EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
You mentioned the power subsidy program. I’m aware that it’s in there but as he indicated that’s for small businesses. Usually the major suppliers that we’re talking about would not be considered small businesses, as their revenues would be higher than the ceiling limit that’s placed on the subsidy program, which is $2 million, which up here for a medium, even a small business is not a whole lot of money in revenues.
I am just wondering if the minister would commit to looking at a direct credit based on a percentage of those utilities that are paid and reported by that company as a tax credit against their Nunavut tax payable.
Would he commit to doing that and reporting back to the members?
As this government has said one of the main things it wants to try and develop in this mandate is our economy.
I think that would be another added incentive for people to make an investment in the territory.
Right now it may be cheaper for them to just have a storefront: have a fax machine and an office and order everything from a big supplier itself.
With incentives it may attract more of those places to actually establish a facility here in the North where those materials, or supplies, or whatever could be purchased up here, which would only enhance the local economy.
Hon. David Simailak: Like I said, that is an area that we could look at and we will look at it.
In terms of the medium to large businesses support for this government, we are already doing that by keeping the fuel prices low, with the subsidies that we’ve been paying.
In terms of the actual credits, yes, we will explore that area and see if there is anything that we could do there.
Again I thank him for that commitment and look forward to any work that they do in that area; being informed of it.
My next line of questioning just deals with something in this area; it says, “The branch also provides administrative support to the Liquor Licensing Board.” I think I’ll just get more of an elaboration on exactly what kind of support they do provide the Liquor Licensing Board?
We hope that means that we pay their staff and provide whatever support is needed for their staff.
Is there any policy or regulation, direction given from the department through to the board?
The board operates with a lot of independence.
There may be direction given to the board by Financial Management Board for example periodically, but they do operate with a lot of independence.
The Liquor Licensing Board, or the liquor ordering function within the government, I know that the government has negotiated contracts for shipping throughout the territory with different companies to do all the government shipping.
Would the liquor boards be considered a part of that contract, or would they be able to circumvent that contract and pursue their own transportation contract?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the board has been operating with some independence with their own contracts and that, but that is another area that we are starting to look at now through the Crown Agency Council.
I just want to inform members that there are now three of us here in the House, three Tootoos. I acknowledge the presence of the youngest uncle that we have, William, sitting here behind me. Watch out now; there are three of us, three times trouble.
Is the minister stating then that the liquor board has the legal authority to not comply with the government contract that is in place with the freight for shipping purposes?
No, there is a legal opinion that says the liquor board can operate independently in terms of the shipping contracts.
Mr. Kilabuk (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, to make a supplement to my colleague’s comments and on behalf of the people, I would like to ask some questions in English on behalf of the ordinary Joes and the small guys.
For example, the local people who don’t have any private businesses or small businesses, I would like to know, first of all, as a preamble; the fishermen don’t use technical terms, and you have to speak to them in plain language English.
On behalf of those people I would like to ask them a question.
Of course around Pangnirtung we don’t have any exploration or mining going on.
We depend solely on fishing and tourism in our community.
I was very pleased during the minister’s opening when he stated that there would be a Fuel Tax Rebate, and that it would benefit the fishermen.
My first question to the minister and to his officials is: how you define fishermen in business terms under that program?
Anyone who has a commercial fishing license, that’s the thinking today, but we have to work with economic development and transportation. To date, it is anyone who has a commercial fishing license.
I like your response because of course there were concerns as some fishermen were being questioned by the government departments about their not being eligible for the Fuel Tax Rebate. They were told that the only way that they can get support is if they were defined in the business definition.
From what I understand now a fisherman is considered a business if he has a commercial fishing license then he is eligible for the Fuel Tax Rebate.
If I understood it correctly and to define it further, could you give us a few examples of how fishermen or outfitters can benefit from this rebate, (interpretation ends) because I haven’t seen any example on how beneficial this program may be to our fishermen and outfitters.
Are there any examples you can share with us today as to what kind of actual benefits fishermen or outfitters may realize as a result of this program?
We have considered the fishermen, the hunters, the trappers, and the tourism outfitters; because of course we want them to benefit from these programs.
In Nunavut, we pay 6.4 cents for a litre of gas; that’s what we pay personally today in Nunavut.
We would like to see within the year a rebate twice a year, and for the larger companies, like mining companies, for example, they would get a rebate once a year.
The hunters, the trappers, the fishermen, the tourism outfitters are usually small businesses that are run by a sole operator.
