EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
They didn’t want to get deductions for their pension but they did have their salaries deducted.
My question is with these individuals who have been contributing to the pension plan that they don’t want.
If they would like to donate it to the less fortunate people, would they able to do that for those members that choose to opt out because they've already been contributing to their pension plan?
Speaker: Mr. Chairman, just to try to clarify the question.
Is the minister asking if an individual or a member opted out of the basic plan that you've been paying into for the last two years?
Chairperson (interpretation): Ms. Thompson, could you rephrase your question so that they could respond.
We've already been a government for two years.
The people that have already contributed towards the pension and have been deducted from their pay cheque, I suppose for the last two years.
If you opt out, where does the contribution you made to your pension go for the last two years under the old plan?
That's what I'm asking.
Because if you opt out, those members have already contributed that want to opt out, there must be some money they can give that away now to the poor.
Mr. Chairman, currently in the registered pension plan that we have, there is no option for opting out.
However, if there is a circumstance where a member was to leave office, then that member would get his contributions plus interest returned to him or her.
And obviously in that state, they could do whatever they felt was most appropriate, to deal with those proceeds as they feel is most appropriate.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, for those members that want to opt out, although we've been Members of the Legislative Assembly for two years already, we've been a government for two years already.
If they choose to opt out and not take the money, do I understand that for the past two years now, since we've been a Legislative Assembly, under the present plan they will still get a retirement pension even though they choose not take the pension, for the past two years they've already contributed.
Just to try to distinguish between the two actual plans that we are talking about.
The basic plan, which every member is a member of, is a mandatory plan.
So for the last two and a half years, you had to contribute to that plan.
The only way out of it, is if you leave the Assembly as you are not re-elected or you resign, or whatever.
The second plan we're talking about is the supplementary pension act, which is totally separate, and no member up to this point has been paying into that plan.
But if they were to opt into it, they would then have to go back and pay from 1999 into that plan up to, it could be anywhere between 5 and 10 thousand dollars per member depending on your salary.
You'd have to put that back into the plan in order to sort of get up to the stage where we are now.
So if you want to opt into the secondary plan, you'd have to go back and play catch up and that's between 5 and 10 thousand dollars to do so.
As Rob indicated, if you do opt out, as three of the members indicated, they've opted out to take the supplementary, they would still have to stay and they still will remain in the basic plan.
Ms. Thompson (interpretation): This is more of a comment. Earlier on I understood that, some members said that they don’t want the benefits, no matter what, even if they don’t get elected again.
But we have all made our contributions for two years already to the plan so, no matter what, every MLA will be eligible for a benefit, whether they like it or not.
Those deductions will not just disappear.
Do I understand, we’re talking about two different issues right here, the very basic pension is different from this Supplementary Retiring Allowance Act, the first one is less costly…
Chairperson (interpretation): I would like to ask the member what you are interjecting about.
Mr. Chairman, the member just indicated that three members said that they weren’t going opt into this plan because they wanted to get re-elected.
Chairperson (interpretation): Just a minute.
Ms. Thompson, could you clarify what you were saying.
Ms. Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I’ll switch to English.
That was an interpretation mistake.
I did not say three members in this House.
I just said if there are members that said they don’t want any pensions at all but they have already contributed for the last two years because we’re talking about this now.
Where does that contribution go in the last two years that was towards their pension?
That’s what I’m saying. I didn’t point out there were three members here.
Don’t get defensive because I’m just asking a question as a member of this House because that is a question from me, as a member.
What happened to the last two years now?
That’s what I was asking and it was clarified that we’re talking about two different things here.
Mr. Chairman, we have a right to ask questions and that was a comment I wanted to make and I think it’s a good comment.
Are we going to lose the two years, if we opt out?
That’s the question and it was answered so we’re misinterpreting.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Tootoo, in the Inuktitut I understood it clearly, there was no mention of three members.
I think you misunderstood the English.
For me it was clear.
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Chairman, just for the record I’ll check, I’ll wait and check the Hansard tomorrow but I heard the, if members didn’t want to opt in because they wanted to get re-elected.
That’s what I heard and I’ll wait and check the Hansard tomorrow and I’ll decide what I do from there.
Chairperson (interpretation): As the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, I will review the Hansard tomorrow issue my ruling as to what was really said between Ms. Thompson and Mr. Tootoo.
Just keep calm, don't be speaking back and forth and going all over the place.
We are discussing the Supplementary Pension Plan and the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act.
We'll keep that in mind.
It went through the interpreter and Hansard will come out English.
They will not come out in Inuktitut.
If the Hansard was in Inuktitut, it wouldn't be there because I was speaking in Inuktitut.
