EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
How does the object of this legislation, making sure MLAs are well looked after in retirement, affect the case we are trying to make for more federal funding to meet public needs and priorities of Nunavut.
Rule 67 says we can talk about the expediency of the bill in second reading.
In plain language, expediency has to deal with whether the bill is necessary and timely.
I believe it is not necessary or urgent to proceed with this legislation now.
It won't take effect until after MLAs retire and until after the end of the current legislature.
We still have time to consider this more carefully.
Proceeding with it now, especially without public consultation does not respect the public's need to have notice and the ability to comment.
Has anything happened which makes it necessary for us to proceed with this bill now?
Do we have extra funds to put into programs of this kind, which gives large benefits to a few people?
I would say that if there were major new increases in revenues available for new programs, a big improvement in our formula financing arrangements with the Federal Government, we could tell our constituents we could afford to be more generous with our own benefit packages.
However, this is clearly not the case in Nunavut today.
In fact, the recent report of the Auditor General of Canada to this Legislative Assembly said we will soon have spent the surplus we ended up with after our first year of operation.
This independent report which we have yet to examine and debate in this House, says that rather than being financially healthy, we will be going into debt by the end of 2002.
The Auditor General’s report says that our government will have to make tough decisions if we are to stay healthy and to have healthy finances.
We are here to serve the public and to respond to the issues of public concern.
Are we facing public concern or pressures to make our retirement plan more generous?
And our own law reform commission appointed to consult with the public and identify new legislative measures which are required in Nunavut, has not identified MLA pension packages as an issue of public concern.
So why is it needed?
What is the urgency of moving forward now?
Amendments just made to the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act provides for the Speaker to appoint an independent commission to review the pay and benefits of MLAs.
But no commission has been appointed.
There's been no independent group which reviewed our pension plans and recommended changes.
If we go ahead with this bill during this session, we will not be able to take advantage of this independent review process before the bill is passed.
I have other concerns about the timing of this bill.
Why do we need to give this bill second reading now just before our budget session?
This bill will require substantial new expenditures.
We haven't had a full opportunity to consider this in detail with the budget for 2002/2003.
Before we look at significant ongoing expenditures such as represented in this bill, we should know what the government's other budget priorities are so we can consider this expenditure alongside the other urgent priorities and programs for the people of Nunavut.
Should we not study in detail the adequacy of the budget, which will be placed before this Assembly to meet the needs of our constituents, the people we are elected to serve before we look after our own needs?
Do we look after our own needs once our political careers are over?
Before we approve the expenditure of money to look after ourselves, after we retire from public life, shouldn't we also know what money is available in the coming year to pay for such high priority programs as extra teachers, support for Inuktitut language and Inuktitut curriculum development, community social workers, improved social assistance rates, additional health care workers, youth programs and improved programs and services for our elders.
Before we look after ourselves shouldn't we take the time to also look whether we are meeting the needs of our citizens for capital facilities like public housing, new schools and local requirements like roads, water and sewer projects, health care, senior citizens and youth facilities.
What are the principles on which this is based?
The main principle behind this bill, it seems to me is that MLAs should have a generous pension after they leave politics.
A more generous retirement plan than our own civil servants or anyone else in Nunavut.
I think what lies behind this principle is the idea that because ours is a difficult job, it may be difficult to adjust to private life once we retire or after we are defeated in an election.
There is a risk that we could be defeated and it is not always possible or easy to go back to what we were doing before.
I have considered these arguments made in support of this principle.
I do not agree with this principle.
First of all we all run for office knowing what the rules were.
We understood that getting and keeping this job requires votes from the majority of our constituents. We understood we have to face our constituents and new elections every four years.
We understood that we would have to interrupt what we were doing to serve as MLAs.
We understood that there is no job security in being an MLA.
Everybody faces risks with their jobs.
People like hunters who work outdoors face the risk of accident or weather.
People who work in the caring professions face risk of burn out or emotional distress.
People who have their own business face the risk of changing markets and uncertainty in winning or losing contracts.
Even people who are public servants face the risk that their jobs may change or be eliminated as a result of program review or budget pressures.
This is what work is all about.
Should politicians be able to give themselves a generous protection from risk of being defeated or the risk of being able to find other work when others in different fields don't have the same opportunity?
I don't agree with this principle.
I don't believe we need to give ourselves a soft landing for the rest our lives after we retire from politics.
We should also remember that amendments that are now in place in the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act include a healthy transition allowance to give all MLAs just such a soft landing after they leave politics.
Not just for the rest of their lives.
And the formula set out in the bill is much more generous than the formula for a severance package for our civil servants.
We must not forget that being elected as a Member of this Assembly is not all sacrifice and risks.
