EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, I came to this office with a vision for this government. My ministers and I work very hard to implement the Tamapta Mandate.
Change is happening and I can assure this House that our progress will continue. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to seek unanimous consent from my colleagues to go back to Item 4.
The minister is seeking unanimous consent to return to Item 4.
There are no nays. (interpretation ends) Item 4. Returns to Oral Questions.
Return to Oral Question 520 – 3(2): New Office Building (Kusugak)
In response to a question asked by my colleague, Mr. Elliott, regarding the length of the financing for the Qulliq Energy office, it is for 30 years as QEC figures that we would be well in there for another 20 or more years after the leasing arrangement and we would be in there rent-free, saving even more money for the ratepayers.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) Item 4.
Committee Report on Bills 020 – 3(2): Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (Okalik)
I wish to report that Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 44 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
Our colleague is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 44 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
Bill 44 has been referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 021 – 3(2): Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act (Minimum Wage) (Okalik)
I wish to report that Bill 45, An Act Amend the Labour Standards Act (Minimum Wage), has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 45 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) so that Bill 45 can proceed directly into Committee of the Whole.
Bill 45 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Committee Report on Bills 022 – 3(2): Bill 46, An Act to Amend the Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Property Tax Relief Act (Okalik)
I wish to report that Bill 46, An Act to Amend the Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Property Tax Relief Act, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 46 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) so that Bill 46 can proceed directly into Committee of the Whole.
Bill 46 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Tabled Document 255 – 3(2): FPT Ministers of Health Meeting, September 14, 2010 (Curley)
Tabled Document 256 – 3(2): Report #1 on Status of Action Plan on the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut 2009 – Financial Management Practices of the Department of Health and Social Services (Curley)
I have two documents that I would like to table. I am pleased to table the FPT Ministers of Health Meeting, September 14, 2010, St. John’s, Newfoundland. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Report #1 on Status of Action Plan on the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut 2009 – Financial Management Practices of the Department of Health and Social Services. (interpretation) Thank you.
Tabled Document 257 – 3(2): Residents to See Community Hall Design (Elliott)
I wish to table an article from the Monday October 11, 2010 edition of the Nunavut News/North. The article talks about the plans for the new hamlet complex which Grise Fiord will be receiving through commitments from the Government of Nunavut and the federal government’s Building Canada Fund.
This new 11,000 square metre building is a welcome piece of needed infrastructure as it is going a long way to provide office space for the Hamlet of Grise Fiord employees, GN employees, and other community organizations.
It will give the residents its first community hall.
With the old hamlet office building and a few renovations, that building would become a Nunavut Arctic College Community Learning Centre, as Grise Fiord is the only Nunavut community without a building for adult education.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Grise Fiord are extremely excited about this much needed infrastructure coming to our community and extend much gratitude to the Government of Nunavut for its promise to deliver the building in 2007.
I trust that my colleagues will read this article with much support.
Tabled Document 258 – 3(2): Nunavut Liquor Commission Annual Report 2004-2005 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 259 – 3(2): Nunavut Liquor Commission Annual Report 2005-2006 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 260 – 3(2): Nunavut Liquor Commission Annual Report 2006-2007 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 261 – 3(2): Nunavut Liquor Commission Annual Report 2007-2008 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 262 – 3(2): Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board Annual Report 2007-2008 (Peterson)
I have two documents I would like to table today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Nunavut Liquor Commission’s annual reports from 2004 to 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table the Annual Report 2007-2008 for the Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board.
Tabled Document 263 – 3(2): Open Letter to the Leaders of Nunavut on the Health Implications of Opening the Territory to Uranium Mining (Elliott)
Tabled Document 264 – 3(2): Human Health Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation (Elliott)
I am tabling a letter in Inuktitut and English dated October 20, 2010. It was sent to all Nunavut leaders, including our federal MP Leona Aglukkaq and all MLAs in this House.
It is a letter jointly written by Dr. Kathy Lakille and Dr. Linda Harvey, and speaks to the health implications of opening the territory to uranium mining.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, subsequently to these letters, I am tabling a paper co-authored by both doctors that was published in May 2009 on the human health implications of uranium and nuclear power generation.
Tabled Document 265 – 3(2): Developing Healthy Communities – A Public Health Strategy for Nunavut (Elliott)
On Friday, Minister Curley, Minister of Health and Social Services, mentioned that he would table the Public Health Strategy for Nunavut.