I think it would benefit those types of companies if they get a rebate twice a year.
We pay 6.4 cents today in Nunavut.
Mr. Kilabuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wrote that down because I wanted to ask this question and I wanted them to use an example how this is set up for the fishermen and for the hunters.
If I could say, I was wondering if this would create headaches for the fishermen and hunters.
For example, you now are aware that the fishermen have to go through difficulties in order to get compensation from our Nunavut Government.
It’s been seven years passing by and this benefit is not adequate enough yet.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the fishermen and hunters in one season they go fishing just over the winter or they go fishing when the ice is gone but I do not think they will be able to apply twice a year for a rebate because they only have this seasonally.
That is why I had asked this question, because I had, Mr. Chairman (interpretation ends)...
I have seen the programs as I said, under Environment, and this has caused nothing more than headaches and frustration for the fishermen. So I want the assurance of the minister and the department that if this program will be made to work for the fishermen and hunters, that measures are put in place so that it does not end up being nothing more than a program that causes headaches.
Mr. Chairman, do I have the assurance of the minister and department that this program will be developed to track the actual activities of our fishermen and needs through this program?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We developed this in order to assist and benefit Nunavummiut. Along with the Department of Economic Development and Environment we set this up because we want to provide support to Nunavummiut.
We do not want it to be just a headache, we do not want to create just a headache for our fishermen and hunters, and for tourism they need assistance in Nunavut because they try to run their business.
We had developed this to make sure that it benefits these individuals not to be a cause of headaches.
I still am concerned that when we come to approving this page I will be still approving something that I cannot provide answers to my constituents for issues that are dear to their activities and lifestyle.
I still fail to be assured that this program will benefit the fishermen and outfitters as much as the mining companies will probably realize.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that this is giving more benefits to the rich and nothing for the poor, if I can use that term in this program.
So Mr. Chairman, I will ask the minister if adequate work and teamwork has been put in by Environment, Economic Development and Transportation on actual figures for the setting of this program.
Yes, that is exactly what we were doing. We worked with the Department of Environment. We also worked with the Department of Economic Development, and along with Department of Finance, three departments have worked to develop this program and we are still developing it because it is supposed to be implemented on April 1.
But I am not too sure if we are going to start using it on April 1, but in the 2006-07 fiscal year it will be implemented perhaps by the end of April.
It is up to the discretion of any individual whether they want to apply for the rebate program, whether it is the mining companies, harvester, fishermen, or trappers they can apply for it, it is up to them but we will continue to work on this program.
As I stated earlier on that, the Department of Environment, the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, and the Department of Finance are still working on it and they are still developing this program.
In representing my constituents, I have no problem in saying that I am just absolutely disappointed in how this has been put together because I know for a fact that the Department for Environment, because there are no requirements for them to monitor the usage of gas or the fuel supplies for their fishing activities, they simply don’t have these records to base this information on.
So Mr. Chairman, as for the one of the comments earlier about many people in companies, if I read it right, there has been a lot of communication to the minister’s office regarding the Fuel Tax Program after the announcement. But was there lot of communication to the minister’s office before this program was developed?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we have been coming to our office to talk about it and we were approached orally and also by way of correspondence.
Back in 1999-2000, from the Fraser Institute, when they talked about Nunavut that there were no kinds of benefits or assistance for the mining sector and they approached us orally and by way of correspondence. The mining sector has been stating that even though they pay for fuel tax, even though they have the fuel tax rebate during the time when they start working on the real project, the mining sector has been saying that they have been paying for their fuel by themselves.
Yes, we have been approached in the past years.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Kilabuk.
I was waiting to hear the words fisheries and tourism in part of his response, but I failed to. So let me ask this question, Mr. Chairman: in the communication that was forwarded to the minister’s office, was there any mention of even fisheries or tourism in the communications that were forwarded to the minister’s office?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we were developing this we followed another territory’s system; Yukon already has their fuel tax rebate and we had used their system to do ours.
If I understand him clear enough, then there was no request from anybody to develop such a program for the fisheries or the outfitters of Nunavut and nor was there any follow-up and communication after the program was announced on the fisheries and tourism activities.
Again, I failed to get the assurance I was hoping to get and like everybody else, honestly, this is something that I’m going to have to communicate to my constituents; my disappointment and dissatisfaction of this program.
I didn’t hear a question, but Mr. Minister, you’re welcome to respond.