While serving the public as MLAs we are being well paid and we are given the opportunity to gain valuable experience in making public policy, law making and financial management.
We get to go to places and meet people at public expense.
We have the privileges of making contacts and gaining experience that is unique and valuable.
We have the privileges and experience given to very few of our citizens.
I think that these privileges and experience provide benefit to us.
These benefits may even help us to open doors to be qualified for new opportunities which we may not have if we were not MLAs.
On the merit of the bill.
Looking at the broader public interest.
I see no merit to a bill which will substantially increase a benefit for a small segment of Nunavut society when large numbers of Nunavummiut are doing without as a result of the financial pressures we all experience.
What can you find that is good about this Bill?
Well it certainly makes it much more attractive to have a job as an MLA.
In fact I can't think of anyone else in Nunavut who can qualify for such a generous pension plan as soon as they leave office or after having served for only four years.
If we put into place a pension to attract people to run for office as an MLA in the Nunavut Legislative Assembly.
Did we have trouble in finding to run for office in our first election held for the Nunavut Assembly?
I think we all faced competition and often from a large field.
You could say that one of the merits of this bill is that it will make it much more financially attractive to be elected and serve even one term as a Nunavut MLA.
But is it beneficial that candidates be attracted to run for public office because they will be generously rewarded after they retire?
In some cases putting such a generous pension plan in place may have the opposite effect of what we want.
It may attract people to run for office who are motivated by financial gain not service to the public.
I can see no merits to a bill which will have this effect.
In sum, I don’t agree with the object of this bill in enhancing an already generous and exceptional pension package.
I don’t agree with the principle that MLAs need to be helped so generously in their adjustment to private life.
I can see no merit in a bill which will attract people to run for office for selfish reasons or financial gain.
I don’t believe it is necessary at this time, when we are facing very strong fiscal pressures as a government and before we even review the budget for the coming year.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against second reading and when the question is called, I will be calling for a recorded vote.
Like my colleague for Iqaluit Centre I would agree that this bill is not, we don’t need this bill, in the interests of all Nunavummiut.
I was elected to represent my constituency in particular, to represent their interests, not set up my own.
That’s why I sought office.
The issue of pensions is a personal matter in my opinion.
It’s not a matter for the rest of Nunavummiut to carry the burden for me.
Therefore, I will opt out of this plan and hope that we can opt out totally if we choose that option.
There are already generous provisions in there for MLAs when they leave office.
In addition, for being Canadian, there is a universal pension plan that any, any MLA and any Nunavummiut can seek.
So, I don’t see the need for this bill because I can rely on and contribute to those pension plans regularly.
In addition, we just had some deadlines for RRSPs last Friday.
I don’t know how many members went to their banks to arrange their finances in that matter, but I did.
Any member and any resident, any Canadian, can seek that for themselves on a personal basis.
I feel that, that’s sufficient for me and we don’t need a bill.
We don’t need to put an additional burden on our limited financial resources as members.
So, I hope that my colleagues will take that into account when they’re voting on this bill but I should clarify that this is not, at the end, a government bill.
This is a bill that was introduced by the members.
(interpretation) In my personal point of view, this bill is not going to do much good for the rest of the people of Nunavut because it’s only for MLA’s benefit.
We have our pension that we can do on our own.
I cannot vote for this bill when we think about the elders and the people of Nunavut.
So I would like to tell the people out there that if this bill should go through that I want the people of Nunavut to know that I’m opposing it.
Mr. Speaker, we all have our own personal feelings.
We all have different areas that we are involved in and we all have our own jobs, as members.
Some of us are hunters.
Some of us stay at home during our breaks.
Some of us have to buy fuel for our homes.
Some of us have to buy gasoline for our snowmobiles when we are at home in our communities.
I think this is very simple.
This is for our future.
It's for the members but it also affects other individuals who get involved in being MLAs in the future.
I support this bill because it does not only affect us.
We have concerns in some areas.
Some members have concerns about where they'll go when they leave office and I know that if we don't want to be a part of this pension, we could spend it on other areas to help individuals in the communities.
Speaker: To the principal of the bill.
I was going to make a short comment.
I'm not concerned because I've seen a lot of leaders end up not finding jobs after they've left office, they are just thrown out on the streets.
This Bill 21 is telling us as MLAs that we need to work hard for the betterment of Nunavummiut.
I know that there are a lot of individuals that don't want to run for office although they are very qualified.
A lot of them don't run for office because they don't have any benefits after leaving office.
There's no pension available for when they turn 65 and this holds back individuals that are very qualified.
This bill will help individuals who might be interested in the future, for individuals to reach their goals and it will just encourage individuals to run for office.
