EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Committee Report 11 - 1(3): Community Empowerment & Sustainable Development: Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relation to Judges
Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that the Standing Committee on Community Empowerment and Sustainable Development has reviewed bill 9, an Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relationship to Judges.
We wish to report that bill 9 is ready to be considered by the committee of the whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to waive rule 68 (5) and have bill 9 moved to the committee of the whole for today.
Mr. O'Brien is seeking to waive rule 68(5) so bill 9 can be moved to the committee of the whole.
Bill 9 is referred to the committee of the whole.
Tabled Document 31 - 1(3): Hamlet of Kugaaruk Re: Community Gym
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a document that I received from Kugaaruk.
Tabled Document 32 - 1(3): Nunatsiaq News Article on BCC Use of Apex Treatment Centre
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table a document I received from Nunatsiaq News entitled, “BCC to use Apex Treatment Centre for Inmate Rehab.”
Notices of motions.
Minister’s Statement 50-1-(3) and 51- 1(3), Tabled Documents 24-1(3), 25-1(3) and 27-1(3). Bill 9.
Mr. Puqiqnak in the Chair.
Chairperson (Mr. Puqiqnak) (interpretation): This seat is very low.
Lunch is ready for the members, what is the wish of the committee.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman I would like to take a 1 hour break.
Chairperson (interpretation): We will return at a quarter to one.
Members you are free to go.
>>Committee recessed at 11:50 a.m. and resumed at 12:45 p.m.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you very much.
Our sound is back and since today is Friday, during Committee of the Whole, I would like everything to proceed as smoothly as possible.
First of all I would like to ask you what you would like to do at this time.
What's the committee's wish.
Mr. Chairman the members would like to proceed with Bill 9, an Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relation to Judges.
Okay then, we deal with Bill 9, an Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relation to Judges. Agreed. Okay, Bill 9, an Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relation to Judges.
We'll be dealing with Bill 9 today.
The Minister of Justice could say his opening comments Mr. Anawak.
Bill 9 - An Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relation to Judges - Consideration in Committee
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): It's okay, we're all Inuit.
Just call me Jack.
This proposed bill amends the Judicature Act to provide for the Nunavut Court of Justice to be headed by a Chief Justice rather than the Senior Judge.
As an Inuk there is not much of a difference between the word Chief Justice and Senior Judge.
In the provinces, the head of the trial court is a Chief Justice, however in the three territories, this is not the case.
Instead of a Chief Justice, we have a senior administrative judge who is the senior person in the administrative level.
Chief Justices are appointed as Chief Justices while a senior judge is the judge who has been a judge for the longest period of time.
The Chief Justices are appointed from anywhere, from the public.
These changes require federal legislation as well as territorial legislation.
Under the constitution, all our judges are federally appointed.
My department has written to the Deputy Minister of Justice Canada indicating our view that our judges should be considered equal in status to their provincial counterparts and that the territories too should have chief justices.
As well, I have spoken to the Federal Minister of Justice about this.
This bill makes the necessary changes to Nunavut's laws. Those changes would not be brought into force until the necessary federal changes are also made.
The NWT has also changed legislation to change to a Chief Justice. Their amendments are not in force yet. They also would be brought into force when the federal changes are made in both the Nunavut and Territorial cases.
(interpretation ends) The second change the bill makes is more minor.
Currently judges of the Court of Appeal can be sworn in by judges of the Nunavut Court of Justice.
This is not seen to be appropriate since the Court of Appeal will hear decisions from the Nunavut Court of Justice.
The bill would change the law to allow an appeal judge to be sworn in by another appeal judge.
This will make our law the same as the Northwest Territories.
(interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I could go up to the witness chair.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Minister, Mr. Anawak.
I believe that there are some comments to be made.
Mr. O'Brien, I believe you have a comment to make before the Minister goes up to the witness table.
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee on Community Empowerment and Sustainable Development has reviewed Bill 9, an Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relation to Judges.
Yesterday the committee had the pleasure of meeting with the Minister of Justice and his officials to discuss this bill.
Mr. Chairman, while I do have a few questions regarding the bill, for the most part it is very straightforward, the committee is very comfortable with it.
For the most part, I think we'd like to see this bill go through in a very efficient manner.
So I do have a few questions although the minister did touch on a few of some of the questions that I have in his statement.
For the record, I'd like to direct my question to the minister while he is in the witness chair.
The minister and his officials can go up to the witness table.
I will give you the opportunity.
Mr. Minister, if you would introduce your officials to the rest of the members please.
Hon. Jack Anawak: Mark Spakowski, who is our legal advisor with the Department of Justice.
He'll be here with me.
Questions or comments to Bill 9.
