EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I don’t know why the minister doesn’t seem to want to answer my question.
It’s pretty simple: when did the minister become aware of these government responses? That’s my question and I’m still waiting for an answer.
Again, our staff was working with the Auditor General.
The answers from the federal government and from the Auditor General are written in a report. The officials of the government did not get a response yet.
We were already aware of some of the answers from the Auditor General towards the investigation and the Auditor General’s Report.
Petition 002 – 2(4): Pond Inlet Arena (Arvaluk)
I have a petition from my constituents in Pond Inlet. In this petition it says:
Whereas the Government of Nunavut had repeatedly said that the Community Hall Complex would include an arena;
Whereas the people of Mittimatalik were lead to believe that the arena would be built as soon as funding is secured;
Whereas the people of Pond Inlet, especially the youth, are suffering from lack of adequate facilities; and  Whereas the people of Pond Inlet are not participating in the territorial and national competitions due to lack of facilities.
Therefore we, the undersigned vigorously urge the Government of Nunavut to secure funds to continue their assurance in building the arena for Pond Inlet and further that the new arena be built as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, this petition contains 135 signatures, and I look forward to the government’s response.
Committee Report on Bills 006 – 2(4): Bill 13 “Nunavut Energy Efficiency Act” (Tootoo)
I am delighted today to make a presentation of the brief report by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability on its review of Bill 13, the proposed Nunavut Energy Efficiency Act.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 13 was introduced earlier this year by the Minister of Energy.
The bill proposes to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs in Nunavut.
In order to enforce the Act, the minister would have the power to appoint enforcement inspectors. Violators of the Act who are selling incandescent light bulbs would be punished upon conviction with fines of up to $5,000.
Mr. Speaker, in scrutinizing any proposed new law, the first and most fundamental question that needs to be asked is whether or not a new law is necessary, reasonable, affordable and practical.
Mr. Speaker, after giving Bill 13 full consideration, the standing committee has concluded that the bill does not meet this test. The minister has not made a clear and convincing case with respect to why Bill 13 should be passed.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee recently invited the minister to appear before the standing committee to discuss Bill 13.
During his appearance, the minister indicated that there is a growing trend towards the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs in homes, offices and businesses, when the government has its own energy efficiency plan.
People are voluntarily choosing to switch to this form of technology.
The government has introduced a program to assist homeowners in partially meeting the cost of purchasing energy efficient appliances.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee subsequently posed a key question to the minister: why does the government need to introduce a law to ban the sale of a specific technology, use the power of the government to impose fines and punishments on violators and establish additional structures to administer the Act if so many people are voluntarily choosing to switch to the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs?
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not provide a persuasive answer to this question.
Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, the Government of Canada has announced plans to phase out the use of inefficient light bulbs. The federal approach will be to introduce new energy efficiency standards that would allow for any technology to be available to consumers, so long as it met federal energy efficiency standards, rather than banning any one specific technology.
This approach has merit and suggests that Bill 13 suffers from redundancy.
Mr. Speaker, I and other members of the standing committee have heard concerns from constituents, especially homeowners, with respect to this bill and the manner in which it limits and restricts their ability to exercise personal choice. These are the people who will have to pay the most to make modifications to their homes.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee recognizes that incentives and disincentives are frequently used by governments to encourage or discourage certain types of consumer behaviour. The so-called “sin taxes” on tobacco and alcohol are an obvious example.
However in these cases, people still retain the ability to make personal choices, even though they may pay higher costs.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to state clearly for the public record that the standing committee is fully supportive of meaningful initiatives to address environmental issues.
However, the standing committee is concerned that Bill 13 constitutes a distraction from the larger challenges facing us in this area.
In addition, the standing committee was of the view that even the title of the bill itself is inappropriately broad, given that it is simply a bill to ban a specific type of bulb.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 13 would allow regulations to be made to permit the sale of certain types of incandescent light bulbs to deal with certain situations, such as outdoor water service lighting.
Quite frankly Mr. Speaker, our public servants and ministers have more important things to do with their time than hold meetings and establish sub-committees and working groups to review draft regulations for light bulbs. Our public servants have more important things to do with their time than being appointed as light bulb inspectors and conducting surprise inspections of the local Co-op store.
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Speaker, we have seen this week that there are some serious issues facing the government with respect to basic financial management. We need to send a clear message to the government that its attention and efforts should be focused on addressing problems in these areas.
Accordingly Mr. Speaker, the standing committee is unable to support Bill 13, and recommends that it proceed no further in the legislative process and be allowed to fall off the order paper. With that, I move that the report of the standing committee be received by the House.
