EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Therefore, an amendment to this section will be moved at the appropriate time in clause by clause review of the Bill in English, French and Inuktitut.
Mr. Chairman, the committee also requests clarification on section 16(1)(a) as to under what circumstances could the termination of a power of attorney can be declared.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee generally supports the Bill at the clause by clause stage of standing committee review and would like to see similar legislation with respect to personal care in the future.
The committee recommends the passage of the Bill to other Members.
I guess I am ahead of myself again.
I would like to welcome you Premier Okalik.
For the record, please introduce your witness.
On my immediate left, my Deputy Minister, Markus Weber, and on my right Thomas Druyan, who is from the Legislation Section.
Chairman: Before we proceed I would like to remind Members of the following, according to Rule 77(1) you have ten minutes speak and in accordance to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the chair, a Member may speak more than once to the matter under discussion but not until every Member wishing to speak has spoken.
Are there any general comments from the committee? Bill 18 as amended, Powers of Attorney Act. Clause 1.
Clause 2. Do you agree?
Clause 3. Do you agree?
Clause 4. Do you agree?
Clause 5. Do you agree?
Committee Motion 009 – 2(2): Amendment to Clause 5 - Bill 18 Powers of Attorney Act
I move that Clause 5 of the Bill be amended by striking out Sub-clause (1) and by substituting the following:
Where a power of attorney comes into force on the physical or mental incapacity of the donor, information respecting the donor’s health shall be disclosed on a request to a declarant described in sub-section 3(3), a member of a prescribed professional group described under sub-section 3(4) or the court to the extent necessary to determine whether the date or contingencies specified in a stringing power of attorney has occurred.
Clause 5. As amended, all those in favour.
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 6. Do you agree?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 7. Do you agree?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 8. Do you agree?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 9. Do you agree?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 10. Mr. Peterson.
I would like to ask the Minister, on Clause 10, it states, “the donors attained 19 years at the time, he or she executes the power of attorney and the power of attorney”, why was the age of 19 selected and not 18 or 16 or another age?
Under our general legislation, age of majority is 19 so we are being consistent with other pieces of legislation.
Does the committee agree with Clause 10?
Chairman: Clause 11. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 12. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 13. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 14. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 15. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 16. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 17. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 18. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 19. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 20. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 21. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 22. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 23. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 24. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 25. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 26. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 27. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 28. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 29. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 30. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 31. Agreed?
Chairman: The Bill as amended, are we in agreement.
The Bill is ready for third reading.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Premier, Mr. Druyan and Mr. Weber.
Are we ready to consider Bill 19?
I would now like to ask the Speaker to make his opening remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the Committee of the Whole to introduce Bill 19, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act.
I would like to begin by thanking Members for their contributions during the development of this legislation.
The initiative before the Committee today is intended to clarify or modernize a number of provisions contained within certain statutes that fall under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly.
I would like to briefly review the highlights of the Bill.
The Bill amends the Integrity Act to clarify the duties of the Integrity Commissioner, and to protect the position from court action when the office-holder acts in good faith in performing duties under other pieces of legislation, such as the Nunavut Elections Act.
Members will note that this amendment will have retroactive effect.
Mr. Chairman, the Bill also amends a number of sections in our Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act.
The Act has been amended to more closely parallel language contained in the Nunavut Act, which requires that the House sit at least once every 12 months.
This will ensure that the accountability of the executive to the legislature remains strong.
The requirement that a new session be convened by the Commissioner, every year has been dropped.
This will allow for a more limited number of Throne Speeches to be delivered during a government’s term of office.
The Act has also been amended to provide for greater flexibility in our Assent procedures.
The Bill also amends the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act to ensure compliance with federal income tax legislation.
The Legislative Assembly Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act is being concurrently amended to maintain consistency between the two statutes.
Do you have any witnesses that you would like to bring to the witness table?
Mr. Speaker, please introduce your witness for our records.
To my right is our Clerk, Mr. Quirke.
Chairman: Welcome to the witness table, Mr. Quirke.
I have no Members on my list for general comments.
Bill 19. Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act. Clause 1.
Chairman: Clause 3. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 4. Agreed?
Chairman: Do Members agree to Bill 19 as a whole?
Chairman: Do Members agree that Bill 19 is ready for Third Reading?
I would also like to thank Ms. Cooper.
We can go back to Tabled Document 100-2(2).
Minister Kilabuk, do you have any witnesses that you would like to bring to the witness table?