I don't know how it's going to come out in English.
(interpretation ends) On the Hansard tomorrow, it will be from the translators and I never mentioned any member here.
I didn't say three members, I didn't say if you don't want to get elected or if you want to get elected.
I just had a comment just like any other member here.
I had a question, a concern.
Chairperson (interpretation): We get the Hansard Blues everyday, they arrive in the morning, and we read our statements in the Hansard.
They are in English and Inuktitut.
They are transcribed from the proceedings here in two languages.
I will read it tomorrow.
Ms. Thompson was making general comments.
Did you want to respond Mr. Speaker?
I believe the minister indicated that she was satisfied with the distinction that was made between the two plans and how they were intertwined.
Anything else. Ms. Thompson.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Yes Mr. Chairman, the clarification that I wanted, I now know that there are two separate plans and those who want to opt out are still going to be eligible in the basic plan.
They are still there and they're still getting deductions from their salary.
That's the part I wanted clarification on and I got it.
What I was getting at was if they wanted to opt out, I had thought they weren't even going to be getting their basic plan.
That was the misunderstanding that I had. So it is now clear.
I also made brought my views out into the open like any of the members sitting around the table.
Chairperson (interpretation): I didn’t hear a question.
Did you want to respond, Mr. Speaker?
Speaker: I think the question was and the answer to the question is the members that opt out still remain in the basic plan, so they still have a pension.
And the money that they have contributed over the last two and a half years remains in there.
So just because you opt out of this new plan, the supplementary plan doesn't mean you will be out of a pension.
You still have a pension.
The basic plan is mandatory and stays in affect.
So the bottom line is everybody in the Assembly at the end of the day, at the end of the term will have some form of pension.
Ms. Thompson any further comments or questions.
I don't have any questions to the clauses.
But we are looking at what the difference might be with this proposal from the others.
But in any case we are making a big thing out of this Bill.
Some members are for the Bill and there are those who are opposed to it.
I get the feeling that this Bill will go through.
There are other jurisdictions and even our Premier who I could suggest can give away the money to the less fortunate if you don't want it.
We can make a donation to a foundation or which ever needs it more than you do if you wish to do so.
Mr. Chairman as Members of the Legislative Assembly we want to help but then the regular members identified the needs of the people out there and we never seem to be able to get what we want.
So it is hard to tell how the members want to help the people out there.
We want to help the elders, we can all say that, we want to help the elders but then we don't get it from the government.
Some of our colleagues are now opposed because they are looking at the needs of the people out there.
So I don't know where anybody is coming from Mr. Chairman.
During the early stages of discussion, I had stated that those who don't want to be part of the plan be given this option.
I don't have any questions Mr. Chairman.
I have two names.
We’ll go clause by clause and you’ll again have an opportunity to make your statements or questions.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you. I too can state my own opinions and statements.
I will not be a part of this Supplementary Plan.
I make my own financial decisions on my own but we’re using public money to create this pension plan.
I wanted to make those comments because there is a difference between public money and making your own arrangements.
I will stick to my decision.
We are talking about public money for our pensions and I oppose that idea.
It could be used for other things, which is why I’m opposing this bill.
This is creating a controversy outside of the House.
I can make my own arrangements, I will make my own arrangements and I just wanted to be clear to the members here.
I am not looking down on anybody here but this is the way I feel about it.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. My colleagues, we all have the freedom to make our statements for or against the bill.
We have our freedom of speech and thank you very much for taking advantage of that.
I didn’t hear a question and I have your name next, Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, a couple of questions came up based on comments that some of the other members made.
I think Mr. Irqittuq made a very interesting comment and I was wondering, if it is an option under this plan, if members choose not to opt into this plan if, if we were in the plan the money would be there.
Basically, you know if my numbers are correct, 34 thousand dollars a year.
Can some provisions be made to just go in to a department or go into a department’s budget or to a specific area or to an organization or charitable organization or group within our community?
You know, if we can find the money to put it away for us if we wanted it, why can’t we take that money and put it towards a group in a community or to a specific thing like school supplies or something like that within the budget of a department.
The quick answer to that is no.
That’s not a possibility.
Mr. Tootoo: Sorry Mr. Chairman, I didn’t hear the Speaker’s answer.
I think it was no, is that correct.
Speaker: That’s correct.
The answer was no, that’s not a possibility.
It’d be a separate bill or separate statute for that to happen.
That’s not the case right now.
Mr. Chairman, if I could ask the House if members would consider taking a look at a statute or a bill that would, if members chose not to participate in this plan, allocate that funding through a source and there could be a pretty straightforward simple thing.
