EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat strange that on one hand we are allocating close to a half a million dollars for youth centres but we don't seem to have a policy in place as to how we are going to allocate it.
I think the minister at this point in time before the figures appear in the budget, there should be a plan in place as to how the money is going to be allocated, how people can access these funds.
I hope this is not just the tip of the iceberg as far as what funding is being proposed here for various projects.
So I would ask the minister once again, does he have a plan in place as to how he is going to allocate this funding, what criteria he has in place so that the various communities can look at what their needs are and whether or not they will meet the funding criteria that the minister will or will not set up.
I understand the question, and I apologize.
The funding that we requested for this department for youth initiatives, our staff is at the moment trying to finalize the funding so that we can try to meet the demands of the youth in the communities and to find out what the initiatives are and the issues here very shortly.
Mr. Speaker, it will be very difficult to pass such a budget item without having the criteria in place.
As excited as we are about this budget item, I would suggest to the minister that within the next many hours that a plan be put in place or otherwise it will be very difficult for members to pass this item and we certainly want to pass it.
We are now on oral questions.
Item 6 on the orders of the day.
Question 284 - 1(3): Increase in Northern Allowance
Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my member's statement earlier I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Finance in his budget address talk about the 15 percent increase in the northern allowance.
Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated on January 17th in a press release that this increase in northern allowance benefit is going to be paid to all employees in the department, boards and agencies effective April 1st.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance why, in his budget address, it states that these changes will take effect for the Federation of Nunavut Teachers, Hay Plan and excluded employees on April 1st, but for members of the Nunavut Employees Union this increase will take effect once the contract is ratified.
I would like to ask the minister why, as he had indicated in January, why it is not taking place on April 1st.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Thank you Mr. Speaker We had intended to pay it to all our employees on April 1st 2000 but as you know there is a collective agreement process and negotiations that are taking place between the Northern Employees Union and our government.
They pointed out to us that it is part of the overall package that they want to have under consideration as part of the negotiations and so because of that it was not pursued Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you Minister of Finance.
Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance when the announcement was made in January was it intended by the minister or his department to have something that was there outside and automatically put on for everybody so that when the Nunavut Employees Union said this is still something they would like to negotiate, that it would be on top of that amount.
Based on that announcement they would have anticipated they still might want to negotiate but on top of the fifteen percent increase prior to that.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated we are in active negotiations now with our partners, the Northern Employees Union.
I don’t think it would be proper to discuss any of those details at this level.
I can say they are aware that The Federation of Nunavut Teachers and our other excluded employees as of April 1, 2000 will get a minimum of fifteen percent allowance added to their pay and benefits package Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Ng. Mr. Tootoo, your supplementary.
Mr. Speaker I believe, reading the press release of January seventeenth, it is out there for all employees effective April 1.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that and ask the Minister of Finance if in fact he gave it out to all employees and now, it seems, they have taken it back and are holding it over their head until they sign a collective agreement before they get it.
I'm just wondering if that was the plan to do that because it seems like you're giving something out to everyone and then you're taking it back and holding it contingent on the collective agreement being signed.
Once again, I will just say that they are aware of the proposal.
They did quite frankly take exception to the fact that we even offered it, if the members may recall from some of the articles in the newspaper and some of the discussions that took place in interviews with their executive.
But having said that Mr, Speaker, let's remember that any agreement that is ratified is retroactive to April 1.
So nobody is losing from that perspective.
Item number 6 in our orders of the day.
Question 285 - 1(3): Income Support & Tax Considerations
McLean: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tax time is coming and going and with the creation of Nunavut a few items have been pointed out to me in regards to T5007 supplementaries and T4 slips for this accounting year.
It appears where there are 2 spouses, husband and wife and family, that received social assistance last year in Nunavut the government of the Northwest Territories issued duplicate forms T5007s, one to each spouse.
If this error is not caught and the duplicate 5007 is not cancelled the family income is essentially doubled.
This could effect the calculation of GST and Child Tax Credits by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
Tax filers may experience a reduction in their year 2000 tax credits.
Is the minister aware of this and what measures has he taken to see that these badly needed income tax refunds are not jeopardised.
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. Ng for the Department of Finance.
No, Mr. Speaker I am not aware of that problem but certainly if it is a problem we will act upon it to rectify it so our constituents are not adversely affected.
My second question is that in April 1999 the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency notified Nunavut Employers that a result of the creation of Nunavut, employers would be required to issue two T4s.
One for the NWT earnings and the second for the Nunavut earnings.
We enclosed a copy of the processing.
Mr. Speaker, my question here is if the two T4s weren't issued that this could really affect both parties; the recipient of the tax return plus the much needed revenue for this territory.
