EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We all feel that that funding should be reinstated to it’s original amount and that they find from somewhere else within the $60 thousand difference after this $90 thousand that’s here in the supplementary from within their existing travel and transportation budget.
Just a minute please. (interpretation ends): Do you have a copy of the motion, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo.
This is not translated.
We’ll take a break for five minutes so that it can be translated into Inuktitut.
>>Committee recessed at 17:12 and resumed at 17:24
Every Member has the right speak once to the motion for a total of 20 minutes.
The mover of the motion must speak first.
The mover of the motion has the right to the last reply, which closes the debate.
The intent of this motion is to show Wildlife Officers and the people involved in the Inuit Field Officers Training Program that contrary to what some of them have been told, I had heard, it was not the Members of the Legislative Assembly who cut their budget.
The motion, as I read in the hansard, that was made to delete the $150,000 from the Department of Environment’s budget was just asking to delete the $150,000 out of a total budget out of $479,000.
We didn’t have this list saying where exactly it came from.
In here there’s no, it doesn’t show $150,000 for this, and I think it was the intent of the Members who supported the motion at the time, that get cut out of the headquarters travel budget from the senior officials traveling around.
Once we realized that what had happened here, one can use the analogy of incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit into this, instead of using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and sharing the deletion through out the 13 line items that are incorporated in that travel and transportation section of the budget, and all sharing in the pain a little bit.
It was the department decided to just cut the weakest link, basically, there was no one there to say, we don’t think it’s important, we want this program, there was no one there to do that.
It seems like it was a headquarters driven thing to say, well, you can’t touch our travel budget, let’s cut someone off a little lower down and the peck and order, so they cut off the travel budget for the wildlife officers.
Like I said, I was appalled when I realized and seen this in the supplementary appropriation bill to come forward.
I think that all Members on this side of the House support wildlife officers and Inuit field officer training program.
For that reason, we wanted to set the record straight and recommend that the government department reinstate the funding that was allocated for that program, prior to someone sitting here in this chamber in Iqaluit to making that cut that affect wildlife officers in all 26 communities.
That’s just behind that motion and also just the fact that we’re asking for a supplementary appropriation to come forward during the next session, to increase the disaster relief fund, disaster compensation grants for hunters and trappers to the $150,000 we had recommended by way of that last session as well.
We do acknowledge the efforts of the government in accommodating some of the recommendations that were made the Members.
However, by totally cutting out this one program, that is not something that the regular Members of this House decided to do.
All we knew there was $479,000 there, and we wanted them to cut $150,000 out of that.
It wasn’t up to us to say where it came from.
I’m sure they said it could affect this, it could affect this, it could affect this.
Today’s the first day I’ve seen this list here, exactly what the list is and where the numbers could come from.
Maybe in the future, we should be asking for this to be included in either the business plans or the main estimates, so that when we do make deletions, we don’t leave it up to them to decide where to pick it from, we could say exactly where we want it to come from.
With that, I urge all Members to support this motion, making that recommendation to the government.
I don’t have anybody else on my list to the motion.
Mr. Curley: I had wanted to speak to the original proposal of the government before the motion was introduced mainly because it has implications with the Disaster Relief Fund.
The Disaster Relief Fund is allocated for fires and other natural disasters by elements in Nunavut.
I want to make it very clear to the Inuit Members here that the Disaster Relief Fund that is allocated and approved is only $20 thousand, will remain $20 thousand by the government, since the motions are not binding.
As the Minister stated earlier, we may not have the full $150 thousand restored in the fall.
I am concerned with this particular wording of the motion because all of the Members concluded earlier that the motions of the house are not binding, therefore $150 thousand will not be put into the program this year, in 2005.
So what we’re saying is put one in the fall for 2006.
The government has millions of dollars in contingency funds that they could have tapped into to restore the Field Officer Training Program.
Why have you convinced yourselves that the $150 thousand that we set aside towards the Disaster Relief Fund be the only pot of money that you can access to restore, they say restore.
You put an extra $40 thousand into it.
The only one that I see on the line item that we voted against and deleted in the winter session was called travel and transportation.
This information was not available. It might have been stated but we did not have this information.
Why would you call the Inuit Field Officer Training Program travel a line item, as well as the corporate services management, Assistant Deputy Minister Program Development?
That’s not a travel or transportation item.
We would like to know more of the travel line items.
I know that the Assistant Deputy Minister’s budget in the other section, on the program design is close to $700 thousand for their travel budget.
I wonder what’s in that line item.
(interpretation) I want everybody to understand that if we approve this motion (interpretation ends): as they are now, because they are now bringing, going back to reducing $150 thousand to only $60 thousand towards the Natural Disaster Fund.