Since he had said he was finished his tabling, I would like to table that document.
Motion 031 – 3(2): Appointment of Alternate Ministerial Member of the Management and Services Board – Notice (Aariak)
I give notice that on Monday, which is today, November 1, 2010, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that Lorne Quassa Kusugak be appointed as an alternate ministerial member of the Management and Services Board.
Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I will be seeking unanimous consent to deal with this motion today.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Notices of Motions.
Hon. Eva Aariak: WHEREAS section 38 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act provides… .
You must first ask for consent to deal with your motion today. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
As I stated earlier, at the appropriate time, I would be seeking unanimous consent to deal with the motion today.
The Premier is seeking unanimous consent to deal with her motion today.
Please proceed with your motion, (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
Motion 031 – 3(2): Appointment of Alternate Ministerial Member of the Management and Services Board (Aariak)
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try this again.
(interpretation ends) WHEREAS section 38 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act provides for the appointment of an alternative ministerial member of the Management and Services Board;
NOWTHEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that the Hon. Lorne Kusugak be appointed as an alternate ministerial member of the Management and Services Board.
Bills 44, 45, and 46, and Tabled Documents 207 – 3(2), 209 – 3(2), 210 – 3(2), and 212 – 3(2) with Mr. Schell in the Chair. In accordance with the authority provided to me by Motion 6 – 3(2), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
>>House recessed at 15:32 and Committee resumed at 16:03
In the Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 44, 45, and 46, and Tabled Documents 207 – 3(2), 209 – 3(2), 210 – 3(2), and 212 – 3(2).
We would like to commence with the review of Bill 44, followed by Bill 45 and Bill 46.
We will then resume with the concurrent review of the following tabled documents: 207 – 3(2), 209 – 3(2), 210 – 3(2), and 212 – 3(2).
Bill 44 – An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act – Consideration in Committee – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to speak to Bill 44, which will amend the Nunavut Income Tax Act so that it is in line with the federal Income Tax Act.
The changes announced in Federal Budget 2010 pertain to benefits to parents who share custody of children.
Canada amended their legislation so that, as at July 2011, two parents who live separately and share equal custody of a child will each receive one-half of the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB), and GST/HST credit amounts that apply in respect of the child.
In order to remain harmonized with the federal rules, Mr. Chairman, the Nunavut Income Tax Act requires similar amendments to sections pertaining to the treatment of the Nunavut Child Benefit.
Bill 44 will essentially correct current imbalances that favour one parent of the shared-custody child over the other parent.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my left is Peter Ma, Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance, and to my right is Thomas Druyan, Lawyer for the Department of Justice.
The Standing Committee on Legislation reviewed the bill and supports the amendment of the Income Tax Act.
As members are aware, many of our constituents lead different lifestyles. When a couple separates, it becomes a hardship for the family and we have to look at more options to assist the couple, especially in meeting these challenges.
This was one of the issues noted by the committee and it was passed along to the minister for his consideration.
The committee is in support of the bill.
It is obvious that members of the committee may have questions or comments on this issue and I will support them if they choose to do so.
I don’t have any, so I guess we will go clause by clause starting on page 1. Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. Clause 1.
Chairman: We will go to the Schedule. Schedule.
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 44 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 63(2) that Bill 44 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman: Do you have any closing remarks on Bill 44, Minister Peterson?
I thank the members of the committee for their scrutiny of the bill.
As Mr. Okalik said, it’s a relief for some our most vulnerable and helps parents.
We have a very expensive territory to live in and this will certainly help parents provide for their children.
Now we will move on to Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act (Minimum Wage).
I would like to ask the Minister, Mr. Peterson, to make his opening remarks.
Bill 45 – An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act (Minimum Wage) – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to present an Act to amend the Labour Standards Act on minimum wage.
The purpose of the Labour Standards Act is to describe the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees who fall under the authority of this Act.
This also includes setting the minimum wage that employers are required to pay employees.
The last increase to the minimum wage was in 2008.
A recent informal survey of Nunavut employers supports increasing the minimum wage in order to keep up with the cost of living in the north.
We concur with the minister on this matter wholeheartedly. As has been noted previously, Nunavummiut face the highest cost of living in Canada and we have our own challenges.
The change to increase the minimum wage was done in order for Nunavummiut to keep up with the cost of living.
Due to this reason, we supported this bill.