It depends on, like after 30 days or 60 days, if members give notice, you know how much money is going to go towards that and how much, whatever the other members decide that they want to put something of that to.
I've got a question for the Speaker right now, just a question for the members of this House.
I'm going to ask you to think about if it's something that we can look at developing in the future.
We can go clause by clause.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On that issue, I guess I should clarify, I don't necessarily need an answer but I'll be asking our staff and clerk to look into if something like that is possible, or we can find a way to do it.
Hopefully we can bring forward some kind of legislative proposal if it's possible.
My last question, Mr. Chairman, is again it comes off of the question that Mr. Picco had answered or asked.
He'd asked if the next Assembly came in, we'll just say the next Assembly, that would probably be the easiest way to figure it out, came in, do what they did in 1996, and terminate the plan.
The members, existing members that would be on the plan, what would it cost the government to terminate that plan.
I would imagine that there would be a commitment to pay out the members that were on the existing plan at the time of the termination.
So I'm just wondering if there's been any thought to that and if the Speaker could indicate what the potential cost could be to us and the liability in the future.
Mr. Vanderzan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the next Assembly were to repeal the supplementary Act, then they would have some choices.
They could choose to close the plan to new members or they could also go one step further and say we will also, in addition to closing this plan to new members, we will also stop all pensions and pay to the existing members.
I expect there might be a challenge to that but my understanding is that the Assembly does have the right to take away those benefits in the future.
If the first choice is taken by the Assembly, then there would be no additional costs for the plan, whatever had been appropriated up to that point in time should be enough to fund the pensions that had already been earned and that were now being paid out.
So there would be no additional ongoing costs unless the actual experience of the plan was different than the actuarial assumptions.
If they went the second step of actually stopping all the pensions and pay, then there would be no more liability under the plan and any funds that had been appropriated for the purpose of the supplementary act would then be freed up for other purposes.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): I just wanted to go to clause by clause Mr. Chairman.
I understand what the plan is about so I would like to go to clause by clause.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 21, Supplementary Retiring Allowance Act.
Bill 21, Clause 1.
Duration of Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Chairman, I am just opposing.
Under Clause 7.
I would just like to get some clarification.
Under 7(a) and (b) and the 30 days.
Could you change the days with a motion?
I believe the member is asking if he can change what is in here.
In (a) it stipulates that in the next Assembly a member would have 60 days.
But in the present Assembly as of today a member would have 30 days based on their decision.
And I am not sure, but I believe the member is asking if this could be changed.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): The question that I am asking is whether the 60 days in (a) and 30 days in (b) could be changed while we are doing it right now through a motion.
Speaker: Mr. Chairman the 60 day period that you see here is in line with our Integrity Act which requires under the Act it requires 60 days.
We are following in line with the Integrity Act, which we have adopted in the House.
What about 7(b)?
Mr. Chairman any part of this is up for changes or amendments depending on the group here and the membership.
The 30 day limit was put in there to, for the most part to identify that within 30 days you should be able to make a decision whether to opt in or out and not to leave it too long.
So that was the rationale.
Is the member asking or requesting that this be changed to a longer period or a shorter period.
Because the reason we thought that, I believe we talked about 10 days to make a decision in 10 days whether you want to opt into the plan or out, and then it was felt that 30 days was a reasonable time to review your situation, opt into the plan or opt out.
I was just saying that the 30 days is a little bit too long.
If I want the 30 days to stick in the Act or to leave it in the Act as is.
So if I am going to think about whether I am going to opt in to the plan, this 30 days is too long.
But I have to think about it by representing my communities.
Perhaps, at this present legislature or the next legislature, we have to think about our children when they get older.
I was thinking about within 14 days of it coming into force.
Because if I become too old, I wouldn't know, if I'm going to represent my communities, I would have to make my decision within the 30 days and I feel like I want to make a motion to change the number of days to a lesser number.
Speaker: To clarify this and I believe this is where the member is coming from, the 30 days, once the plan and if the plan is enacted, approved, the member has 30 days to opt into it.
He can do it on the 1st day, the 2nd day, the 5th day or the 30th day but after the 30th day, that's when his time is over to opt into it.
So the member does have the option to opt in on the 1st day.
He can do it from day number 1.
He doesn't have to wait for 30 days.
That's the time frame in which he has to make his decision.
You are very clear Mr. Speaker.
It's also a political question in that one. That is, if I want to opt in, in 30 days, maximum 30 days, I will be thinking whether Coral Harbour and Chesterfield want me to opt in or not.
But I'll be thinking of opting in for the purposes of looking after my children when I'm too old.
I don't need 30 days.