So, (interpretation) if we’re going to vote on this motion, I would like the Minister of Environment to respond why he doesn’t want that $150 thousand.
Maybe you can respond before we have a vote.
Why are you not agreeing to the Inuit who are asking for assistance?
We say we are going to listen to our constituents, to our voters.
There is a contingency fund. (interpretation ends) The contingency Fund is close to $80 million from what I heard during the fiscal budget presentation.
During TD 100-2(2), the government spends about $30 thousand for cameras or (interpretation ends): They could have cancelled five cameras instead and saved $150 thousand for that.
Hopefully he’ll understand my response.
The policies when we give them out, the Disaster Compensation Grant has been for $20,000 for so many years.
Its geared at $450 to people and we don’t use it every year.
Only a portion of it is used.
That is why if it was at $60,000 and the policy was changed, we would have more room of how to make improvements.
If there needs to be an improvement then we can maybe.
As a government we still have to review those kinds of things.
The policy states that we can give $450 per individual, and it can’t go over that.
That is what the policy states.
Chairman (interpretation): I think we are not talking to the motion anymore here.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: I was going to speak to the motion.
I had to answer the question from my colleague, Mr. Curley.
(interpretation) In the motion it states before we make a vote we stated where this $150,000 would be cut from.
This will affect the Inuit Field Officer training for their travel budget.
We are trying to train Inuit to become Wildlife Officers.
The Wildlife Officers have to travel to Iqaluit, sometimes if there is no Wildlife Officer in Sanikiluaq then we have to send a replacement from Iqaluit.
There is not always a Wildlife Officer that is always staying in the community.
I tried to make statement in regards to that.
If we were to take that funding it would have an effect on different programs.
Maybe the Members didn’t understand it fully because I made it very clear when we had to talk to the motion; I made this very clear and asked where this should be cut from.
There were some programs that don’t require too much for travel and transportation because we have to travel down south, especially when it is corporate travel.
I always stated before we take that road that we will take $150,000 from the corporate services; it will have to be from the training program.
I also stated after I did that, there was a vote to take that $150,000.
Chairman (interpretation): I don’t have anybody else on my list.
Mr. Tootoo, the mover.
The Minister had just indicated that it’s important that they are always to train Inuit.
The government says that on one hand, yet what is the first thing that they cut?
There are 12 other lines in there.
The idea of whatever 150,000 out of that $479,000 let us say it is like four percent, for example.
Why didn’t they just go four percent across the board for all the areas and it would have been fine, everyone share?
In my experience in government in budgeting, that is how the cuts are done.
They don’t axe the whole program just because its numbers are the closest to the one that they have got to make up.
That’s the first time I have ever heard of that being done, and I hopefully, that’s not how they prepare their budgets either.
It’s just appalling to hear that, I hear yes, it’s important that we always try to train Inuit, but that’s the first thing we are cutting.
We have got to cut so we are going to take it from there.
We didn’t have this information.
The Minister should have stated that it could affect programs like this.
You don’t see any money taken out of the Deputy Minister’s office, any money taken out of the Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Development Office or no money taken out of the Corporate Service Management, and no money taken out of Financial Services, and all of the other Regional Corporate Services, you know they are not very much at Policy and Planning, and Legislation Division. $20 thousand, I don’t know why they need that there to do all of their stuff right here. The legislation and enforcement, that’s your wildlife officers anyway.
If each one of those divisions would have shared it, it would have been no problem.
It’s the first time I have heard of the closest number getting spawned.
I just find it very cynical, I guess, the fact that it’s important that we train Inuit, but that’s the only thing that gets cut.
So again, I urge all Members to support this motion.
Chairman: Maybe the government is short on calculators or they took the closest numbers; I don’t know.
Okay, the debating is now closed and we will now vote on the motion.
Do I hear a question?
Can I have a recorded vote on this, please?
Chairman: The Member has requested a recorded vote, so all those in favour of the motion please stand and sit down when I have called your name.
All those in favour of the motion please stand and then sit down when I have called your name.
All those opposed please stand up and then sit down when I call your name.
All those abstaining please stand up and then sit down when I call your name.
It’s a tie.
So the Chair will break the tie by voting in favour of the motion.
Back to Bill 17; we are on page 8.
Branch not previously authorized. Corporate Management.
Total Corporate Management, $90 thousand.
Program Development, $90 thousand. Agreed?
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I had wanted to make a comment on that.
I appreciate the Minister’s attempt to explain as he did in the Winter Session, but we didn’t have the information as submitted.
The only information that we had other than the verbal presentation, which we were never really sure of whether it’s verified, certified, genuine because the line item we were dealing with was Travel and Transportation in the amount of $479 thousand and I believe the government gave us a wake up call that the line items may be misleading to the public.
