EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
At times the elders seem to understand more.
Mr. Speaker, I was a teacher.
Since I was 17, I started earning my wages by working and I've never been a welfare recipient to date.
Perhaps over 20 million dollars a year to date that we spend on income support, although it's insufficient and I know that but we still give support.
For those of us who are in the work force, they deduct money for the pension.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a teacher, worked in the schools.
For eight years, I have not worked as a teacher because I have been elected.
When I was elected, the superannuation was cut off instantly at that time.
For eight years, I could have had money deducted for superannuation, I have lost eight years of superannuation because I have been an MLA for that long.
Mr. Speaker, at that time, the territorial government started cutting funding and we had to cut off some of the pension.
We had also set aside some funding for earlier retirement that you could access prior to the age of 65.
This is a normal procedure and it's not a strange procedure whether it be MLAs or ministers who work very hard.
Since we've been elected, we don't just sit idly.
We have to work hard as members of the legislature.
Mr. Speaker, I will be in support of this bill because I believe there are people out there who can understand what is happening with this.
I know my father understands what we're dealing with right now.
He understands how the pension is accumulated to be used when I retire.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make that comment.
Also, in regards to Mr. Iqaqrialu's comments, when we were having the strike, that was not the Inuit way of life.
I was quite scared of our union asking for increases.
Everything outside was broken, with the garbage dumped all over because they wanted to get a raise.
These people who wanted to get a raise are the people who are opposing this bill when we are deducting it from our salaries.
Mr. Speaker, I have stood up as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for various reasons, I’ve made my comments, and my decisions have not been liked by the public.
One thing that I know, I can wake myself up and I'm responsible enough to come here and go to work.
Nobody has to ask me to come here, I brought myself here and although I could have been a teacher and I know that I would have had a good pension as a teacher, I ran for the legislature and I was put here by the people.
When I was elected I started setting aside some funding for my pension so I can use it when I retire.
That's how I understand it and I believe it's understandable and I'm sure there are other people who understand that.
Mr. Speaker, being in this Assembly for three years and seeing how the evolution of Nunavut has come forward.
And Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do, you live in a region that is politically active, probably more politically active than any other region in Nunavut.
I'm not trying to insult anybody.
But I'm saying on this issue of the pension, it's very emotional.
And yes, we are scared of the union.
The union swings a lot of weight in Nunavut.
And sometimes we have to listen to what they say when it comes to issues.
But Mr. Speaker, I look around this Assembly today and I don't want to say the wrong thing.
But there are a lot of members, if they lose an election or decide not to run again, they're going to be on hard times.
I look at the capital, I look at the job opportunities, my people still have to come from Baker Lake to work in Iqaluit.
They choose to because there are good jobs here.
We don't have that benefit in a lot of our communities.
We talk about the decentralized communities and the opportunities.
Sure there is opportunity, but there are more opportunities over here.
I know if I decided to live in Iqaluit, but I made that decision I didn't want to live in Iqaluit.
But getting back to the issue of the pension, what are we talking about here?
We're making a decision and somebody told me there's no good time to bring it in.
When is a good time, the next Assembly?
Yes, we've taken a step forward and people are looking at us as greedy politicians.
But I want to put something in perspective here on the principal of this pension.
A family of five living in Nunavut today makes 16 hundred dollars a month.
That's the poverty level in Canada.
The pension that we're talking about in this Assembly after one term is 12 thousand dollars to 13 thousand dollars.
That doesn't sound like a lot of money to me.
I know people that live in my community, go day to day and us as MLAs, there's not one MLA in here that hasn't had people in their office looking for 20 dollars, 40 dollars, 50 dollars to buy pampers and food.
And how many of us have refused them.
That happens everyday.
We have extended families in the community.
All we get in this place is people smiling at us.
I know in Baker Lake that we have to support our extended family.
I know there isn't a member here that doesn't reach into his pocket at Christmas and buy something for a needy family.
We go above and beyond our duty as MLAs.
We don't go into our offices and shut the door and ignore people.
We're out there for them.
And we try to do their issues.
Sure we're elected to represent people.
We represent them, I think.
And so if they don't like us, and the eloquent Mr. Picco I didn't want to speak after him because it was too hard an act to follow.
But we've got to respect each other's decisions on what we do in this Legislative Assembly.
But let's get it clear here, that this is not a 30, 40, 50 thousand dollar pension.
It's 14 thousand dollars a year.
And if anyone shops at the Northern or Coop, you know what a thousand dollars a month will buy.
And yes there's going to be some people in this Assembly, myself included that may not get re-elected.
I'll take care of myself because I'm a survivor.