Is the minister's department on top of this to make sure that we get the revenue we deserve.
Minister for Finance Mr. Ng.
First of all Mr. Speaker the member is correct because the Territory of Nunavut came into existence on April 1, the Government employees would have transferred over as far as their employer goes.
Not just for the government but for any other organization that is operating in Nunavut.
So they should have had a T4, in the case of government employees, from the NWT for January first to March thirty-first and for the Territory of Nunavut from April first to December thirty-first.
But in the instance the member raises about tax collection.
Of course members realize that the federal government undertakes on our behalf the collection of our taxes on the part of the filing of annual tax for deemed residents on December 31, 1999.
So if someone was to deem Nunavut as a residency that is where the taxation revenue for that tax rate for the provincial or territorial portion of that would go.
So in other words we would not lose out provided that individuals residing in Nunavut claim that their place of residency was Nunavut on December 31.
Now I will check with my officials that all the information that I provided is correct but that is my understanding Mr. Speaker.
The accounting firms in Nunavut have been notifying me regarding what they have seen in certain circumstances where T4s have been issued from one territory.
The reason I bring this up is that the smaller communities like my own rely on these tax refunds to purchase boats and motors and snowmobiles and stuff like that.
I will be inundated with questions and concerns and I just want the honourable minister to confirm that this will be taken care of.
Mr. Speaker it is a legitimate concern and because we are right in the middle of tax season I will find out right away if the circumstances are as the member says.
I will try to clarify or rectify any situation where there may be problems.
At this time question period is concluded.
Before we go to item number 6 we will take a forty-five minute break.
We will resume with item number 6.
>>House recessed at 11:52 and resumed at 12:45
Item 6 Written Questions.
Item 7 Returns to Written Questions Mr. Clerk.
Item 7: Returns to Written Questions
Return to WQ 2 – 1(3): Petroleum Products Contracts
I have a return to question 2 – 1(3) filed by the Hon. Minister responsible for Public Works and Housing.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Quirke. Returns to Written Questions.
Item 12, Reports of Standing and Special Committees. Reports of Standing and Special Committees. Reports of Standing and Special Committees.
Item 13, Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills.
Tabled Document 43 - 1(3): Letters Regarding Concerns Over Negotiations
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, as I mentioned this morning, 13 letters signed by 15 Nunavut public servants that were addressed to me as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from two communities.
From Iqaluit and one from Rankin Inlet and I would like to table these.
They are regarding the individuals' concerns over the direction and the tone of the negotiations between the Government of Nunavut and the Nunavut Employees Union.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Hunter.
My apologies, Mr. Tootoo.
Tabled Document 44 - 1(3): Letter from Arviat DEA Regarding School Overcrowding
I would like to table a document from the Chairperson of the Arviat DEA in reference to the overcrowding in the school system and the need for a middle school.
Tabled Document 45 - 1(3): Letters Regarding Concerns Over Negotiations
I also have from Baffin South a number of letters concerning negotiations between the Nunavut Employees Union and the government regarding their concerns.
Tabled Document 46 - 1(3): Letters Regarding Concerns Over Negotiations
Employees' Union concerns coming from the Pond Inlet staff for tabling.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Nutarak, member for Mitimatilik.
Item 15, Notices of Motions.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday March 27, I will move the following motion.
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Tunnuniq that the 2000/2001 Main Estimates, 2000/2001 Capital Estimates and Pre-Budget Consultation Report of the Government of Nunavut be moved into the Committee of the Whole today.
Furthermore Mr. Speaker, I move that the 2000/2001 departmental business plans of the Government of Nunavut be deemed to have been moved into the Committee of the Whole upon their tabling in the House for subsequent consideration alongside 2000/2001 Departmental Main Estimates and Capital Estimates.
Mr. Speaker, I will be seeking unanimous consent to deal with my motion today.
Item 16, Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills.
Motions. Motions.
Mr. Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Honourable member for Tunnuniq (interpretation ends) that the 2000/2001 Main Estimates, 2000/2001 Capital Estimates and Pre-Budget Consultation Report of the Government of Nunavut be moved into the Committee of the Whole today.
And, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I move that the 2000/2001 Departmental Business Plans for the Government of Nunavut be deemed to have been moved into the Committee of the Whole upon their tabling in the House for subsequent consideration alongside the 2000/2001 Departmental Main Estimates and Capital Estimates.
There are no nays, you may proceed with your motion.
You have to read your motion again.
Motion 15 - 1(3): Main Estimates, Capital Estimates and Budget Consultation Report to Committee of the Whole
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Tunnuniq that the 2000/2001 Main Estimates, 2000/2001 Capital Estimates and Pre-Budget Consultation Report of the Government of Nunavut be moved into the Committee of the Whole today.