Please proceed to the witness table.
Minister Kilabuk, please introduce your witnesses?
To my right is Chris Clark, our Director.
To my left, is our Deputy Minister, Tom Rich.
Chairman: Welcome to the meeting Mr. Clark and Mr. Rich.
Does this committee have any questions to Tabled Document 100-2(2) Government of Nunavut Leased Properties.
Welcome to the Minister and his officials.
I hope he had a restful weekend.
I want to ask about some of these expired leases that you have listed in your document.
They expired in 2004; the lease document shows that they are expiring in 2004.
I am looking at this one here in Rankin Inlet, Ilagittuq Limited for 15 years, $249 thousand and then there’s another one in Whale Cove for the length of 20 years expiring in 2004 for $12 thousand 784; there are a couple like that and then you have more expiring in 2005.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister could tell us what happens with those contracts that expired in 2004; did you find other space or are they in an overhold position?
In several cases, we have leases that were renewed for further periods of time, and in a couple of cases, we have leases that were either terminated or renewed only for a short period of time because of new construction coming on line.
For instance, in a couple of places, lets say Rankin Inlet for instance, we are able to consolidate some of our leases in Rankin Inlet with the new health centre coming on line and we have other situations like that where we have had short-term leases.
I will have to let Mr. Clark give you the specific details on the ones associated with 2004 and 2005 so I don’t give you the wrong information.
I thank Mr. Rich, but can Mr. Clark provide some explanation for those specific contracts?
Can you get Mr. Peterson to ask that question again, please?
Those are the leases that I am looking at; the ones that they say they expired in 2004.
One is the Rankin Inlet lease Ilagittuq Limited.
The other is the Hamlet of Whale Cove 2004.
I am wondering if they expired. What is the position of the government now with respect to providing leased office spaces for employees of those two communities where these facilities were located?
The lease in Whale Cove is in over-hold and we are looking at putting out possibly an RFP on that.
The lease Ilagittuq expired in 2004, I will have to check that but I believe that’s an over-hold that could possibly be a renewal on that, but I would have to check and get back to you on that.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Clarke for his response.
I noted that in the section called Notes, there are other leases where you say in Note 3 and Note 2 that the leases are an overhold.
In these particular leases you do not have any notes.
So the lack of clarity there would lead anyone reading these reports that the leases expired last year and then that you have other located property somewhere in the community.
I would suggest Mr. Chair that in the future that this lease report should provide more detail and clarity in respect to leases that expire in certain years.
They should note what the government’s plans are and what they are doing with those leases.
Are they renewing them or are they in an overhold position, and so on?
I would also like to suggest, Mr. Chair, that in the future that when you provide a report, it describes the Lease Property Landlord.
This does not really tell us that much, it just tells us who the landlord is.
I would like to see another column that provides a description of what the leased space is or if it is another type of building, and some detail on what it is for, and in another column if they could indicate whether it is a P3 type of lease or other type of lease.
That would provide a lot of clarity.
As Members of the Legislative Assembly we ask these questions, it is like we are trying to be detectives here trying to get information.
I know that when this gets out into the public that the public doesn’t have all the opportunities to ask the government for information.
If your document was a little bit clearer and provide a little bit more information then it would provide a lot of clear information to the general public and others who are interested in leased commercial space in different communities.
I strongly recommend that when you table the lease next year that the report is more detailed for us so that we do not have to ask these nit picky types of questions.
It is no intention of ours to be giving you information that may have not appeared complete.
However, having said that, initially when this was presented to committee of the whole for the deliberations, we knew that there may be information in here that will be asked but not ever having to go through this process was very difficult to see what kind of questions would come.
Also some of the information that we have has been used by the department.
This time around is a learning process for us too here at the witness table.
By all means, we will look at improving our presentation in the future and also with the members’ input.
Then again Mr. Chairman, when this was presented to committee of the whole not knowing what kind of questions would come forward we knew that there might be questions on information that was not asked to be here, which will lead to some information we will have to give back to the members.
I think in fairness, Mr. Chairman that would be said in record.
Thank you, Minister for those comments.
I agree with the Minister, it is the first time for him, and it is the first time for us.
I am not sure of what template to use.
I am sure there are probably templates across Canada that he could have looked at to help him with the presentation.
I am very hopeful that the next time you do present that it will be more detailed.
I have been getting questions, people are emailing me and phoning and even stopping me in the street here telling me that they see this on television.
People across Nunavut are really quite interested in the leasing aspect of the government.