Committee Report on Bills 007 – 2(4): Bill 12 “Emergency Measures Act” (Curley)
I wish to report that Bill 12, Emergency Measures Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development.
And that the bill, as amended and reprinted, is ready for consideration in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 12 moved into the Committee of the Whole for today.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Do members unanimously agree to have Bill 12 referred to Committee of the Whole?
Some Members: Agreed.  Speaker (interpretation): Thank you.
Tabled Document 156 – 2(4): Standing Committee Ajauqtiit Review of Bill 6, Official Languages Act and Bill 7, Inuit Language Protection Act – Transcripts from the Public Hearings October 18 to 19, 2007 (Mapsalak)
I wish to table today the unedited transcripts from the public hearings that were held in Iqaluit on Bill 6, the proposed Official Languages Act, and Bill 7, the proposed Inuit Language Protection Act.
Item 13. (interpretation ends) Tabling of Documents. (interpretation) Member for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
Tabled Document 157 – 2(4): FANS – Materials Concerning the Auditor General’s Report (Tootoo)
As noted yesterday in the report of the standing committee, I am pleased to table a package of materials concerning the Report of the Auditor General on the Financial Assistance for Nunavut Students Program.
Item 14. Notices of Motions. Member for Cambridge Bay, Mr. Peterson.
Motion 022 – 2(4): Northern Residents Deduction – Notice (Peterson)
I give notice that on Monday, November 12, 2007, I will move the following motion:
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rankin Inlet South-Whale Cove, that this House calls upon the Government of Canada to increase the residency portion of the Northern Residents Tax Deduction and ensure that the residency portion be adjusted thereafter on an annual basis to an inflation index that is reflective of the cost of living in Canada’s Arctic.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. The member is seeking unanimous consent to deal with his motion.
Motion 022 – 2(4): Northern Residents Deduction (Peterson)
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has stated that the future of the Canadian Arctic is one of its key strategic priorities and is an issue of importance to the nation as a whole;
AND WHEREAS the cost of living for the residents of the Canadian Arctic, especially Nunavummiut, is higher than in other regions of Canada, which affects the quality of life and well-being of residents;
AND WHEREAS the residency component of the Northern Residents Deduction for Nunavut tax filers has not been increased since it was introduced 1987;  AND WHEREAS the value of this deduction has been significantly eroded by inflation;
AND WHEREAS improvements to the Northern Residents Deduction would establish a more equitable tax structure for northerners;
AND WHEREAS Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut have, on numerous occasions, called for improvements to the Northern Residents Deduction;
AND WHEREAS the three northern territories are united in their support for improvements to the Northern Residents Deduction;
AND WHEREAS the Nunavut Economic Forum has prepared a submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on the need for improvements to the Northern Residents Deduction;
AND WHEREAS the Board of Directors of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated has passed a formal resolution in support of this submission;
AND WHEREAS the impact of lost tax revenues to the Government of Canada would not be significant when compared to the benefits that would accrue to Canada’s Arctic and the nation as a whole;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rankin Inlet South-Whale Cove, that this House calls upon the Government of Canada to increase the residency portion of the Northern Residents Tax Deduction and ensure that the residency portion be adjusted thereafter on an annual basis to an inflation index that is reflective of the cost of living in Canada’s Arctic.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. The motion is in order.
I am very pleased to say a few words today in support of this very important motion.
Mr. Speaker, as you and other members are aware, I have the honour of representing three of this nation’s most remote and isolated communities.
For many years, I spoke out on the need for measures to help my constituents deal with the high cost of living in the High Arctic.
In the 1990s, our deficit situation forced us to cut a number of benefits to our employees, such as VTAs. They are still feeling the effects of these cuts today.
For my constituents, the basic essentials of life are very expensive.
As we have seen from the most recent fuel price increase, they are not getting any cheaper.
I am disappointed that the Northern Residents Deduction has not kept pace with inflation over the years.
I believe that this motion is a positive step. It clearly shows that we as MLAs are determined to fight for the needs of our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour of this motion, and I look forward to it passing with the support of all members.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
I, too, rise in support of this motion. However, I think it’s shameful that we have to something like this.
Since 1987 this hasn’t changed.
For years, northerners, not only in Nunavut but all across the North, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, have raised this issue with the federal government.
It seems to always be the case that they refuse to listen.
I think they need to wake up and smell the coffee, or come up here and buy a cup of coffee and they’ll realize why we need to make these changes.