I seek unanimous consent.
Question has been called. All those in favour. All those opposed.
The motion is carried. Back to the orders of the day. Item 18, First Reading of Bills.
Bill 14 – Interim Appropriations Act, April 1st to May 31st, 2000 - First Reading
I move seconded by the Honourable Member for Nanulik that Bill 14 – Interim Appropriation Act, April 1st to May 31st, 2000 be read for the first time.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you Minister Ng. The motion is in order.
Item 19. Second Reading of Bills.
Bill 14 – Interim Appropriations Act, April 1st to May 31st, 2000 - Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rankin South, that Bill 14 – Interim Appropriation Act, April 1st to May 31st, 2000 be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill authorises the Government of Nunavut to make operations and maintenance expenditures and capital expenditures for the 2000/2001 fiscal year from April 1st to May 31st, 2000.
This will allow the Government of Nunavut to continue to operate until the Legislative Assembly concludes debate on the Appropriation Act, 2000/2001.
Second reading of Bill 14 is approved and it is ready to be moved into committee of the whole for consideration.
Item 20. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters.
Minister's Statement 50 – 1(3), the NNI policy.
Tabled Document 27 – 1(3).
Bill 13, Appropriation Act, Tabled Document 41 – 1(3), with Mr. Irqittuq in the Chair.
Chairperson (Mr. Irqittuq) (interpretation): Thank you for finally being able to sit down in committee of the whole.
First of all I would like to recognize Manasie Akuluk my common-law.
Before we proceed I think we should take a five minute break.
>>Committee recessed for five minutes
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you for returning to the House.
Before we begin there is a new information item.
Our Sergeant At Arms, Jayco Ishulutak has just received a granddaughter this morning.
Congratulations to the Sergeant At Arms.
Going back to our agenda.
Minister's Statement 50 – 1(3), Tabled Document 27 – 1(3), and also Bill 13, and Tabled Document 41 – 1(3).
We were dealing with this tabled document.
Do you want to proceed with this item.
I am going to ask our Premier to go to the witness table with his witness.
My apologies, they don't have a microphone set up at the witness table.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): That's okay.
I will try to answer any questions.
The Premier is sitting at his seat right now and he will try to answer questions appropriately.
Mr. Premier do you have any opening remarks.
I already made my opening remarks in Rankin Inlet.
But if there are any questions I am open to trying to answer them all right now as we have all the information items with us.
I think we can proceed now.
Comments from the members.
Who wishes to have the opening comment.
I was just looking to ask some questions of the Premier.
I have no opening comments to make.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Premier.
I already made my opening statements in Rankin Inlet during our last session so I am just here for questions.
Comments or questions from the members.
Mr. Chairman, overall I don't have any great reservations about the document.
There has been a lot of work put into it and I think mostly everybody is fairly content with it, although I do have some questions to further clarify the rationale as to why certain decisions have been made.
I might add that I was a little disappointed that we didn’t have an opportunity to discuss the document and debate it in the House before it was released last week.
Having said that, going to my question, under section 11.4, it states that the bid adjustment values for the award of purchased goods and services will be applied to the first 100 thousand dollars.
I am curious as to what rationale was used when they made this decision and what impact the Premier feels this will have for example, on the small businessman in communities where they will be for the most part.
The option they will have is that the contractor will only be forced to purchase up to 100 thousand dollars from the local contractor.
If it were higher that would provide more business opportunities for the local contractor.
The way it states now is that after the first 100 thousand dollars the contractor can then go outside and purchase materials. If there is a 10 million dollar school that we are looking at, they would probably have 4 million dollars worth of materials but there is only 100 thousand dollars that has to be spent in the community because of that ceiling that they put on it, up to 100 thousand.
Can you explain the rationale for that.
The document that we tabled yesterday on 11.4, it's been further confined to just goods, and not services for the first 100 thousand dollars.
The intent there is that the goods that we receive today, such as wood and other supplies, come from the south.
So the intent of that limitation for that first 100 thousand dollars.
But for services in Nunavut there is no limitation.
We are discussing Tabled Document 50 – 1(3).
Mr. Chairman, I realize now that it is only goods and that explains my second question.
I think we all realize that we have to get our wooden materials from down south at this point.
I guess my concern or question to the Premier is, given that fact that there is a 100 thousand limit on the purchase of goods, if it were greater wouldn't the Premier agree that this would give the local businessman who makes his living off importing these products from the south, that would give them a greater opportunity to make more profits so they could provide for the families in a better way.
The first 100 thousand dollars, for the northern person that provides supplies it would give them an incentive.