I don’t think a lot of people pay attention to leases.
When they learn that we have 59 to 60 leases and that there is $82 million value for the leases, I guess that is a number that really grabs people’s attention and generates a lot of interest.
I know the people across Nunavut are very interested.
They would like to have more details, they support the Government of Nunavut and all Members of the Legislative Assembly to promote openness, transparency and accountability.
I think that’s what we should strive for.
This process that we are in right now is a good step in the right direction and I applaud the Minister and his officials for their initial foray into this area.
I know it hasn’t been easy.
I am sure that the next time we meet, I am not sure it will be easier, but you will be better prepared, as will we.
We have a lot to learn about leases and I think leasing property in the future for the Government of Nunavut is going to be very critical to our ongoing success as a public service.
We can’t just sign leases and not get good value for them and our money is short. We can’t sign leases that are long-term and not a good economic value for us.
We are taking money from other areas of our government that could be useful to deliver programs and services to the people that we have to serve.
I think this process is very good and I am looking forward to the next time around when we have even more detailed report on those leases.
I am sure that the various Standing Committees are going to take a very serious look at leases after this process is complete.
I guess last week to close my comments on this learning process, I will also add that the next time that we appear in front of the Committee of the Whole, we’ll try and better outline, define, translate and interpret the sensitive natures of leases.
This will be specific to areas or information that may be confidential or sensitive and we’ll try to have some better outline for the House in our next appearance.
First of all I would like to turn Arviat’s Specific and Western Public Sector Finance. It had a contract for five years and it seems like it’s the first time I’ve seen it.
It seems like there is a deficit in here and I am not sure what company or what sector this is.
Could you clarify that part, please?
It is not for a house, it is for a service that is provided for the Department of Health and Social Services.
There is quite a number.
I think that there are about 10 or 12 and they are going to be terminated in 2004-2005.
And then there are some contracts that are going to be ending in 2005-2006.
I know that there are many businesses in Nunavut that would be more than willing to get their properties leased by the government through the request for proposal process and since it wasn’t a public tender process and they were awarded to particular companies, I’m sure that there are other companies out there who would like to bid on these.
We keep hearing of government just renewing leases without informing the public, this only serves the investors for these leases and when the public hears of this they are not very pleased with the government about leases that were just renewed without going out to the public tender.
With leases that are ending you should just go out to the public and not just renew contracts.
There are people out there who would like to try and there are quite a lot of business people out there.
These groups tend to think that the tender or RFP will be put out and they’ll apply like everyone else but they tend to be of the opinion that they’ll get the contracts because they automatically have the best options.
So, for those leases that ended in 2004, I think they’ve just been extended or renewed without ever going out to the public.
How does it work, the public out there is waiting for business opportunities.
I would like to ask the Minister exactly how the process works in these matters.
There is an agreement initially and then over and above that it says that when the lease is ended they should be able to be extended for another year or two.
There are clauses that have been used at the end of an agreement.
With some companies, when the end comes, it is terminated and put out into the public.
To date, we’re starting to get a better picture of what the Legislative Assembly would like to do and what we’re hearing is that they should be putting those tenders out to the public instead of renewing them.
I do believe that there are renewals or extensions.
There are many problems on extensions or renewals taking place without ever going out to public tender and renewals are for one company only.
It seems like there is no process that is used.
When a lease is ended, that is that, it is ended, it should become available to the public.
I believe that there is a government policy that says so.
It may very well be awarded back to the same company but it would be more public and it would go smoother if it was put out to the public.
There are companies out there that would like to be involved and when a lease is renewed or extended, they become very unhappy and as a Regular Member, it becomes a difficult when people turn on you and blame you for these extensions or renewals.
My question is, are you going to be opening every single one of them out to the public at the end of a lease.
Anyone of the members, if you are aware of renewals that have not gone out to the public, I would like to be informed so that I could have answers prepared for these types of questions.
If you can tell me which one of these has gone through that process, please tell me.
And as I stated, I would like to restate briefly that these lease agreements, and before these leases end in five to seven years, usually what happens is that they have to be included into the budget or if the lease agreement is going to be good or if there’s going to be an extension.
Mr. Chairman, those are my comments.
And it became clear, especially for one particular issue where we were not properly prepared.
We would like to be prepared in every case, and if you have a concern or if you need clarification, my department is open anytime if you want any assistance.
I believe what you are saying, but it seems like we can’t get assurance from the government that this is not going to be practiced anymore.