Everybody's a survivor in this country for the last couple of hundred years.
But let's get things in perspective here, what are we talking about?
There's not a lot and I've visited members’ communities and I've visited some of the members around this table.
They don't have a lot.
I have a little bit more than them.
But I choose to live in Nunavut.
Listening to the people that are talking about the pension and listening to it in the news, they think that we're going to be taking at least about 3 million dollars for our pensions.
It sounds like it's for one individual that the 3 million dollars for their pension is going to be.
The 3 million dollars is not just for one individual.
It's for all the members.
If there were to be an election tomorrow, if we all got elected again, like somebody asked me, how much money would the program pay?
We don't know if we're going to be elected at the next election.
If one person does not get elected again, it would cost about 14 thousand dollars in one year for their pension.
It's like the politicians are targets all the time by everyone. Whenever there's anything said by a politician, it's all directed at all the politicians, even if it was actually directed to one person.
We have to have thick skin as a politician in order to speak for the things that you want to do for everybody.
For instance, because of our way of life at home, not all the people look at us that way but the public sees us under a microscope.
If a government employee does something wrong not all the government employees are going to be under a microscope, but if an elected individual does something, then they're all under a microscope.
It should be like the member that spoke before me, even if we don't get elected again, for the next election, then we could pitch in for ourselves through the pension.
But some MLAs cannot get employment for over a year after they become ordinary people.
I think they will be getting about 14 hundred or so per month and so, or 16 hundred, maybe it would be cheaper if they do get a pension instead of getting social assistance.
Because if they don't get the extra pension, then they would end up getting social assistance because we are not all going to get re-elected.
How are they going to be treated if they have been representing the public for a long time and they just throw them away like they’re useless or something?
Sometimes when you’re appreciated it’s feels very good.
But on the whole you don’t get appreciated.
After, if you don’t get re-elected, then they just sort of think that you are useless and you don’t get a job because they feel that you are a danger to get a job.
We are considered as target practice by the public because we are elected and we are politicians.
The member that spoke before me asked when is it going to be brought up again.
In the next Legislative Assembly, if it’s not brought up now I don’t think there are going to be many people protesting this.
We all know that and it’s a fact that a lot of politicians after they’re not re-elected or retire from the political forum, they don’t work for a number of year because they can’t get a job.
They haven’t necessarily have done something wrong but it’s just a fact of life.
Politicians often don’t find a job for a number of years.
When we’re talking about this bill, I think we have to keep in mind that we’re not talking about a large amount of money.
There are people saying that we have to look at the lack of housing, education, curricula and so on.
Of course, we know that.
But we do try every day during our term to look for additional funds.
I’m sure that when we hear it in English, I don’t know what they’re going to call us, but they might call us pigs or whatever, in the English language.
But, if we had an independent review done about this bill without debating it in the House, I’m sure that our pension would be substantially larger than the one we’re proposing.
If they factor in all the unemployment and the number of years you won’t be getting a job and everything’s factored in.
Looking at the provinces and the Federal Parliament, they have their own arrangements.
If there was an independent review done, I think that it would be larger than the one that we’re proposing.
Those that will not be re-elected have to be prepared for that time.
The Baker Lake member of the Legislative asked before when is a good time to discuss this issue.
It’s never the right time.
But we do have to bring it out and debate it.
One also talked about unions who will be opposing such a plan.
If we are using the unions for example, there are people out there who are asking for increases. If we are using the unions for example, they are talking about themselves but we don't say that about them.
If they don’t get what they are asking for, they go on a strike.
They protest and so on.
I know that we will be getting support from people who have to think about what is going to be happening.
Of course when we are talking about money it tends to get blown up by the people out there.
So I think when you just hear the crux of this Bill, you think that they are getting a substantial amount when you are looking at the whole figure.
I am sure there are a lot of people out there who have misunderstood the concept of this Bill.
Speaker: To the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker listening to the comments around the table I think only about the time when I was younger and preparing for the creation of Nunavut.
I always look back to the creation of our territory and of our government.
We look at what principles we are going to operate on as a government.
I am an Inuk.
My mother raised five children.
She did everything such as hunting and everything else to survive and take care of her five dependants.
She told us that she won't be around forever and told us we have to become independent and teach ourselves.
She built igloos so that we could survive.
She looked for food for the dogs so that we could have transportation.
She didn't think about herself because as Inuit we only thought of survival.
But I am sure that she thought about the children and the future that she would have.
I am sure that was a huge responsibility and she wanted her children to become independent and be able to take care of themselves.
We should not be only be thinking about ourselves, this is very true.
The younger generation should be able to take care of themselves on their own when we pass on.