There was consensus during our meetings on this matter and we support the amendment.
I think this is a good Act.
It harmonizes with the cost of living up here, which is the highest in the country, if not, throughout the world.
We also have, under Tamapta, a poverty reduction program that is in line with what we are trying to do as a government. To me, it’s a good Act and I am more than happy to support it.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I am very pleased to be supporting this proposal.
I know that the cost of living is ever escalating each year and I hope that the government will also recognize that for our teachers who are at the bargaining table.
I do hope that this reflection of increasing the minimum will also increase the generosity towards our teachers. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If not, we will move on to Bill 45, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act (Minimum Wage). Clause 1. Do you agree?
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 45 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 45 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
I again thank the members of the standing committee for their scrutiny of this bill.
Certainly some of our poorer folks in Nunavut will benefit from this. I know $11 doesn’t seem like a lot to some people, but it is a lot to many of our people.
Indeed cost of living is very expensive in Nunavut and with the collective efforts of all of us here, we can continue to work towards bringing the cost of living down.
I’m sure that through our implementation of our Poverty Reduction Strategy, we will be able to help more people to put food on their table.
Chairman: Thank you. Now we will move on to Bill 46, An Act to Amend the Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Property Tax Relief Act.
I would now like to ask Minister Peterson for his opening remarks.
Bill 46 – An Act to Amend the Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Property Tax Relief Act – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to speak to Bill 46, which will amend the Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Property Tax Relief Act.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will expand the definition of eligible property and include separate definitions for each type of property eligible for tax relief.
Such definitions are required to close a loophole that may disqualify some senior citizens and disabled persons.
This will also clarify the overall legislation.
Currently, eligible property encompasses only mobile units, single family dwelling units, and the land on which those units rest, if belonging to the same owner. This definition seems to exclude condominiums and attached homes, such as duplexes and townhouses.
Bill 46 will allow qualified seniors and disabled homeowners to receive the exemption against levied taxes.
Mr. Chairman, these changes help those in need and address concerns raised by this legislature in 2006.
Proceed, Mr. Okalik.
The committee reviewed the proposed amendments to the Act and the intent of the bill is something we support, especially with respect to people with disabilities and our esteemed elders, as we ought to be assisting them in every way possible.
We agreed with the intent of the Act, but we also had a question regarding couples where one spouse is an elder and the other is not an elder.
The issue of homeownership where both spouses are named as co-owners but with only one spouse qualifying for this benefit has caused numerous difficulties in applying for this benefit.
We encouraged the minister and his officials to review the circumstances, as per my example, to look at ways to provide assistance.
We want all elders to be provided with assistance in every way possible.
Those were the main points that I wanted to speak to that fall under the Income Tax Relief Act, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to speak to this issue since hamlets are mostly not taxed-based municipalities.
The difference is obvious between tax-based communities and those that are not. We all know that Iqaluit is a tax-based community and the rest of the communities in Nunavut are not tax-based municipalities.
I believe that this matter should be reconsidered, at least in my opinion.
Using Coral Harbour as an example, the hamlet tried to pass a by-law to provide assistance to elders who are 65 and over. They tried to enact a by-law that would either subsidize the services to the elders, such as water and sewage services, or offer free municipal services.
However, Government of Nunavut officials stated that this is not possible under the current legislation.
Due to this and other reasons, will the department consider allowing the hamlet to pass by-laws that are geared towards providing assistance to elders, such as free municipal services, or a subsidy for such services?
The communities other than Iqaluit are not taxed-based municipalities and the manner in which these municipalities are operated is different from a tax-based municipality.
I thank Mr. Ningeongan for that comment.
It is an important question, especially for elders in the communities outside of Iqaluit.
We did some research, Mr. Chairman, and it appears that, under the Hamlets Act, the hamlets are able to do exactly what Mr. Ningeongan suggests. Under section 169(1) and section 170 of the Hamlets Act, a hamlet can pass a by-law and they can actually provide a reduction in rates to help people in their communities.
So that might be something that the SAOs of Community and Government Services may wish to bring to the attention of the hamlets.
With respect to Mr. Okalik’s comments about jointly owned property, section 2(4) was repealed in 2006.
Our interpretation of the repeal suggested that the intent of the legislation was to grant an exemption for eligible property when it was jointly owned, even when it was owned by a senior citizen with someone other than the senior citizen’s dependant. We can do further research on that and confirm that.