Not only to the Members of this house but to the public.
We would never have asked you to cut the Inuit Field Worker’s Training Program.
We never told you to cut it 100 percent.
That was your decision, not ours.
I think the Minister and the chairman of the Financial Management Board as well as the Minister of Finance has really got to say to the Ministers, be transparent, be honest with the public, get those line items clear in exactly what they’re supposed to be spend on.
If I was the Minister of the department, I would never call human resources organizational development a travel and transportation line item, that would be misleading the public, it would not be true.
So, I’m urging the government and the Minister to do a better job in presenting their information packages and the budgets documents more fairly, and accurately and honestly.
First of all, I think there is a lesson learned in this House of the kinds of questions that are asked.
The House could have gone to the details of the information that you required to make the decision to delete $150 thousand.
I think in all seriousness, the Minister did not mislead this house and I think that should be stated for the record.
I will read page 57 where it states, this budget is broken down in terms of a lot of training and development of wildlife officers.
It’s incorporated into the corporate management budget.
That is said over and over and over and over on March 21, 2005 by the Minister Responsible for Environment and speaking to the point that it would have an impact on the Inuit training program.
That was stated in this house and no one tried to mislead these Members.
With that information in front of you, the reduction was made.
So, what we’re trying to do here is address two issues.
We want to continue with the Inuit training program and come up with a new program under the Disaster Replacement Equipment Program.
We tired to meet those two.
For the record, the Hansard clearly states on March 21, that that money would come out of that training program.
It’s very clear in the Hansard and those are recorded word by word and I encourage Members in this house to pick up the March 21st Hansard and read that.
No one mislead the house.
If you wanted to know what the breakdown was of the $479, that could be stated in the house.
Chairman (interpretation): Point of Order.
I don’t recall anyone saying that the Minister was misleading anybody in the house.
I indicated that there was some discussion that this could be affected and this could be affected.
And what the motion said was to delete $150 thousand from the travel and transportation.
My other colleague was just asking about getting some more clarity and what’s in those divisions.
No one said anything to my recollection of the Minister misleading the house.
Maybe the Minister could retract those comments.
Mr. Curley stated that the government mislead, so basically, in my opinion, the information is inaccurate.
Chairman: Point of Order.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I ask you now to check the record immediately to see if I used the word mislead.
I would not use the word mislead.
I said transparent.
We must do it honestly.
What we’re trying to say is the line item that we had on our hands was travel and transportation.
The Minister, in his head, may have had information, but out of the total, I don’t know what the total budget for the corporate services was, so I’m asking now to have the transcript checked whether if in fact I used the word.
If I did in fact use the word “mislead”, I apologize if I did, but it was not in my intent.
Chairman: Thank you, we are going to have a five minute break to see what was actually said.
>>Committee recessed at 17:50 and resumed at 18:07
Chairman (Mr. Netser) (interpretation): Thank you for coming back. (interpretation ends) A reading of the tape indicates that Mr. Curley said the following:
“Line items may be misleading to the public and to the Members of this House.
I would never put, if I were the Minister of the department, to call the Human Resources Organizational Development and put it in Travel and Transportation line item, that would be misleading to the public and it would not be true.”
Mr. Curley has clarified his intent and accordingly, there’s no point of order.
We are on page 8, Environment Branch, not previously authorized.
Total Corporate Management, $90,000.
Total Program Development, $60,000.
Total Department. $160,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Thank you very much.
Page 9, Community and Government Services.
Total Protection Services, $500,000.
Government Services, $500,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Thank you. Total Government Services, $3,554,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Total Department, $4,054,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Page 10, Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Total Nunavut Housing Corporation, $1,783,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Total Department, $1,783,000, do you agree?
Back to page 2.
Operations and Maintenance Appropriation, $6,524,000, do you agree?
We go to Bill 17.
Operations and Maintenance Act #1 2005-06.
Chairman: Say Aye when you have the Bill 17.
Some Members: Aye.
Chairman: Clause 3, do you agree?
Chairman: Back to 2.
Go to Schedule on page 3. Schedule.
Supplementary amounts appropriated for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006.
Vote 1. Operations and Maintenance. Total Supplementary Appropriation, $6,524,000, do you agree?
Back to Clause 3, do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 4, do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 5, do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 6, do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 7, do you agree?
Chairman: Is the Committee agreed to Bill 17 as a whole?
Chairman: Is the Committee agreed that Bill 17 is ready for third reading?
Supplementary Appropriation Capital #1 2005-06.
We are going to page 4.
Justice Capital Branch.
Corrections and Community Justice, $275,000.
Total Corrections and Community Justice, $275,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Total Human Rights Tribunal, $315,000.
Total Department, $590,000, do you agree?
Community and Government Services Branch.
