EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
What about the nine other buildings in the communities? How much have we spent in the last 20 years on those buildings?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Chairman, the annual amount for the year for the other nine buildings is $9.4 million a year.
When you combine them all, there seems to be enough money to build a new building for ourselves, if it was investigated properly by the Department of Finance.
This agreement was a federal agreement entered into in 1999. I don’t have the details of the lease, but the leases are expiring in 2019-2020. Community and Government Services looked at a number of options and this option we’re considering is lease to own.
If we proceed with this one, at the end of the term the buildings would be our buildings.
If we went with the other options that Community and Government Services looked at, if you purchase or build your own, they are a lot more expensive than this option.
Given our tight fiscal parameters, it would be very difficult to finance them.
Looking at the numbers, I like the fact that it can be investigated properly to look at the two options.
We have two more years to mull over that. I don’t mind if we can start planning for it now.
I like his report.
I believe that is just a general comment.
I want to proceed.
I just want to ask a question from what my colleague, Mr. Okalik, was asking.
If the department has ever thought of the option of actually building a new Legislative Assembly, I understand in years past there is a lot that has been and I guess still today is in place to build a new Legislative Assembly.
I have no idea what that would cost. I know that there are a lot of other pressing issues that we have in our territory, but I wonder if you could comment on that.
That was an option that was explored during the Third Assembly and it was an option that was being considered under P3 Canada. We looked at that, a heritage centre, and a new airport. It was prioritized and it was decided that a new airport was more important to the City of Iqaluit and the Baffin than the Legislative Assembly building for MLAs with fancy offices and stuff.
Given the political climate of the day, building a fancy, brand-new Legislative Assembly with all the bells and whistles versus building houses for people when we have a terrible housing crisis, this wasn’t one of those options that went very far.
That was the political stuff of the day and the financial calculations on top of all that.
I’m familiar with the lot that was set aside, but I think, when CGS did this evaluation of all the options, they estimate that a new building would probably cost in the neighbourhood of $60 million.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $71,807,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Let’s go to page 2.
Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) 2017-18, No. 1.
Capital Appropriation.
(interpretation) We’re on page 2. (interpretation ends) Schedule 1.
Capital Appropriation. $81,807,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: I want to assure you that I know what I’m doing, okay?
We just don’t have it all together at the moment, but let me assure you we know what we’re doing.
(interpretation) In your legislation binder, we will be dealing with Bill 35.
I believe you all have it in front of you.
I only have the English version, so I’ll be reading in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 35, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2017-2018. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Committee Motion 013 – 4(3): Bill 35, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2017-2018 Additional $10 Million (Peterson)
I hope I have my stuff all together down here.
We’re a good team here.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the Schedule to the bill be amended by
adding the following after Item No. 3:
(b) striking out “$71,807,000” after “TOTAL CAPITAL” and replacing it with “$81,807,000”; and
(c) striking out “$71,807,000” after “TOTAL SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION” and replacing it with “$81,807,000.”
Chairman: We also have a great team up here.
(interpretation) Thank you, minister. (interpretation ends) The motion is in order. (interpretation) Members, the motion is in your motions binder.
Chairman (interpretation): Members, do you agree to Bill 35 as amended?
Pursuant to Rule 62 (2), do members agree that Bill 35, as amended, can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Peterson, if you have any closing remarks on the bill, the floor is yours.
I would like to thank Minister Savikataaq and his officials. Mr. Devereaux here today did a lot of excellent work on researching and purchasing the 10 buildings across Nunavut, giving us this option to consider today.
It’s a very difficult process, but I’m very glad that they did that.
I would just like to thank the Minister of Education, the Minister of CGS and their officials along with my officials, Finance and the entire cabinet for that matter, and Mr. Qirngnuq for being able to respond so quickly to the tragedy in Kugaaruk to get this replacement school planning and replacement process underway so that the community of Kugaaruk can get a new school starting this year.
It’s a tremendous response. The support of yourself and your committee has made that possible.
As we proceed, we will be dealing with Bill 36. I have the English copy and the title of the bill in English is (interpretation ends) An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. (interpretation) Minister Peterson, if you have any opening comments, the floor is yours.
Bill 36 – An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act – Consideration in Committee
With your permission, can I bring in a new witness?