Minister, you've indicated that there has to be some changes at the federal level in order for this bill to take full effect.
Can you tell the members if these changes at the federal level do not take place, what impact will that have on the name change.
Hon. Jack Anawak: I'm quite confident that the necessary changes will be made at the federal level as I said, I've mentioned it to the Minister of Justice for Canada and she has tentatively agreed to put in the enabling legislation.
However if for some reason it was not to go through then really, this law would remain until such time as the Federal Government tabled.
As I mentioned earlier, the Northwest Territories has done this and is just awaiting the federal legislation to change to start calling their senior judges Chief Justice.
Minister, so it's safe to say that until the Federal Government makes their amendments, what we're doing here cannot come into force until those amendments are made.
Having said that, do you have any idea as to what the timing is for these changes is.
We know that in some cases it could take years to get something through the House of Commons.
Do you have any idea as to the time frame.
No, but I do know that this is a relatively minor amendment to any laws that we require or that would be required to changed within the Government of Canada so I don't see any long delays.
At the same time, just let me say that if for some reason the Federal Government did not move soon, then our Act would just remain there until that time.
As I said, I'm quite confident that the necessary changes will be made.
Again, because this is a relatively minor change.
Just one more question.
Minister, once all the T’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted, we're going to move on this then you get to the actual selection of the Chief Justice.
How will that individual be selected.
Will it be on seniority or at the discretion of the Federal Government.
And the reason I bring the question forward, that if it's on seniority, you may not necessarily get the best person for the job as far as suitability.
So, my question is, how will the decision be made.
Hon. Jack Anawak: As I pointed out, the Chief Justices are appointed as Chief Justices, not as the Senior Judge of which ever jurisdiction.
So I'm quite confident that in consultation, the Federal Government in consultation of course with the Department of Justice of Nunavut would select whoever the Chief Justice was going to be.
However I should point out that at this time, if this thing were to go through today, the senior judge of Nunavut would be designated as Chief.
I would also recommend that as well at this time.
That is not to say if she were to retire then that would be the time to determine whether to make recommendations to the Federal Minister of Justice, however, again, I've already talked to the Minister of Justice as to who it should be at this time.
As I said, if this were to go through now, it would be the senior judge of Nunavut going on to become the Chief Justice.
Okay then, we'll go clause by clause.
Bill 9, an Act to Amend the Judicature Act and other Acts in Relation to Judges.
Clause one.
On Clause 3 (2) it reads that the Chief Justice of the Nunavut Court of Justice or another judge of that court designated by the Chief Justice is responsible for the supervision of justices of the peace.
JP’s of the communities will then be under the Chief justice.
The JPs are appointed by us but the communities make a recommendation to us before we appoint that JP. What it says here is that the Chief Justice is responsible for the supervision, they won't do the appointing.
They would only be responsible for the supervision.
We'll go back to clause by clause.
Clause three.
Chairperson (interpretation): And on the next page, clause six.
Chairperson: Seven.
Chairperson (interpretation): Nine, sorry, eight.
Chairperson (interpretation): Going back, Bill number 9, an Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relation to Judges.
Bill 9, are we going to put this to third reading.
Chairperson (interpretation): I would like to thank the Minister of Justice and his official for appearing in front of us.
I would like to go to the fuel price increases.
Fuel Price Increases
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Akesuk would like to deal with the fuel price increases.
Minister's statement 50-1(3) regarding the fuel price increases.
Comments. General comments.
Mr. Chairman, I'm just wondering if, I know I have a number of questions and the rest of us have a number of questions to the minister and her staff regarding her Minister's Statement and the documents that she tabled.
I'm wondering if the minister has anything as far as opening remarks to say to this or is she prepared to go to the witness table with some of her staff.
Madame Minister, do you have any opening remarks.
I could go right away to the witness table.
I don't have any other comments to make in regards to the increase in fuel prices.
There's some very technical information so I would like to ask one of my officials to come sit with me at the witness table.
Chairperson (interpretation): Do you agree.
The minister can go to the witness table along with her officials.
Before we begin I would like to recognize someone in the gallery.
We have a guest here today, author Michael Kusugak.
He is a well known artist and writer throughout Nunavut, Canada and the world.
He has also been instrumental and supportive to the school curriculum, therefore, I would like to recognize Mike Kusugak from us as the Nunavut Government.
Minister Thompson if you can introduce your official for the record.
My official is from the Petroleum Products Division, Finance Comptroller, Roy Green.
General comments to the Minister’s department.
Mr. Chairman, in the Minister’s Statement that was tabled, she had mentioned the Price Stabilization Fund in there of 5 million dollars.
I would just like maybe to ask the minister if she or her staff could clarify how this fund works.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Tootoo. Minister.