We are told that we have to think about our constituents.
They are something that we will never forget.
We are not only thinking about ourselves.
I also have to think about the person who will be taking over my responsibilities.
Now that we have the Government of Nunavut, we have to build a solid foundation for the people and also for the future generations.
It is not only for us.
And with that Mr. Speaker, I am not here just thinking about myself.
I'm also thinking about the people in my riding and getting things for them.
When I go home, I will carve.
If I didn't think about the people who voted me in, I wouldn't even bother coming here.
I would stay home and do my carving if I didn't care about the people out there.
We are here because we represent our people.
We are here paving the way for their future.
We're not here only for ourselves.
And with this bill, when I think about hearing people out there saying that we're only thinking about ourselves, it's not the case, we're not only doing it for ourselves.
We have to do the same for the younger generations.
There will be other people going into our footsteps.
Listening to the individual opinions of the members, I would like people out there to know that we have totally different points of view on this.
Especially the people from outside of Iqaluit compared to those from Iqaluit.
Because we are ministers, people probably out there think that we make a lot of money.
But when you're from outside of the community, it's the opposite.
I know that as a person from outside of Iqaluit, I have my wife and my children that I have to take care of.
The people out there think that we have a lot of money and for myself, I put in 25 thousand dollars to my house in Pangnirtung and then what ever I have left barely makes ends meet.
I will always work hard for my family, today, tomorrow and even when I'm not here.
In the capital, and listening to the debate around here and their reasons, they're totally different.
It will always be the case when you're from Iqaluit or when you're from outside of the community.
I can even say Mr. Speaker, that the election is a little over a year away.
We hear people that are scared of not being re-elected.
That is not a factor for the people who live outside of Iqaluit.
This is the difference between the people living in the capital and between the people living outside of the capital.
To the people listening out there to the debate, I would like the people to clearly understand that there are different advantages and additional costs that you have to pay when you live outside of the capital.
This is a very important issue that we're talking about.
It is not only for the 19 members of the Legislative Assembly but also to the people in the future who will be sitting here in this very House.
Mr. Kilabuk made very good comments.
For those of us who live outside of Iqaluit, we will have to go back over there if we're not re-elected.
We will have to find employment right away because we do have mortgages and other payments that we have to make and we have to pay our loans.
If we should not get re-elected what will happen to the payments that we have to keep making.
This Bill will be good for the people who will be elected afterwards.
And it also gives us a cushion because of course if we are not re-elected it will be hard to find employment for a number of years.
There are Members of the Legislative Assembly who are serving their first term and who know what happens when you are not re-elected.
The people who are opposing it, I am sure they will be able to get a job right away.
But it will be good for example if I don't get re-elected I would worry the very next day about how I am going to pay my mortgage.
This would be beneficial not only for us but also for the future legislators of Nunavut.
And Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this Bill.
Speaker: To the Principle of the Bill.
Questions. Mr. Tootoo.
I request a recorded vote.
The member is requesting a recorded vote.
So I will ask all those in favour to please stand and when your name is called by the Clerk, I'll ask them to be seated.
All those in favour please stand.
Ms. Aglukkaq: Mr. Ng. Mr. Kattuk.
Mr. McLean. Mr. Nutarak.
All those opposed please stand.
Ms. Aglukkaq: Premier Okalik.
All those in favour are 14.
All those opposed are 3.
There are no abstentions.
It will be 14 - 3.
The motion is carried and as per motion 22 - 1(5), this Bill now stands referred to Committee of the Whole.
Item 19. In the Committee of the Whole today we have the following items.
Tabled Document 67-1, Motion 21-1(5), Tabled Document 80-1(5), Bill 21, Bill 23.
With Mr. Irqittuq in the Chair. Sorry Mr. Puqiqnak in the Chair.
And in accordance with the authority vested in me by Motion 002-1(5), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
Before we break I think it is probably advisable that we take a 45 minute break and join us in the Tuktu room.
>>Committee recessed at 5.50 p.m. and resumed at 6.50 p.m.
Chairperson (interpretation): Good evening members, ministers.
We are now starting Committee of the Whole and this evening we’ll be dealing with Tabled Document 67-1(5), Bill 21, Bill 23, Motion 21(5).
The Committee would like to deal this evening with Bill 21, Bill 23 and Motion 21-1(5).
Welcome, Ms. Cooper.
Mr. Speaker you could start your opening comments for the Committee of the Whole.
I apologize, does the committee agree that we’re going to deal with Bill 21.
Mr. Speaker, you could start with your opening comments.
Bill 21 – Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act – Consideration in Committee
Speaker: Mr. Chairman. Before I start, some people are wondering why am I sitting up here explaining Bill 21.