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Peterson is asking for permission to bring in a new witness from Community and Government Services to the witness table. Do you agree?
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort an official out and another official in.
Minister Peterson, please introduce the new witness for the record. Minister Peterson.
My new witness is Mr. Dan Carlson from the Department of Finance.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Carlson, welcome to the House.
Members, go to Bill 36 in your legislation binders. We will be dealing with that bill.
Minister Peterson, I now give you the opportunity to make your opening comments.
I appear before you today to present Bill 36, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act.
This bill amends Nunavut’s Income Tax Act so that the government can continue to offer education and textbook tax credits to Nunavut’s post-secondary students in 2017.
Through these credits, the government allows full-time post-secondary students to deduct from their taxable income $465 per month when they are in school. Part-time students can deduct $140 per month when they are in school.
These deductions mean these students will pay less income tax at the end of the year and so is a way for our government to help defray some of the costs of higher education.
Currently our Income Tax Act points to federal legislation to define these credits. The Government of Canada announced last year that it would remove these credits starting in 2017.
If our government wants to keep these credits for our students, we need to make sure our own Act contains the details.
That is what this bill will do.
If there are no questions, we will go to the clause-by-clause review. My apologies.
This has been reviewed by the committee. Does the chair of the standing committee have opening comments? Mr. Sammurtok.
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I am kind of losing my voice a little bit here.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some brief opening comments as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of Bill 36, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act.
As members will recall, Bill [36] received second reading on February 22, 2017 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation for consideration.
The standing committee supports the intent of the bill, which the minister’s opening comments described in detail.
In its dialogue with the minister, the standing committee requested clarification concerning the actual number of Nunavut tax filers who claimed these credits for the 2014 and 2015 tax years.
The minister’s response to the standing committee indicated that 1,100 tax filers claimed the credits in 2015 and 1,128 tax filers claimed the credits in 2014.
It is clear that these credits benefit a significant number of Nunavummiut.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill [36] to all members.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Sammurtok. I apologize again for almost missing you.
If there are no general comments, let’s deal with the bill.
I believe you all have Bill 36 in front of you now.
I only have the English copy, so I’ll read it in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 36, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Some Members: Agreed.  Chairman (interpretation): Clause 3.
Chairman (interpretation): Refer to page 3. (interpretation ends) Schedule. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Go back. Clause 5.
Chairman (interpretation): Members, do you agree to Bill 36 as a whole?
Members, pursuant to Rule 62(2), do you agree that Bill 36 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Peterson, if you have any closing comments, I give you the opportunity to make them.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank yourself and the committee for your good questions, input, and follow-up with us.
Passing this bill will allow us to notify the Canada Revenue Agency that can begin printing the forms that the many students in Nunavut can use when they’re filing their taxes for 2017. It is a significant amount of money that they can be refunded on an annual basis. This will be tremendous news in support of our students.
We will proceed with Bill 42.
Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act. (interpretation ends) Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act. (interpretation) Minister Peterson, if you have any opening comments on the bill, I now give you the opportunity to make them.
Bill 42 – An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act – Consideration in Committee
I am here today to present Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act.
Through this bill, the government will raise the territorial tax rates on tobacco products as follows:
For cigarettes from 25 cents per cigarette to 30 cents per cigarette;
For smoked tobacco products like loose-leaf tobacco for roll-your-own cigarettes from 20 cents per gram to 40 cents per gram; and
For non-smoked tobacco like chewing tobacco from 20 cents per gram to 30 cents per gram.
Tobacco is a serious health issue in Nunavut, where Nunavummiut purchased over 56.6 million cigarettes in 2015-16 and purchased another 12.8 million grams of loose or chewing tobacco. This loose tobacco is equivalent to another 10 million cigarettes, bringing the total to over 66 million cigarettes smoked by Nunavut residents.
Increasing the tobacco tax rate discourages tobacco use. We saw this the last time the government raised the tobacco tax rates in February 2012 as part of our tobacco reduction strategy.
After that increase, Nunavut retailers experienced the first decline in cigarette sales since 2007-08.
The government has not raised the tobacco rates in five years, and we are seeing sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products climbing again and by more and more each year.
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make brief opening comments as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act.
As members will recall, Bill 42 received second reading on March 1, 2017 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation for consideration.