I would like Mr. Green to answer most of the questions for this is quite technical, if the members would allow me to.
Chairperson: Mr. Green.
Mr. Green: The Petroleum Products Stabilization Fund account was established back in 1972 and the purpose of this fund was to protect consumers against fluctuations in retail prices of fuel products in the event that there was fluctuation in world crude on the world markets.
The limit was established at a maximum allowable limit of plus or minus 5 million dollars.
So basically in periods when the price of crude is higher, then if petroleum products can’t achieve it’s mandate to recover it’s operation costs from retail sales, then the deficiency balance would then be reflected in the stabilization fund.
And in periods when we are able to buy the petroleum products at a cheaper price, then any profits over and above our objectives would be applied against the deficit balance and the stabilization account.
Chairperson (Mr. Irqittuq): Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green indicated how it is set up and how it works.
I inquired as far as who sets it up, who makes the decision on its' use, and decisions affecting the use of that, or whether it should be more or less who makes those decisions.
Mr. Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The Stabilization Fund was formed under the GNWT and it was adopted by the GN during the division.
The 5 million dollar limit is basically the authorization that the petroleum products can operate within.
So as long as we can manage our retail prices and that we can live within the legislative limit of 5 million dollars then basically we don’t need to seek authorization outside of the department.
Chairperson: Hunter
So basically Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green has indicated that it is set up, it’s a legislated amount that is in there through legislation, so therefore, it has to come through this House to be approved as our budgets are for the government.
My first question on that is, it was set up, I forget the year that it was set up, it was some time ago, and was it at that time set at 5 million dollars.
And I wonder if he could indicate how they came up with that amount of 5 million dollars.
Mr. Green: That fund, once again, the limit was established in 1972 under the GNWT and to be quite honest with you, I can’t tell you how the limit was determined at that time.
It is something we have been operating with for the past 27 years.
Mr. Chairman, I see this, maybe if I’m wrong, or could be corrected, is basically like a subsidy fund that has been in place since 1972.
I would imagine, I know things have changed a little since 1972 as far as cost of living, and everything has gone up.
I am wondering why, or if, the department is taking a look at increasing it, or hasn’t taken a look at increasing that amount.
Mr. Green: Petroleum Products have been able to live within the Stabilization Fund for the most part for the past 10 years or so.
I think there were only just two increases in retail prices since 1991, but the limit of the Stabilization Fund is something that we would be looking at as part of the proposal that has been recommended by the Financial Management Board as to the long-term objectives of Petroleum Products.
In order to clarify the Stabilization Fund, a little bit of terminology, so people can really understand basically what it is.
The Stabilization Fund is an account where Petroleum Products profits and losses flow through, so it is kind of like a retained earnings account that you would probably see in a profit oriented business.
Given the substantial increase in retail price, the retail price of crude as of late, we may have to look at the options of increasing the limit beyond the 5 million dollars if we want to maintain the retail prices at the current limit in the short term.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, Mr. Green’s comments kind of lead into my next question.
Is this Stabilization Fund is what’s enabled the department to maintain the prices that are out there, charged to the public for fuel.
And, saying that in the Minister’s Statement, that if they didn’t raise the price of fuel, and pass it on to the consumer, they’re in danger of exceeding the 5 million dollars.
So, isn’t that saying that this year it cost us that much more, or how much more over the 5 million dollars would it have cost us to maintain the same fuel prices that were in effect before January 1st.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Green.
At division the balance of the Stabilization fund was at it’s maximum limit of 5 million dollars.
As per the formula that was arrived at for the division of assets and liabilities, Petroleum Products portion, or the GN’s portion of the Revolving Fund was 2.2 million dollars effective April 1.
Given the unit cost of fuel increase on an average of 9 cents per litre this year, this would have resulted if we didn’t have a fuel price increase, Petroleum Products was looking a loss of 4.5 million dollars, and if you combine that with the 2.2 million dollars that has already existed in the Stabilization Fund, we would have exceeded the maximum allowable limit.
So basically what you are saying is that, if we would have raised the Stabilization Fund from 5 million to 7 million dollars, the prices could have stayed the same.
Was that an option that was looked at or not, prior to increasing the prices and if it wasn’t why.
It was one of the options that we looked at.
Unfortunately, with the way the world crude was moving, and with our future projections for 2000 and 2001, we were still forecasting a deficit even with the 5 cent increase that the, we were forecasting a balance in the Stabilization Fund of close to 4.5 million dollars.
So increasing the Stabilization Fund limit could solve the problem in the short-term, but it certainly does nothing to solve the mandate of Petroleum Products which is to recover its operating costs from retail sales in the long run.
I guess one question that immediately comes to mind is that we can’t go over that 5 million dollar Stabilization Fund that is there and saying that it is a legislated amount and that is why.