Hopefully, at some point... so far from what I’ve seen, the current government in Ottawa has not done a very good job of listening to the North.
With the last government; it was the same thing.  Hopefully, with motions like this and determination from all three territories, we will be able to get them to turn around and actually start listening and acknowledging the people of the North, and recognizing the unique circumstances, challenges, and high cost of living that we face that they all take for granted.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would also like to thank the individuals who moved the motion.
It is very important to the people of the North, especially for the MPs in Ottawa.  Even if you asked a Canadian or an Ontarian how many MPs they have, they probably wouldn’t be able to tell you because they have so many.
We have one MP and the people from Ottawa think that the Government of Nunavut is paid by through taxpayers.
If you look at transportation, the airlines, the shipping lines, those are the only modes of transportation we have and they are private companies. They are not Crown corporations. (interpretation ends) These are private companies.
So (interpretation) if they bring building materials or food, we pay for the transportation costs, and if you put it down as a landed cost, they are very expensive. (interpretation ends) Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford it any longer in Nunavut.
Most Canadians believe they heavily subsidize Nunavut, but unlike Southern Canada whose transportation have federal government or Crown corporation involvement, we don’t. Air Canada is subsidized. Railroads are built in southern cities and provinces paid for by government.
Road are paid for by government. Our mode of transportation up here by ships is 100 percent private.
Mr. Curley: Even the Coast Guard is asked to build shipping companies if they do a little bit of, if I may use the word, Mr. Layton’s words, slush pushers. They build the shipping company at the opposition of this Assembly.
We did pass a motion that they should ignore the shipping - that particular tax for Coast Guard fees - but the federal minister did not agree with us.  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I mean 100 percent, it’s about time Canadians wake up and Ottawa politicians correct this over 20-year problem we have now, by not ever having an adjustment to this tax status.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote so that people in Ottawa can see the vote.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Cambridge Bay, Mr. Peterson.
I would like to rise and acknowledge the hard work of the Nunavut Economic Forum, Mr. Glen Cousins and Joanasie Akumalik from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, who have done a lot of great research in the background on this gross oversight by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, it is very expensive living in the North for all residents.
Even coming to Iqaluit, I go to NorthMart every couple of days and watching the people buying the food ahead of me, for $100 you don’t get much.
You see the people at the front door borrowing money, begging for money to buy food.
It’s roughly, say, two to three times more costly for all resident of Nunavut to live in Nunavut.
There is the high cost of food, the higher rents, we see skyrocketing rents, clothing costs are enormous, and most people can’t buy tickets to fly anywhere anymore. We just heard the other day that the cost of fuel is going up 20 percent.
Airline travel is going up 20 percent because the cost of fuel is going up.
So it’s getting extremely expensive to live in the North.
The Northern Residents Deduction came into effect in 1987. That was 20 years ago. I was amazed to learn that over that time, although the Northern Residents Deduction hasn’t been increased, it hasn’t been changed, inflation has increased over 60 percent across Canada.
That just magnifies how much more expensive it is in Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, northerners in Nunavut have seen the benefit of the Northern Residents Deduction erode significantly over the last 20 years because of the high inflation, 60 percent or more. The Northern Residents Deduction is not achieving its initial, intended objective.
Therefore, it must be rectified to be fair to northern residents. It simply must.
I hope that the intent of this motion is seen and recognized by the Government of Canada, and they undertake an immediate review to improve the Northern Residents Deduction, make it fair to all northerners, and help us to afford to continue to live up here. After all, as we’re living up here, there’s the issue of northern sovereignty. We’re here.
Help us out. It’s necessary. It’s an urgent matter.
We can’t delay any longer on it.  So I encourage and urge all the Members of the Legislative Assembly to support the motion.
There was a call for a recorded vote.
For all the members who are for the motion please rise and when I call your name please sit down.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) For the motion, 17, I declare that the vote is unanimous.  >>Applause
The motion is carried. Members, I am pleased to advise you that on behalf of the House, I will convey a copy of this motion to the Federal Minister of Finance for his consideration.
(interpretation) For the members, I would like to thank Mr. Peterson.
I would like to recognize two individuals who are here, Joanasie Akumalik and Glenn Cousins.
Motion 023 – 2(4): Motion to Refer Bill 13 to Committee of the Whole (Picco)
I would like to take this opportunity very quickly, to welcome Mr. Ben Kovic, a long-time northern resident and constituent.