The whole policy applies, it is not just for goods but to provide services, and the whole policy applies and they will get an incentive and provide employment and training opportunities for Inuit for example.
They will be provided bonuses.
So if they are just providing supplies and they are just getting supplies from the south, that does include a lot of benefits for the people of Nunavut.
But for the first 100 thousand dollars they will get a benefit through this policy as well.
Premier maybe you can shed some more light on this issue for me and I don't have a total grasp of the whole picture here but I think I have a general idea.
Just getting some help from my colleagues here, but it is not very constructive help.
If for example, a southern firm, because we still have a grandfather clause in here, there is a sunset period of two years.
If a southern firm, an outside firm gets a contract for 10 million dollars, basically that means that they only have to spend up to 100 thousand dollars towards materials from the local contractors, our local supplier or lumber dealer or whatever.
They then can go elsewhere for the rest of the materials.
They can go wherever they want, but I am sure that if they produce the goods here in our territory then they will get preferential treatment.
This policy is directed towards Nunavut businesses and for those businesses that were covered under the old Business Incentive Policy, they will continue to have two years to change their practices to comply with our policy.
The policy is directed towards Nunavut businesses and providing incentives for them to benefit from any contracts that we issue as a government.
I will leave that question as I am sure that some of the other members have questions on the same issue and are not really satisfied with the answer I received but I will leave it for some of the other members.
Now going to the grandfather clause, I would like to know if the Premier could explain how they make a decision on allowing the grandfather clause to take place.
I know there are a number of companies, many companies from the south or outside of Nunavut, that should be grandfathered.
Of course there are probably just as many others that shouldn't because they probably haven't contributed as much to Nunavut.
So I would like to ask the Premier how do they come out with a rationale to make this decision.
I assume that they are companies that are now doing business in Nunavut.
Is that the case the way the grandfather clause will operate for the next two years.
Chairperson: Premier.
Under the old Business Incentive Policy which we are still under today, some companies had been provided with coverage under that policy.
We are now going to be continuing that for two years, to allow those companies to adjust their business practices to comply with our new policy.
We wanted to ensure that our policy benefits Nunavut in that the benefits that we spend as a government flow to our residents.
That is the intent of our policy.
If we open it up to other companies that won't do any practices, or locate in our territory, what's the purpose of having a policy.
So the intent of the policy is to benefit Nunavummiut and if those companies were to comply with the policy and adjust their practices they have to be able to do that.
If you look at past practice, businesses are quite adaptable.
If you look under the Land Claim Agreement Inuit firms will get some status under government contracts.
Before the land claim agreement was signed there weren't that many companies and look at today, how many Inuit companies are there.
There are numerous Inuit companies.
So these businesses are quite capable of adapting their practices to current government policies and that's the intent of the policy is to allow for businesses to comply with the policy and at the same time benefit the people of Nunavut.
Chairperson (interpretation): At this time I am sort of confused as to what we are dealing with but now our Deputy Clerk just indicated to me that perhaps I can ask Mr. O'Brien if he is referring to this document that was tabled earlier.
Yesterday we tabled the document and I am just asking Mr. O'Brien if he is referring to that particular document that was tabled yesterday.
Mr. O'Brien: Yes, I am Mr. Chairman, asking questions in reference to the document.
Chairperson (interpretation): I apologize, this tabled document that was tabled yesterday is not in our orders of the day.
I think we are dealing with a document that was tabled in the Rankin Inlet session.
I think we should be referring to that one first, as this is not on our agenda at this time.
If you could understand me. Mr. Nutarak.
In regards to NNI policy, Minister's Statement 51 – 1(3) I will be posing further questions under this.
Under the land claims agreement, article 24, we should be covering this.
I want more clarification on this from the Premier.
Before we tabled this particular document, the previous one we had didn't even have a number on it when it was introduced.
They will be given more programs and services and if these private business owners are Inuit people they will be receiving assistance and services.
We will have Inuit businesses assisted as a priority and we had the assistance of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated when we were drafting the Ikajuuti policy or the NNI policy.
I hope I responded to your questions.
In his previous opening remarks he had stated that I am very pleased to table the policy to the Legislative Assembly and I expect to hear input from the regular members of the Assembly.
So that is the last remark that he had made in the Rankin Inlet session.
We were going to deal with the NNI but since we were pressed for time we did the opening remarks on our last day and we didn't even have a chance to question the policy.
Perhaps, I am sure that he was expecting to get input but we heard on the news on the radio that the Premier would take this NNI into effect by April 1st.
So I was wondering if he will implement this on April 1st, even though he did not get any input from the regular members.
That is why I want further clarification.