So are all the budgets that, like you said earlier, all the budgets are like that, as in our own example of going over budget such as the unfortunate predicament where the health boards have gone into a deficit.
I don’t know what stopped.
The reason for that was to meet the needs that are out there.
You know, for people in health care and that, I am just wondering why the needs of hunters and other people that use fuel is something that was not deemed as important to allow the department to go over the 5 million dollars.
Unfortunately, given the nature of the industry that Petroleum Products is involved in, we certainly did look at the options of the increasing the Stabilization Fund, but at the same time, we also looked at the different consumer groups to see if there are any alternate ways of trying to put a ceiling on some prices.
But unfortunately, that the way our pricing structure and the way that our database systems are structured, it would be very difficult for us to implement a policy where we could put a ceiling on retail prices of this particular group.
So what we did do is we looked at the overall subsidies of products that were being subsidized.
I can give you an example, where diesel fuel was being subsidized we needed a 9 cent increase in diesel fuel in order to recover our objective.
We needed an 18 cent increase in gasoline per litre in order to recover our objective, and we had a surplus, we were at a surplus balance on the aviation fuel of 4 cents a litre.
So what we did is, we kind of looked at the option of doing cross subsidies across products and then we looked at cross subsidies across the various communities so that we would have a flat rate and that does keep the, we did absorb a 4 cent per litre increase through the Stabilization Fund.
But when we looked at the Stabilization Fund we were looking at what it could sustain for this year and what impact the 5 cent increase would have on the next fiscal year.
So at that point in time that is how we decided to proceed with the 5 cent increase.
My last one for now is, I guess who has, just in simple terms, who has the authority to change that amount of the Stabilization Fund.
If there are any amendments that need to be done or changes, I think the members are aware that it could be done through the members, through the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): While we’re discussing the fuel increase, we heard about the increase that was enforced or starting right away and I think in our community, in the community that I represent, it must be the highest.
The prices I think are the highest in our community and they complain about not having enough money for hunting, food or grub, and this a big concern in our community.
I know since the fuel price increases have been implemented, it’ll affect a lot of the hunters and homeowners. Hunters have to buy gas for hunting and you need fuel to keep your house heated.
My question is how can the hunters be assisted or subsidized with the fuel increases being implemented.
We are following the global price increase and we realize that the hunters will be going through a hard time, and there is 5 million dollars that is subsidized through the Price Stabilization Fund.
There is a letter that I wrote to the NTI, because we buy this fuel and gas, we wrote a letter to NTI and stated that we have subsidized over 9 million dollars.
Just recently during question period, I stated that this could be done through different ways of supporting or subsidising hunters and I have discussed this with Sustainable Development and Paul Quassa, and because there is a fuel price increase, and there is a Stabilization Fund, I know everybody is concerned about this.
We feel for the hunters, but it has been implemented, it had to be done.
This isn’t really a question it is a comment from the Hamlets.
I understand that the Hamlets are concerned about homeowners.
They have to pay for electricity, fuel and insurance and they have to pay for mortgages.
When a person is a homeowner there are a lot of expenses that have to be paid.
I’m just concerned about them because with this fuel price increase I know it will effect them.
This is mainly a comment.
With prices being so high in the north it is very hard to keep up sometimes in paying expenses.
Chairperson (interpretation): Any comments or responses, Ms. Thompson.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): I think he stated it was a comment, and I understand what he is saying.
I think this question was brought up earlier but I didn’t really understand the response.
The question was, who implements the fuel price increases.
That’s my question, I didn’t really understand the response earlier.
The fuel price increases are made through the FMB.
When the minister’s cabinet is dealing with the budget they are called the FMB.
There was a global fuel price increase and when this happens it is approved by the FMB.
I think I understand the response now.
As a minister you are the ones that have implemented the fuel price increases following the global fuel price increase.
Fuel increases have been implemented all over the world.
You understood my response and that’s correct.
While you are dealing with this issue in the years to come it seemed that this was implemented without any consultation with the regular members.
In the years to come is that the way the cabinet is going to work, without getting any input from the regular members.
The fuel price increases, we are working in a new government and I know this is one of the first items that have been brought up that the members are very concerned about and we realize that this has happened.
Are we going to be informed about these things without having any input from the members.
If there are changes to the regulations the members are able to look at the budget and look at where they could take some money to increase the 5 million dollars that is used for the price stabilization factor.
If that is increased or if there were more funds that could be used or put into that fund, the members could look at finding more funds from different departments.
That would be one way to increase the fund.
I understand the response and I am aware that it’s new, this is a new government, and we are all aware that as a new government, we are going to be looking at making changes to regulations.