The standing committee notes that the territorial Tobacco Tax Act has not been amended to increase tax rates on tobacco products since 2012.
At that time the Minister of Finance’s 2012 Budget Address indicated that the government would “use a portion of these new revenues for smoking prevention and cessation programs.”
The 2017 Budget Address did not make a similar announcement regarding specific allocations of anticipated new revenues from the proposed tax increases provided for by Bill 42.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 42, members engaged in a broad dialogue with the minister concerning such issues as the extent to which increases or decreases in rates of tobacco consumption can be directly and conclusively correlated to increases or decreases in tax rates on tobacco products.
The standing committee notes the importance of government focusing its efforts on creating disincentives for youth to start smoking, who are generally presumed to be more price sensitive than long-term tobacco consumers.
The standing committee also notes the importance of being mindful of the need to ensure that tax rates are set at levels that do not inadvertently create black markets.
Mr. Chairman, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was passed by the previous Legislative Assembly.
In November of 2016 the government issued a Request for Proposals for External Legal Services Relating to Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery.
The request for proposals indicates that the purpose of the legislation is to “allow the government to take legal action in the Nunavut Court of Justice against tobacco companies for tobacco-related wrong which has greatly affected the cost of health care in the territory.”
The standing committee encourages the government to provide periodic updates to the Legislative Assembly on the status of any litigation that it undertakes under the authority of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 42 to all members.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Sammurtok. I apologize for calling you the chair of the committee; you’re the Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation.
If not, let us refer to Bill 42.
I have the English copy, so I’ll read it in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Members, do you agree to Bill 42 as a whole?
Members, pursuant to Rule 62(2), do you agree that Bill 42 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Peterson, if you have any closing remarks, I now give you the opportunity to make them.
Again I thank you and your committee for your support of this bill and also for your excellent questions in standing committee.
In Nunavut we have a very serious smoking problem.
This increase in the tobacco tax rates in combination with our tobacco cessation and reduction strategy will in time allow us to educate people and support them in not starting smoking and quitting smoking.
When 70 percent of your residents of the territory or province above the age of 15 are identifying themselves as daily smokers, we have a very serious problem.
In 20 to 30 years it could cause some very serious health problems for people.
Thank you for supporting this bill.
I thank my colleagues as well as my officials for working on it.
Before we proceed to the next bill, Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister’s officials out. At this time we will take a 20-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 14:46 and resumed at 15:11
Bill 19 – Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act – Consideration in Committee
We will first deal with Bill 19.
Before we get started, Minister Peterson, I would like to ask if you wish to have officials at the witness table. Minister Peterson.
I have two witnesses that I would like to bring in to the witness table.
Minister Peterson wishes to bring in officials to the witness table. Do members agree?
Minister Peterson, please introduce your officials for the record.
To my right is Bill MacKay from the Department of Justice and to my left is Stephen Shaddock from the Department of Justice.
Mr. MacKay and Mr. Shaddock, welcome to the House.
We can now proceed with the bill. Minister Peterson, if you have any opening comments, I now give you the opportunity to make them.
I am appearing today to review Bill 19, the Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act.
This Act will allow the Government of Nunavut to seek a court order forfeiting property that is proven to be proceeds of unlawful activity or instruments of unlawful activity.
The Act will also create a new Government of Nunavut forfeiture office.
The purpose of the Act is to deter activities that are damaging to the health and safety of our communities, like bootlegging and drug dealing, by taking the financial incentive out of committing these harmful acts.
The Act will also allow for the government to be able to use funds obtained under this new process to support victims and community wellness projects.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, minister. Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation have any opening comments?
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I wish to make some opening comments as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of Bill 19, Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act.
As members will recall, Bill 19 received second reading on June 8, 2016 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation for consideration.
Bill 19 proposes to establish a new legislative framework within which civil forfeiture proceedings may take place in Nunavut and to establish a new forfeiture office, which will be responsible for undertaking such proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, a number of jurisdictions in Canada have similar legislation in place to provide for the civil forfeiture of unlawful property.
The standing committee notes that the introduction of civil forfeiture legislation in Nunavut has been a priority for the Government of Nunavut for a number of years.
In April of 2010 the Nunavut Liquor Task Force was convened to conduct a Nunavut-wide consultation on the territory’s Liquor Act, with the purpose of making recommendations to the government concerning amendments to the legislation.