If there’s another renewal or extension without going with it to the public, I know that I will have to work with your department.
It’s not very good for the businesses out there to sign a lease again or to extend it.
I’m sure you know Minister, that this hurts many people, especially when there is a lot of money involved. I would like you to be more aware of this when these leases and contract come up for renewal.
I would like to see more of these open to the public.
I know my colleague from Cambridge Bay was asking questions on the format and what types of information was on here earlier, and after receiving the requested information on the expiry dates, just once that information was put in there, it seemed like the column is all evened up better.
It looks like that information was there already on a copy that the department had, and I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but if it was, is there any other information that’s on the copy that we don’t have versus the copy that we have?
If I understand my colleague’s question correctly, no; the copy that I presented to the Members was a copy I had, I believe the first day we appeared here and then we had them photocopied for distribution to the Members in this House.
I hope, as my colleague pointed, we could see some other more useful information on there as well like what the facilities are being looked at.
Last week there was some indication that it is normal practice of the government when they’re looking at any major leases, that it’s a five to seven year lead time when they’re looking at different options.
It was mentioned earlier that there is one, two here, three, four, three leases that are in over hold.
I’m just wondering what the process was on those ones that were indicated.
I believe it is the one that is, note three, is four and the two that Mr. Peterson asked about in Rankin Inlet that expired last year as well.
The leases in over hold, the one here, extension number 8, this is a dental clinic in Baker Lake.
We have kept that in over hold.
We haven’t actually been able to get in touch with the landlord.
It’s been recently purchased so we’re trying to get that straightened out.
The other one that I could not answer before, which I believe I have now, is the lease in Rankin Inlet which was listed as 2004.
That was actually the last.
The final option of renewal was taken on that.
So that expires in 2009.
And the answer would be the same for the Hamlet of Whale Cove, the answer that I had given before which was that it was in over hold at this time.
Yes, we could make proper notes to every one of those if the situation warranted.
Were other options not looked at, at say the one in Rankin Inlet that has just been renewed again?
They’re worth about $250 thousand.
Which building is that.
Is it an office building.
What is that being used for.
I am just trying to get my mind around which building it is.
If you could give me an idea, so I could follow up with questions.
I’ll ask Mr. Clark to explain that for my colleague.
That is the Ilagittuq Centre Building in Rankin Inlet.
That houses the Human Resource regional office and is also the Petroleum Product Division Headquarters.
In this case, this expired in 2004.
This sheet perhaps is not updated as it should be but there was a final renewal clause in the lease term.
That option was taken in 2004 to extend that lease to 2009.
What, if any analysis, was done in looking at that property prior to signing on the last renewal.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Okay, thank you, Minister.
Most of that predates me, but as I understand it, there were several things taken into consideration.
One is that there was currently a reasonably favourable rental rate or lease rate on the property.
Secondly, the tenant was pleased with the space that they were in.
Thirdly there were no construction plans within that area that would fit that so, at that particular point in time it made a lot of sense simply to renew it for that period of time.
There is no exact science to making a renewal option. There is a whole number of factors that need to be determined.
As I said, if the lease is favourable, is a reasonable lease, and is a reasonable lease in the community, which in that case, it was.
If the client is satisfied and if we have good renewal terms for the lease, then it often makes sense to renew that lease because of a disruption that causes to, in this case, the departments, to move them out of a suitable facility lease.
So if what you are saying if everything looks favourable, then as long as everyone’s happy, no else has a chance, like Mr. Alagalak had pointed out earlier, that he would like to see some of these things go out to public tender, even if it is an RFP, when its expiring, and there is no RFP put out, how do you know if you are going to get a more competitive renewal rate.
There are two issues there.
One issue is whether or not, in fact, there is space available, or likely suitable space available and we quite regularly look at communities to see what space is available so we know.
The second is we also track what renewal is going for in other facilities, if there had been rentals, and we also look at the cost of living increases.
You certainly could argue that you could automatically re-tender a lease every time.
There is a two-fold risk to doing that.
One risk is that over time rates inevitably go up.
In many of our leases we have some favourable renewal options which have insulated us at lower rates and the cost of living increases.
The other thing that I mentioned the disruption that you have to factor in that it costs, because of the moving expenses, or the remodeling expenses that may be.
So all of those factors have to be taken into consideration.
It is not unusual at all in a leased portfolio, for office leases that those go on for a reasonably long period of time, as long as the original lease is a reasonably good lease.