If the committee approves the bill for submission to the House, it will become clearer at that point with respect to Bill 46.
When committee members were directing questions with respect to these issues, there was no one available to provide answers to these questions.
That was why I raised this question. I would also like to thank the minister for responding to my question as it allows me to understand the matter further.
Perhaps the Department of Community and Government Services will need to dialogue further with the communities so that there is understanding between the two parties.
If you just want to comment on that, Minister Peterson.
I thank Mr. Ningeongan for his comments.
Again it was an important discussion that we had.
Our research just made this information available.
We will discuss with our colleagues at Community and Government Services to ensure that Mr. Ningeongan’s suggestion is acted on. We will consider it fully.
If not, we will go to Bill 46, An Act to Amend the Senior Citizens and Disabled Persons Property Tax Relief Act.
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 46 as a whole?
On clause 5, I just have a question. The Act is deemed as coming into force as of June 15, 2006. Does that mean people who fall under the category of senior citizens and disabled persons can go back to previous tax years to be able to apply for that exemption or are we going from this current tax year on?
I have advice coming from both sides here.
That’s the benefit of being the Minister of Finance and Minister of Justice; you’ve got accountants and lawyers helping out here.
It’s a good question, Mr. Chairman.
In clause 5, it says that “Section 4 of this Act is deemed to have come into force June 15, 2006.”
It only applies to the above clause, which was never brought into effect in that year.
So, just for clarification, people who would fall under this category of senior citizens and disabled persons will be able to take advantage of this in the 2010 tax year.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, as soon as the Act comes into effect.
We will go back to clause 5.
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 46 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Again I would like to thank the standing committee for their scrutiny of this bill and indeed all of the bills we have looked at in this sitting.
A lot of important legislation has been passed, a lot of scrutiny, a lot of hard work by everybody on both sides of the House.
I think Nunavummiut will benefit tremendously by a lot of legislation that we’re passing.
I would like to thank my officials at the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice.
Both departments work very hard on making sure legislation is brought up to date.
Today, I would like to thank my officials who were here with me, Deputy Minister Ma and Thomas Druyan. I would also like to thank my Deputy Minister of Justice who didn’t get an opportunity to appear in the witness box today, but I’m sure she will get her opportunity again in the winter sitting.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you and have a good day.
Chairman: Thank you. I would also like to thank you and your officials for showing up to the Committee of the Whole. Would the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort the minister and witnesses out.
Minister Curley, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you. Qujannamiik. To my right is Mr. Alain Barriault and Lori Kimball is on my left.
Chairman: By now, members are aware of Rules 77(1) and 77(2), so we will go right to the point here. Are there any questions?
One of the places where I wanted to start was in terms of the overspending that happened. There was $60 million which was under the Nunavut Housing Trust and then $50 million more that’s shown up.
My question is: for that $50 million, is that specifically for the new Affordable Housing Initiative or does it include expenses on both the Nunavut Housing Trust and the Affordable Housing Initiative?
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you. For the record, I think it’s important to clarify what the overspending and over-committing actually is. I think, for the amount of budget that initially the Nunavut Housing Trust was allocated, in terms of the actual cost, some of the Housing Corporation’s language is that they over-committed.
The number of units with the budget should have been actually larger in order to complete all of these units.
So I just want to clarify that there is a difference between over-committing and overspending.
For the $50 million, this is really for the new units for the Affordable Housing Initiative.
Again, the answer wasn’t a very direct yes or no.
For the over-commitment, is the $50 million only for the Affordable Housing Initiative?
In terms of tendering contracts and procurement, also for leasing, does the Nunavut Housing Corporation follow the same rules that the Government of Nunavut follows?
Yes, the Nunavut Housing Corporation does follow the same rules and procedures as the GN. Thank you.
For the Government of Nunavut, it is usually Community and Government Services that does this. Does CGS provide that service for the Nunavut Housing Corporation?
The Nunavut Housing Corporation is a contracting authority of the Government of Nunavut. As such, we are authorized to tender and award contracts.
In some cases, we do obtain assistance from the Community and Government Services to provide tendering services on our behalf.
For the Nunavut Housing Trust and the Affordable Housing Initiative, were those contracts put out by the Nunavut Housing Corporation?
The majority of the contracts issued under the Nunavut Housing Trust were issued through the Nunavut Housing Corporation. There may have been one or two exceptions to that.