tried to develop the semi-annual economic outlook but now, you’re going to an annual outlook because of the “unavailability of hard economic data.”
I wonder if the minister could explain why the hard economic data isn’t available for Nunavut for this economic outlook.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ma will respond to that question.
In order to do the economic outlook, we have to rely on other agencies that are outside of our government to get the information. Some of the agencies we rely upon are agencies like Statistics Canada and the Conference Board of Canada.
However, even though we have gone to an annual economic outlook, I think the quality of what we produced this year is significantly better than what it was in previous years.
I don’t know if members recall or not, but it was an appendix to the minister’s Budget Address and I think the work that was done by Finance and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation was pretty good. Obviously, there’s room for improvement but I think it is getting there.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ma. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Ma for that answer.
Could the minister or Mr. Ma explain to us: who would be the main users of the annual economic outlook?
I guess, as deputy for the department, I would hope everybody uses it.
Seriously speaking, hopefully people in government use it, industry, businesses, chambers of commerce, hopefully people that come up to invest in Nunavut look at it, and hopefully our federal counterparts look at it.
Basically anyone who has an interest in the economy of Nunavut, we would hope that they would get a good hard look at it and hope that that information is as useful to them as it is to us.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ma. Just before I get back to you, Mr. Peterson, we have no quorum here, so I’m going to ring the chime.
I would suggest to the members, before you leave, look around to see if we have quorum or not and if we have more than enough, then you can leave.
You say that you have to rely on outside sources for the data for the semi-annual is difficult but you’re able to prepare an annual report. Where do you collect the data for the annual report from?
Even though our department has the lead for developing the economic outlook, a lot of what we get could not have been possible without the help and assistance of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation; a majority of the information we compiled came from that department.
The other thing in Nunavut, because our economy is so small, it doesn’t really change that drastically. So even if we produce an economic outlook that’s annual in timeframe versus semi-annually, there isn’t really that much there to be gained in that respect.
Hopefully, as we go forward, we would go towards that semi-annual thing and we have lots to talk about.
I thank Mr. Ma for that answer.
I actually agree with you on that. Nunavut is small, so I was wondering why you would want to prepare it semi-annually. I do know that there are organizations and investors out there that, when they’re looking around for areas to invest for their companies, they do look for that kind of data, so it’s good that your department is preparing it with the support of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
Another question I have here is related to devolution. You indicated in your business plan that you have identified an employee, and you say, “... to be devoted...” I don’t know what that means, “... to be devoted to devolution-related duties.”
Perhaps you could expand on that a little bit what exactly the role is of the Department of Finance in devolution negotiations or negotiations that hopefully will begin in the near future.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Ma will answer that question.
My staff person better be devoted or I’m gonna have to... no I’m kidding. Seriously speaking, to answer the member’s question, I think we’re still getting used to it in the last week or two, from the Premier, but our role, in terms of the devolution discussions, is to provide financial assistance and support on what we call the financial table of the discussions.
Obviously, EIA has the lead role in terms of the overall discussions but Finance supports those devolution discussions through the financial side of it.
It’s our responsibility to look at the financial side of it to make sure the numbers make sense because we obviously want what we call a “net fiscal benefit” at the end of the day.
Our job in Finance is to ensure that any sort of projections going out into the future in terms of royalties or other benefits that could flow to the territory are looked at, analyzed, and that assumptions are reasonable. So basically, our main role is to play the financial forecasting role in the devolution discussions.
I thank Mr. Ma. So, Mr. Ma, what you’re saying is that that’s not a full-time job for that person; it’s just one of their tasks, perhaps maybe 25 percent of their duties.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Ma will respond to that.
At this point, it is pretty much 100 percent of their day.
I thank Mr. Ma. That’s interesting because I was under the understanding from discussions recently that negotiations haven’t actually started.
They’re in discussions to develop an agreement to set parameters for negotiations, so I’ll look forward to more information in the future from your department on that.
Also on the same page in the business plan, C-14, you mention training for liquor inspectors under the Liquor Act.
Exactly how many inspectors do you have in the Department of Finance?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I am told that there are about four or five inspectors, Mr. Chairman.
Where would the four inspectors be located?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): One is located in Rankin Inlet and the rest are in Iqaluit, Mr. Chairman.
Going back to the Mr. Ma’s earlier answer in response to the annual economic outlook, in our small jurisdiction, I would think that there wouldn’t be a lot of work for four liquor inspectors.
How many liquor outlets are there in Nunavut where a liquor inspector might be required to inspect?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Just a moment, we’re going to check into that.
At this time, while they’re checking, in regard to his question about the liquor inspectors, they are contracted. The liquor inspectors don’t work for us but they are contracted to inspect drinking establishments.
Just to clarify more on the question, we don’t have the figures in front of us, so we will have to get back to him, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the minister and Mr. Ma. I appreciate if they would provide that information.
Could you perhaps then expand on the duties and responsibilities of the four or five liquor inspectors that work for the Department of Finance under contract?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. D’Arcy will respond to that.
The liquor inspectors inspect the licensed premises that we have in Iqaluit and also the licensed premise that we have in Rankin Inlet.
So they would typically go out during the evenings to ensure that there’s not people who have had too much to drink being served, that the laws that the licensees have to follow are in fact being adhered to, that the premises are being kept the way that they’re supposed to be, that there is no over pouring, and generally, that people are following along with the regulations that the licensees have to follow.
I thank the minister and Mr. D’Arcy for that information.
In the last fiscal year or the current fiscal year, how many establishments have been fined by these liquor inspectors?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): We will have to get back to the member on that, Mr. Chairman.
Can you indicate when you will provide that information?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): We will have to work with the Department of Justice.
I’m not sure when we will be able to get back to him because we have to get the information from the Department of Justice, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I have one question.
Can the minister provide direction to the Nunavut Liquor Commission about following a declaration of a state of emergency?
During the state of emergency in Rankin Inlet, the hours of work had to be divided and rotated.
Some places were close due to consuming too much power; some were closed in the mornings and some in the afternoon.
However, the Nunavut Liquor Commission could not be closed since they are servicing all of Nunavut. This was kind of embarrassing.
Can you direct the commission or draft a policy that during an emergency or if there is a shortage of power, that they should not be open the whole time?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, we can definitely look into this suggestion, especially if there are problems that arose during this emergency.
Yes, we can definitely deliberate on possible resolutions with the commission, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) All the other departments’ emergency plans were prepared and used to direct the decisions as per the plans for loss of power.
There were some residences where their power was off for one hour, but when the schools were opening, some were on for just an afternoon. However, we were told that the Nunavut Liquor Commission, being a service for all of Nunavut, were open from 8:30 until 5:00.
They have to be told that they have to abide by the regulations where there’s an emergency in the community. Are you willing to do that?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Ma will elaborate on that.
I agree with what the member has been saying about the state of emergency with respect to the power in Rankin Inlet.
As the deputy responsible for the department, I take full responsibility for that. My staff were directed to conserve power like everybody else after we became aware of the situation.