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding Rule 45(1) but according to Rule 45(2)(g) and Rule 68(2), I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit West, that Bill 13, the Nunavut Energy Efficiency Act, be referred to the Committee of the Whole for a full debate by the House on our next sitting.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Picco. Can we have a copy of that motion, please?
Minister Picco, can I get you to repeat the Rules that you’ve referred to in your quote? Minister Picco.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding our Rule of the House 45(1) but according to our Rules 45(2)(g) and Rule 68(2).
Members, we’ll break for a while so that I can have a few minutes to review that rule. Thank you.
Members, as the minister’s motion, as written, is not entirely consistent with his oral presentation, I will need further time to review the relevant provisions that he cited. I will return to the House with a ruling by the end of the sitting day.
We will proceed with the Orders of the Day.
Bill 22 – Engineers and Geoscientists Act – Second Reading
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nattilik, that Bill 22, Engineers and Geoscientists Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill replaces the Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists Act and is intended to modernize its language and improve the system of regulation of professional engineers and geoscientists.
This bill recognizes the change of name of the self-governing body to the Northwest Territories Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, and this association is responsible for the regulation of professional engineers and geoscientists in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Question has been called.
All opposed. The motion is carried and Bill 22 is referred to the appropriate standing committee.
Bills 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18, with 19 being the last one with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
We will now proceed directly to the Committee of the Whole.
>>House recessed at 15:59 and Committee resumed at 16:05
Chairman (Mr. Arreak): I will call the committee meeting to order.
I have a message from the Speaker.
In accordance to the authority provided to the Speaker by Motion 4 – 2(4), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
In the Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bill 12, Bill 14, Bill 15, Bill 16, Bill 17, Bill 18, and Bill 19.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 16 and continue with the review of the Capital Estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services, followed by the Bills 14, 15, 17, and Bill 19, as they are sponsored by the Minister of Finance.
We will then proceed to the clause-by-clause review of Bills 12 and 18.
Are we in agreement we first deal with Health and Social Services?
(interpretation ends) Welcome, Minister.
To my left is Alex Campbell, the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services. To my right is Ms. Rosemary Brown, the Manager of Capital Projects for Health and Social Services.
We were on page H-6 of Health and Social Services. Detail of Capital.
We had Mr. Arvaluk. Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Yesterday, towards the end of our meeting, I was raising questions to the Minister of Community and Government Services on what standards and criteria they used to put Taloyoak on top when Repulse Bay was already in the five-year capital plan and was taken off the page.
What was the exact reason for why they put Taloyoak Health Centre ahead? She said she would have the answer for me. So I’m wondering if she has an answer for me now.
I believe Mr. Arvaluk was directing his question to the Minister of CGS.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) Minister of Community and Government Services, do you wish to respond to the question? Minister.
The information I’m provided with today is that my personal involvement in this capital planning process is through FMB meetings.
For other departments’ capital request, that this is when the government makes the recommendation to bring forth the capital budgets, then forward to the standing committee, and then to this House for approval.
The Department of CGS makes recommendations on various stages during the planning. This includes sound advice from our technical staff during technical evaluations, CGS staff in the respective fields, such as planners, engineers, and technical staff also review the capital substantiation sheets and provides recommendations to the Department of Finance and client departments on cash flow, capital cost estimates, schedule, and O&M costs.
Do you wish to supplement her answer, Minister Aglukkaq?
I believe the question was: when did the project start? The projects for Repulse Bay and Taloyoak started in 1999, and the records of this legislation of the first government will show those two projects started back in 1999, and some of the members here were members of that first government.
In fact, Taloyoak was scheduled a bit further ahead than Repulse Bay at that time based on the planning from the previous government seven years ago.
Nobody seems to want to answer my question but I’m surprised that all of the considerations in the budget between 1999 and 2007 are completely ignored.
I think that was a process that has taken place and it showed in the books that Repulse Bay was in the works.
Mr. Chairman, I’m surprised that the CGS Minister’s staff, especially senior staff, did not advise their own minister that when the Health Department requested a technical evaluation from CGS to place the Taloyoak Health Centre ahead of Repulse Bay and Arctic Bay, that her senior staff did not advise her that this might not be kosher because technical evaluations and technical assessments did not agree with that in some ways.
I guess my next question and final question, Mr. Chairman, is: can the minister tell me then that the other health centres that were in very poor shape, Taloyoak, Repulse Bay, and Arctic Bay, did you compare them side-by-side to determine your standards and criteria for those three health centres?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health is not in a position to complete technical reviews to decide what project the conditions of each of these facilities are.