Total Community Government, $1,250,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Total Department, $1,250,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Go to page 2.
Summary of Appropriations.
Schedule 1 Capital.
Total Capital Appropriation, $1,840,000, do you agree?
Chairman: We will go to Bill 16.
You have ten seconds to find the Bill.
Supplementary Appropriation Capital Act #1 2005-06.
Chairman: Go to Schedule.
Supplementary amounts appropriated for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006, Vote 1.
Total Supplementary Appropriation, $1,840,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Go to Clause 3, do you agree?
Chairman: Are Members agreed to Bill 16 as a whole?
Chairman: Are you agreed that Bill 16 is ready for third reading?
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) I would like to thank Ms. Aglukkaq for being here.
If you have any closing remarks, go ahead.
I would just like to thank my staff Paul and Paul for being here.
At the same time, I would like to thank the Ministers for assisting in the discussions around the motions and I think it’s a lesson learned for all of us to be very clear and have a clear understanding when dealing with amendments to budgets in the future.
So I thank everyone, and that’s it.
Chairman: Thank you, and your staff.
You can go back to your chair. (interpretation ends) We will have to go back to Bill 15.
If the Minister has any opening remarks in regards to Bill 15.
I am pleased to be here today in front of the Committee of the Whole to present Bill 15, an Act to Amend the Wildlife Act.
A comprehensive new Wildlife Act was enacted in December 2003.
The government expects to bring it into force later this year once the necessary regulations and orders are ready.
Most of the amendments reflect minor clarifications of wording to better reflect the original intent of the Act.
The first substantive change is to repeal a consequential amendment to the Travel and Tourism Act to allow a separate licensing scheme under the Wildlife Act for the wildlife aspects of this business.
The second substantive change relates to the Victims of Crime Act to allow a surcharge under the Wildlife Act to fund the Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund.
The remaining changes are minor clarification of wording to better reflect the original intent of the Act.
These changes are required to fully recognize the rights of Inuit and the uniqueness of Nunavut’s harvesting environment.
The Standing Committee Ajauqtiit has had the opportunity to review Bill 15, an Act to amend the Wildlife Act.
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee understands that this Bill will amend Nunavut’s new Wildlife Act, which is scheduled to come into force on July 9, 2005.
The Committee recognizes that the two substantive amendments in the Bill are related to the Travel and Tourism Act and the Victims of Crime Act.
The Standing Committee generally supported the Bill.
The Committee was pleased that the Minister was willing to work with Members in bringing forward two amendments to clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill.
Mr. Chairman, clause 4 of the Bill deals with tags.
Members were of the view that the clause should be amended to prevent hunters from inadvertently contravening the law in certain circumstances.
Clause 5 of the Bill deals with the authorized uses of vehicles while hunting.
Members put forward a motion to strike out the word “sitting”, which was felt to be overly restrictive.
Mr. Chairman, Members were pleased to learn that the translations of the draft regulations are almost complete, and that the department will soon be consulting with Nunavummiut.
Wildlife issues are of concern to all of our communities.
There are a wide range of different views on issues, and it is important that the public be heard.
The Standing Committee, during its deliberations, had the opportunity to meet with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated on an issue of concern.
As the concern related to an issue of legal interpretation involving the application of the federal Nunavut Act, the Committee would encourage the partners in the Nunavut Wildlife Legislation Working Group to work together in achieving a consensus on how to resolve the issue.
The Committee recommends the passage of the Bill as amended to all Members.
Minister, are you going to be having your officials make an appearance with you at the witness table?
Chairman (interpretation): Is it okay with the Committee Members if he goes down there with his officials?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant –at-arms, if you would escort the witnesses please.
For the record, could you please introduce your witnesses?
To my right is my deputy Minister, Simon Awa.
To my left is from the legal services is Patrick Orr.
We are going to be dealing with Bill 15, an Act to amend the Wildlife Act reprint, clause 1, do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): I had no names on my list, who would like to make general comments?
My question to the Minister, and deputy.
Why there’s such a rush, from my perspective we’re putting forward amendments to the Wildlife Act now when the regulations still has to go through consultation process?
I would have thought that, or have you exhausted all the consultation requirements with the groups out there, with wildlife groups.
If so, could you summarize a bit exactly what type of consultation was done with those miscellaneous and consequential amendments to the Nunavut Wildlife Management?
The point I’m concerned with, there are now a broader consultation process that are going on soon.
The Minister has said he is going to try and conclude them by July.
I wish him the best, because not many of our people are going to be around from this month to the next two, three months.
Really, I’m not sure you’re going to do a proper job in consulting with the communities and regulations. But, in short, explain to me, have you consulted with most of the wildlife groups in Nunavut on those amendments?