As I stated earlier on, we are still in the developing stage for the Fuel Tax Rebate to assist everyone including the mining sector, the fisheries, hunters and trappers, and outfitters of tourism.
Not one of them had communications with us, but we followed the Fuel Tax Rebate Program from the Yukon.
To benefit these individuals in Nunavut, we need to provide support to small businesses. We felt that it would provide benefit to these individuals.
As I stated earlier on, it is at the discretion of these individuals if they want to apply to this program or not.
Anyone is welcome to apply. It’s up to them.
We’re on page C-7.
Chairman: Page C-8.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $1,192,000.
Can the minister tell us how many auditors you have in the Internal Audit Division?
There are eight staff there.
On page C-22 of the business plan, it mentions in 2005 as one of the priorities; conduct forensic investigation conflict of interest audits.
It has six forensic investigations, probably one half being from the regions.
Can the minister tell us what the process is from start to finish on a forensic investigation?
Each audit would probably be conducted a little differently.
Usually there is a concern raised, often from the department involved.
The auditors would go in and investigate the situation, develop an audit plan, discuss it with the department, the client, and then conduct the audit and make their preliminary findings known to the department, and then get feedback from the department. That would be incorporated into the final audit.
Depending on the forensic audit, there might be a requirement to pursue other action. It could be collections through other mechanisms in the Department of Finance. It could involve notifying the RCMP and the Department of Justice.
So, it depends on the circumstances in each audit.
Under what conditions would you notify the RCMP following a forensic audit?
If there was sufficient indication of criminal activity or wrongdoing, if it was a minor situation, or maybe a misappropriation due to weak financial controls, maybe it could be corrected by avoiding that step.
I thank Mr. Vardy.
If following a forensic audit an employee is dismissed does that, in your mind, constitute a criminal activity, even if you don’t go to the RCMP; if you dismiss the individual?
Each circumstance is different and there are situations where management could decide to impose disciplinary action, including dismissal. It could fall outside of the realm of auditing more into the human resource side, which is handled by another department. Or it could be something that could be dealt with through the justice system.
I’m thinking more of a misappropriation of funds, not a human resource thing.
So if there’s someone in Iqaluit breaks and enters some houses to steal some money, or shoplifts, or busts into a teller or an ATM, that kind of stuff, that’s criminal activity. If they get caught, they are charged, and if they are convicted, they go to jail. Does that happen in the Government of Nunavut when you turn a file over to the RCMP?
What typically happens once you decide to turn a file over to the RCMP? Does the government sit back and let the RCMP complete an investigation and let them lay charges, or do they charge the individual and then court proceedings begin?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, (interpretation) it is usually handled by the RCMP.
Once it’s handed over to the RCMP, then they deal with it. If they have to go to court, then it goes to court. If we hand it over to the RCMP, that’s the procedure.
Are you finished, Mr. Peterson?
Just to continue on the forensic audits, are they typically requested by the department or would they come up randomly. When your internal audit services goes out to the region, or goes into a government department, do they know what they are looking for? Has somebody tipped them off, or is it just random and they are not targeting anyone or any department in particular?
Most audits of any kind, the requests come from departments. Sometimes we send internal auditors out to the regions and they will do a fairly extensive audit of all of their regional operations in that particular community. The forensic audits that I am aware of right now are ones that the vast majority is when the departments suspect some activity and they report it.
Sometimes we get tips or other information passed on to us that we also investigate.
Can the minister give us an idea of when employees are dismissed what repercussions follow for the government?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We didn’t get it. Can he rephrase his question, please?
I guess in the justice system a person is considered innocent until they’re proven guilty.
But in the Internal Audit Services what you are saying is you have the internal audit folks who will do a forensic audit, they complete their audit and then it’s reviewed. Then somebody decides if the people are guilty and then they’re dismissed. So obviously you got a lot of strong evidence but the person that’s dismissed might think that there isn’t and try to defend their good reputation.
So I am wondering how you deal with those; obviously with all the forensic audits you have done over the years you probably have some former employees who are seeking redress from the government through lawsuits and other avenues.
How does the government deal with those kinds of situations?
We are on page C-8. Main estimates 2006-07. Minister Simailak.
Sometimes even when there are audits, sometimes it’s not too clear but once we know that, the department then they order investigations along with other staff.
I don’t have anybody else on my list. We are on page C-8.
Chairman (interpretation): Yes. Going to page C-9.
Branch Summary. Comptrollership.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $11,239,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Wait a minute.