As an Inuk I had a hard time understanding why, like my father is 80 years old.
He's been working for 40 years.
His pension is 1 thousand dollars a month I think.
The government employees, I think we should look at how much Deputy Ministers, even ADMs get once they've left office, what kind of pension they have.
I don't think we'd be able to get that information but my father who is very sociable is able to tell other people about his pension.
When we look at this pension, when we start receiving this pension, I think it states that it would be 416 dollars per month.
I don't know, I'm not sure how much that it would be but I don’t see a big bulk of money.
I think people from Nunavut should realize how much we'd be receiving monthly when you are able to receive an old age pension.
A lot of people are against this but I just wanted to clarify or give some clarification to the people that I represent, the pension we'd receive is not very much because people seem to think that we'll be receiving a lot of monthly or that we could buy a Porche or a different automobile that is very expensive.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, after the comments I've made, if we're going to be incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, we have to respect our elders.
Mr. Speaker, for those members that are not supporting this bill, I feel sorry for them.
They are looking for arguments for Nunavut residents and I don't like to see that.
Nunavut residents are not trying to bring out some things that create animosity and create arguments.
I think I misheard one of the comments that was mentioned during one of the speeches.
I heard that perhaps individuals would run for office just for the money.
I just heard someone read a note on that.
This is not the way it is in Nunavut.
If this is the, case, it hurts.
Even though we're not fully educated, I'm not here for the money. (interpretation ends) That is not right. (interpretation) That's not how it is.
Let's bring this to Committee of the Whole so that we can deliberate on it some more.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call for a recorded vote.
Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Tootoo is requesting a recorded vote.
Not debatable.
So, I would ask…Mr. Picco.
Hon. Ed Picco: Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to get your attention to speak to the bill when you called to the principal of the bill.
I'm wondering if I can seek the consent of the Assembly to speak to the principal of the bill.
Mr. Picco is seeking consent on going back to the principal of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I don't have a prepared speech on this issue.
I wanted to begin by namely just going over some of my history.
As some of the members have indicated here today.
This Bill is a personal issue for many of the members.
And I would agree with them on that.
I would like to begin by talking about some of my history Mr. Speaker, in the Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, as an elected representative of the people whether in the jurisdiction of Nunavut or in the Northwest Territories or any of the other place where we have a free and open and democratic society you have the opportunity to discuss ideas, concerns, debate different views of people.
Mr. Speaker as an example in 1996, in Yellowknife I voted to rescind, to take away the pension plan of the members that were present in that Assembly.
Mr. Speaker that was a different time.
At that time the Government of the Northwest Territories was looking at a structural deficit of over 100 million dollars.
Mr. Speaker, at that time Paul Martin had cut the base, the gross expenditure base of the Government of the Northwest Territories by over 5%.
Mr. Speaker, they were indeed tough times.
At that time I did not support the elimination of vacation travel assistance.
I certainly didn't support the sell off of the staff houses.
At the same time other members did and those things were put through and you move on.
Politics is the art of compromise Mr. Speaker.
And in this government that we are in today, it is the art of consensus government.
I am not here to nay say any one who votes for or against the Bill.
In 1997, Mr. Speaker I was the only member from Nunavut to vote for same sex legislation.
At that time Mr. Speaker I said in the House, I meant it and I still say today I wasn't voted in by the people of Iqaluit and now Iqaluit East to judge lifestyle choices.
That is not my job.
My job is to pass legislation that will help people.
My job is to act as an advocate of the constituents.
And that is what I have tried to do over the past several years as the MLA for Iqaluit and for Iqaluit East.
Mr. Speaker I think it is important to note that the Bill before this House and being debated today on principle is a Bill that looks at the pension ideas of this Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the protesters that were here today, the people that are here in the Assembly, the MLAs, every single word that these people have said including the Members in the House, has been said many, many times before.
Every time a Legislative Assembly tries to bring forward a pension plan for members, the same people, union negotiators Mr. Speaker, I was the President of the Union, I was also a Union negotiator.
They will say it is not fair, the politicians should not get any increase.
And there are always Mr. Speaker things in government and other priorities where you can spend your money on.
Whether it is on a pension plan or whatever.
But I would like to say a couple of things Mr. Speaker.
One is that the job of a politician is unique.
It is the only job in the world Mr. Speaker, where you have to re-apply every four years.
Mr. Speaker, if you are the best MLA possible that doesn't guarantee re-election, for whatever reason people will not support you.
You could lose your seat.
Once you take the opportunity to run for public life, you are well paid for it Mr. Speaker, I am not making any bones about that.