In its final report, which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on November 2, 2012, the Nunavut Liquor Task Force made a number of recommendations concerning changes that could be made to the government’s legislation and policies to help curb alcohol-related harm in Nunavut.
One of the task force’s specific recommendations was that the government, and I quote, “Strengthen search and seizure provisions under the [Liquor Act] and introduce strong civil forfeiture legislation to deter illegal sales of alcohol.”
Mr. Chairman, under Bill 19, the proposed new Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act, the director of the proposed new forfeiture office will have the power to make applications to the Nunavut Court of Justice to commence civil forfeiture proceedings against property that is believed to be the proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity.
If it is determined that the property is the proceeds or an instrument of unlawful activity during these civil proceedings, the Nunavut Court of Justice will have the power to make orders forfeiting the property to the director.
Mr. Chairman, during its exchanges with the minister, the standing committee was informed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will play an important role in gathering evidence for the director and enforcing court-issued orders under Bill 19, the proposed new Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act.
Mr. Chairman, Bill 19 also proposes to establish a new forfeiture fund and will require that all proceeds generated by the management, sale, or other disposition of forfeited property must be used for specific purposes, including funding the operations of the forfeiture office, compensating victims, and making payments to community wellness programs.
Mr. Chairman, during the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee on the occasion of its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 19, a total of eight motions were moved to amend the bill.
I am very pleased to note that the sponsoring minister formally concurred with each motion.
For the benefit of Nunavummiut who are following our proceedings today, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the major amendments to Bill 19.
Clause 8 has been amended to provide that interim orders respecting the restraint, seizure, or possession of property that may be issued by a judge or justice are subject to expiration, extension, and appeal.
Mr. Chairman, this will ensure that interim orders are not misused to evade forfeiture proceedings.
The standing committee commends the minister for agreeing to an amendment that would place the burden on the government to extend an expired interim order.
Subclause 14(2)(b) has been amended to ensure that individuals who did not know and could not have reasonably known that their property was being used as an instrument of unlawful activity are not deprived of their property.
Mr. Chairman, communal use of property is a common practice in Nunavut communities, where families and friends often share snowmobiles, sheds, and other equipment.
The standing committee encourages the government to inform the public about their responsibilities, rights, and liabilities concerning shared property to ensure that individuals are not deprived of their property as a result of another person’s unlawful activities.
Clauses 29 and 30 have been amended to require that all agreements concerning the exchange of information must be made in writing and must provide for the confidentiality of the information.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee emphasized the importance of strengthening safeguards to protect personal information that may be collected or disclosed through agreements that are made under Bill 19, the proposed new Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that a member of the standing committee will be bringing forward motions to amend sections 8 and 31 of Bill 19 to provide the director with greater flexibility to manage forfeited property.
Clause 36 has been amended to require that the director’s report on the administration of the Act must be submitted to the minister within the first six months of each fiscal year and tabled in the Legislative Assembly on an annual basis.
There are none. We will now deal with Bill 19.
I only have the English version, so I’ll read it in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 19, Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Committee Motion 014 – 4(3): Bill 19, Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act Clause 8 (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I move the following motion:
That clause 8 be amended by adding the following after subclause (2):
Parts of property
(2.1) Under subsection (2), a judge or justice may make different interim orders with respect to different parts of the property referred to in subsection (1).
Members, you have a copy of the motion in your motions binder.
Clause 8, as amended.
Committee Motion 015 – 4(3): Bill 19, Unlawful Property Forfeiture Act Clause 31 (Okalik)
That clause 31 be amended
(a) in paragraph (2)(d) by striking out “donate or destroy” and substituting “donate, destroy or otherwise dispose of”;
(b) by adding the following after subclause (2):
(3) Where this section provides for a power with respect to property, that power may be exercised with respect to any part of the property, and different powers may be exercised with respect to different parts of the property.
The motion is in order. Committee members, the motion is in your motions binder.
Clause 31, as amended. Do you agree?
Members, do you agree to Bill 19, as amended, as a whole?
Members, pursuant to Rule 62(2), do you agree that Bill 19, as amended, can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Peterson, we are done with that bill.
If you have any closing remarks, I now give you the opportunity to make them.
I thank the committee and my colleagues.