I don’t have my copy of the Auditor General’s report with me but on page 44 of the Auditor General’s report recommendation number 160 there was a mention of a Government of Nunavut study that’s supposed to be completed by March 31, 2006. I think it had to do with financial controls, and so on and so forth.
I wonder if the minister can give us an update on the status of that report that’s under preparation.
The report that he’s referring to is not completed yet. That person is still working on that report. They’re going to try and put recommendations to the Financial Management Board.
Can the minister confirm that he will be complete by March 31, 2006, as written up in the Auditor General Report?
Yes, the deadline was March 31, 2006, but it might be a little bit late. The Auditor General already knows that it might be delayed.
But that is the target date; March 31, 2006, though it’s hard to tell at this time.
The minister is probably aware that our standing committee is scheduling a public meeting with the Auditor General in May.
It would be very helpful if that report was complete long before then so that it goes through your process, and then we have an opportunity to see it because we’re going to probably ask you about it since it’s one of the 180 recommendations. There are a few more.
I wonder if the minister or Mr. Vardy could give us an idea of whether that report and the recommendations will be complete by the time the Auditor General arrives in Iqaluit.
It would be good if it was completed and it would help the standing committee with the Auditor General. The date is March 31, 2006, but it’s still hard to tell at this time.
I found my reports in this pile of paper here.
We really do need bigger desks at some point.
Just for the record, there are 180 conditions, or recommendations in the Auditor General’s Report, and then the name of that report is called; The Review of the Government of Nunavut’s Financial Structures Project, “...process review is to analyze internal and financial capacity, and recommend a detailed plan for improvement to Government of Nunavut’s ability to plan, control, forecast expenditures, and to enhance a timely and accurate production of the public accounts. Final report is scheduled to be delivered by March 31, 2006.”
So, that’s just for the record Mr. Chairman.
It is a comment only.
We’re on page C-9.
Chairman: C-10.
This includes page C-11.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $28,935,000.
Chairman: Page C-12 is an information item.
As the minister is aware, the newly elected mayor of Cambridge Bay, Mayor Michelle Gillis, had mentioned during her campaign and in the media that she is interested in seeing a liquor store being considered opened in Cambridge Bay.
She believes that by opening a liquor store you would help the community reduce the bootlegging activity that’s going on in the community. I wonder if the minister could shed some light on the process that the mayor in the community would have to go through to successfully open a liquor store in Cambridge Bay.
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the Cambridge Bay residents would like to have a plebiscite, then they would have to do it through the hamlet council.
Hon. David Simailak: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) The community of Cambridge Bay would have to hold a plebiscite on their own in order to open a liquor store. The plebiscite would have to be held in their own community, and then we would consider it and decide on what they would need to be done.
The community has to decide on whether if they would like to open a liquor store.
They can do it; they would have to do it by plebiscite. That’s how they would decide on that matter.
Has the minister received any application from the committee or requesting for information on how to go about conducting a plebiscite to go through this process?
I have not received an application or a request for information on how to set up a plebiscite; we have not received one yet.
Just for the record, the minister’s previous answer is even though the hamlet conducts the plebiscite and they say the community says they want a liquor store, or like a liquor store, the decision is communicated to the minister and to Cabinet; that does not necessarily mean that a liquor store would be approved for Cambridge Bay. Is that correct?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The plebiscite in Cambridge Bay to open a liquor store, the application would be processed through us and we would consider it.
According to their application, they believe that the communities need to have the authority to make decisions on their own.
Just for further clarification, we are talking about a liquor store to serve the community in Cambridge Bay as opposed to a liquor warehouse, which exists in Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet.
So there’s a difference: the liquor store versus the liquor warehouse.
The liquor warehouse would serve, I guess, the Kitikmeot and those communities that aren’t dry and a liquor store would presumably serve just the community of Cambridge Bay.
I think that’s what the mayor and hamlet council were discussing.
We are under government main estimates and you can ask more questions through Question Period.
What is written is quite clear.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Page C-12 is an information item. Go back to page C-4.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $50,186,000.
Chairman: Does the committee agree that the Department of Finance is concluded?
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Simailak. (interpretation) For the last time, do you have closing remarks, Mr. Minister?
We’ll take them as notice and receive them for what they are.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Vardy, Minister Simailak, and Mr. Victor Tootoo.
Now I would now like to ask Minister Okalik, the Minister of Justice to make his opening comments. Mr. Okalik.
Bill 12 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2006-07 – Review in Committee – Justice