But as the members have pointed out in this jurisdiction, a small jurisdiction mostly magnified and multiplied than any other jurisdiction.
You make enemies as a politician.
And I have seen Mr. Speaker and I don't mean any disrespect to any of the members that are outside of our House who have gone through hard times, who could not get a contract with the government.
It is important to note for example Mr. Speaker that as an MLA you don't pay any unemployment insurance.
So once you are finished, you’re finished.
There is no one there to come in and say you were a great representative for the last 8, 10, 12, 14 years we are going to help you out.
That doesn’t happen.
There are all kinds of Deputy Premiers, former Premiers, MLAs, ministers, who are not working.
I myself, Mr. Speaker, I think I have an education.
I’ve been very fortunate in the last 25 years, I’ve never, being a Newfoundlander, I’ve never had to draw on unemployment insurance.
I am quite pleased and proud to be able to say that.
I’ve been working, my mother’s here, Mr. Speaker, with me and she reminded me today, when she heard the radio at 12:30 about the protest outside this Assembly, my mother, reminded me today, when I first started work I was 9 years old.
I shovelled manure in a barn at 50 cents an hour, Mr. Speaker.
That is a fact. I’ve never had anything given to me by anyone.
I never got a DAP program, a HAP program, I’ve never drawn unemployment insurance.
I’ve never asked for anything from anyone.
I’ve worked hard.
I support my wife and family.
I have a mortgage like everyone else and there is not a member in this House, that doesn’t know I support an extended family.
Which is a fact.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, when you go and apply for a pension, like in this case, any person who joins a job has an opportunity for a pension plan.
Any job.
And when you start the job, unless you are really screw up Mr. Speaker, excuse my language, or you are fired, or you are let go from the position, you’re guaranteed a pension.
As a politician, no matter how good you are, you could lose your position tomorrow.
After four years when you reapply because people have changed their minds.
People vote with their feet.
That’s the instance, that’s the debate that’s been said in every Assembly across this country, X number of times.
Follow the Hansards.
I’ve read it.
I remember when the debate came up in 1996.
That debate, that was the information, that was the stuff that I did.
Mr. Speaker, over the last several days, I’ve had an opportunity to talk to many of my constituents.
Elders in my riding, this morning when I was at the elders’ facility, one elder asked me about the, an earshot I believe of the media.
Asked me about the pension plan and said, Eddie, I hope you don’t support it.
My mother told me this morning she didn’t want me to support it.
Mr. Speaker, on this past weekend, I believe I’ve had 10 or 12 people who actually came to my house to tell me that they didn’t support it.
And today Mr. Speaker, I had a call from a constituent, and a good friend of mine, who said I just played the, by the way, as you saw my wife was here, I just played the message for my wife upstairs and said you vote for that pension plan Mr. Picco, I will not vote for you.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the same thing on the same sex legislation debate.
I was told not to vote for it.
When I brought in the legislation with Mr. James Arvaluk’s help, to get rid of the health boards, James knows what we went through.
It was political suicide, members in this House, some ministers said it was political suicide.
You cannot get rid of those health boards.
I think it was one of the most successful things you had to do.
I’ve taken a lot of difficult and hard choices as a politician.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not afraid of this vote here today.
And I won’t be intimidated by editorial pages.
I’m not intimidated by protestors or people in the Assembly.
And certainly, I’m not intimidated by the media.
But, after saying all that, Mr. Speaker, I was elected as some members have said to represent my constituency.
The majority of my constituents have told me that they are not in favour of the pension plan.
As some members know publicly, my wife has also said she is not in favour of me, her husband, to receive the pension.
After all that Mr. Speaker, I support the members who are dissenting on this bill.
I’m dissenting not on the Principle of the Bill itself, I’m dissenting because the constituency has told me that they do not support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as a person who has represented my constituents, to the best my ability, as honestly and worked hard for the constituency over the past, more than 6 years, I will continue to do that and I will be voting against the bill.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Although we all want sympathy and we all want to be elected Mr. Speaker, I could say if I call my father today, and ask him, just to back track a little bit, my father worked for many years with DOT.
When he retired, he gets his pension.
He can take care of himself and he's the head of the household.
When he was working, they deducted money for his pension and it has helped him in his life.
If I asked my father, for the Members of the Legislative Assembly, this is a pension.
That's what is happening and even though he is an elder, he would understand that.
All of us, I'm sure we have feelings.
I, myself as a female, my husband can take care of me even when I'm not in the work force.
But for the men, especially the hunters, I'm worried about the hunters.
After being elected after their term, there would be no form of financial assistance and I have seen ex-MLAs that can't be hired even though they are very fluent in English.
Mr. Speaker, we now have a western lifestyle.