As Speaker and Chairman of the Management Services Board, it’s my responsibility and duty to comment on these issues on behalf of the members.
Prior to Committee of the Whole we had, I believe, what I would consider a healthy debate, discussion, on Bill 21.
I think there were a lot of good points brought up and as one member indicated, it’s a very personal issue.
So I’ll leave it at that and I’ll ask Mr. Picco to take a seat so I can get on with all my formal remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to appear before the Committee of the Whole to introduce Bill 21, Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my remarks today by quoting from a recent report prepared by an independent commission to review the compensation paid to legislators in other Canadian jurisdictions.
It states, “The very nature of serving in public office makes it very difficult to attach an hourly wage or expect Members to document hours worked like much of the public service.
The stresses and demands placed on elected officials are a very difficult reality to impart in someone that has never served or experienced life as an elected representative.
The requirement to be available and accountable 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, coupled with the lack of job security associated with an election every 4 years ensures that only a select few individuals would ever consider running for office.
To a certain degree a position of such importance to our democratic system, and such wide-ranging responsibility, must be compensated fairly.”
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that members today would share my view that there is truth to these comments.
Although the issue of compensation for elected officials is never an easy or popular one to deal with, it is nevertheless one that we cannot ignore.
The bill before us today establishes a plan of retiring allowances for Members of the Legislative Assembly to supplement the plan established the by the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress the fact that it is essential that good people be attracted to run for public office.
Legislators and their families should not be unduly penalized because of their decision to represent their communities and constituents.
It is important that we recognise that most people elected to public office serve during their peak earning years.
During their years in office, they do not have the ability to contribute to any more employee pension plans.
For that reason, a plan such as this is fair.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out two important points.
First, members will be required to put in a significant percentage of their earnings into this plan.
The contribution rate for members will be higher than the average.
Members who opt in will be required to contribute an additional two-and-a-half percent of their earnings beyond their present contribution rate.
In total, almost one out of every ten dollars earned by a participating member will go towards their contributions.
Second, it is important to recognise that not all members will wish to participate in this plan.
For that reason, members will be required to declare if they are going to opt in or opt out.
Mr. Chairman, this is a transparent process.
I would like to close by returning to the issue of service.
We need strong people elected to public office in Nunavut.
We need people who will not be deterred from spending a period of their lives in public service because they are afraid that they may not be able to provide for their families and children in the long term.
This initiative will help to ensure that Nunavummiut view public service as an option that is good for them and good for their communities.
I look forward to responding to any questions or comments that members may have.
Are your officials going to be joining you?
Speaker: Well I certainly hope so Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Sergeant-At-Arms, please bring in the witnesses.
Mr. Speaker, could you please introduce your witnesses.
Speaker: Mr. Chairman, to my right, your left, Mr. Rob Vanderzan of Hewitt Associates.
Mr. Vanderzan has been involved over the last number of years in reviewing pensions on the NWT and mostly recently for this government.
He's more or less the lead hand when it comes to this particular option that we are looking at.
To my left, your right, my colleague, Mr. Ng, Minister of Finance and a number of other portfolios.
Before we go on to general comments, following Rule 77-1, you are able to make general comments for 10 minutes.
Following Rule 77-2, each member is able to speak again or make a second set of general comments.
Each member has ten minutes to make general comments and from there we'll go on to questions.
When you are speaking please go through myself as Chairperson.
I'll guess I'll get start things off and get rolling from there.
Mr. Chairman, in making general comments about the Bill I would like to provide some historical background.
The NWT Legislative Assembly implemented a Supplementary Retiring Allowance Plan of this kind in the late 1980’s.
In 1996 an independent commission on MLA compensation was appointed to review all aspects of the pay and benefits of MLAs.
As a result the recommendation was that the rich MLA Supplementary Pension Plan should be eliminated.
Mr. Chairman, Members of this Assembly who were a part of that NWT Assembly voted in favour to terminate the 3% supplementary pension plan.
The motion to terminate that plan was passed 19-0 with no abstentions on the recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, because the Legislative Assembly of the day including members who are still here today, made difficult decisions because of reductions in spending such as the termination of supplementary pension plan, Nunavut started off without having to divide up a deficit.
However today we are faced with the same kind of financial pressures that the NWT Assembly was concerned about in the late 1990's.
The Auditor General’s report of November 13th, 2001 says that Nunavut is heading for a deficit by 2002.
The Auditor General's report also states that Nunavut has little financial flexibility.
We depend on grants from the Government of Canada for the majority of our revenue.
The report says this makes Nunavut vulnerable.