So it's a political question and a personal question to mention these numbers.
That's why I feel, that if I will be, at least have a wish to look after my children when I'm too old, then I want to decide now, not 30 days for Chesterfield and Coral Harbour to answer for me.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's difficult to comment on that.
It's a personal decision and any member can make that decision whenever he wishes up to 30 days and whether the time frame is 15 days, he'd have that 15 day window to make a decision.
So I don't know why reducing it to 14 days, what that would do.
It wouldn't give you as much time to change your mind I guess but the member still has within the time frame, that window to make a decision and if I'm not understanding your question clearly, Mr. Arvaluk, Mr. Chairman, I'll try and take another go at it.
We have to realize that how we will decide personally.
I'm able to become an adult educator and when I decided to become an adult educator, I was told that I have to get a certificate.
And if I don't have a certificate today I could be paid 75% of my pay while taking the course.
Mr. Chairman they were trying to say that you were a former MLA you shouldn't work for the college.
As members we are not sure whether we are going to find jobs after we've left office.
Everybody knows this.
It is no secret that we might not be able to find a job as soon as we leave office.
When I leave office I have my children to worry about.
I will have to know if 14 days will be enough.
If I am thinking about Chesterfield and Whale Cove, the 30 days is fine.
I have children to think about.
I think that was just a comment.
Something that we could consider.
Mr. Arvaluk do you have anything further.
I would like to ask the Speaker if he would commit to within 10 working days or less or as soon as possible after the deadline for people signing up for it that he publicise a list of members that either opt in or opt out of the program.
I don't believe I can't do that.
I can't violate the confidentiality of each member.
If they wish to sign, opt in or opt out.
It’s certainly up to them, as it is certainly for any member here, a personal decision.
I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible to talk about a member’s personal private affairs as far as the pension goes.
There is no provision in the Act for that.
Furthermore, I wouldn't want to take responsibility for each of the members on which way they want to go.
That is not to stop any member from telling the press what they've done or how they decided on this issue.
Mr. Chairman I thought there was some sort of a requirement for the government to publicize and table annually at least members’ earnings.
I think we just tabled it last week I think.
This is no different in that I would imagine it would have to be included in that because it is money being spent on behalf of the members.
I don't see why we couldn't do that.
There are only three members that voted against the bill.
Everyone else is saying they have no problems saying it in here whether they support it or not.
What is the big deal about it being publicised.
Mr. Chairman I am not sure if we could get the advice of our Law Clerk whether it be tomorrow.
There may be a provision under the Federal Privacy Act that would not allow myself to provide that information.
I guess taking it a step further, the fact that X number of members supported the Bill, that doesn't mean that they will opt into it.
As Mr. Picco, who supported the bill, has indicated that he will not opt in.
So, that’s somewhat of a personal decision and something each member as to how they want to follow-up on that.
I guess Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the Speaker after checking with our Law Clerk if there is nothing barring that from happening would he commit to do that.
I can check with the Law Clerk on this and other legal experts but I certainly wouldn’t want to take the stand to commit here that I would release all that information because there may be members that do not want to release them.
There is no provision in the Act that states it has to be.
Maybe something that states that it’s permissible I guess but that doesn’t mean that each member wants their confidential information to be released.
So I would suggest that if Mr. Tootoo wants to know what each member opted for that he asks them.
It is a personal matter.
I’m sure the press will be asking each of the members anyway so they have the option to answer, not answer or whatever.
Mr. Arvaluk: Mr. Chairman, there is no big deal in 30 days.
It’s, you know, if there’s, they should have scrutinized it as it is.
I agree with Mr. Hunter that there will be a scrutiny, and Mr. Speaker, that I have no big deal with 30 days because sooner or later, you know, we have to tell it all, like we always do and then there are no personal secrets of any members that are present here.
I think that’s also true everywhere else.
I think Mr. Anawak was talking about we’re good target practice for the media and will probably continue to be so.
So I have no big deal with the 30 day period.
If that’s the case.
Chairperson (interpretation): You don’t have a question.
On that issue, it kind of caught me off guard on that, that you know, there is such a thing in this government we caught on to it very quick about political grandstanding.
What the electorate want to see from us and what people want to hear from us.
If he can just stand up in the House and say, you know, the thing that people want to hear and if a politician, you know, a special politician tells people what they want to hear.
And you know, when it comes to political grandstanding a few members in this House are very, very, good at it.
And I have to say that I’ve taken some lessons from that member over the last three years.
He’s taught me well.
But on that issue of not being able to find out to me, is not right, for the simple fact that, isn’t there a document that’s tabled yearly that shows this.