EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Could you rephrase it please?
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): You stated that it would be for government buildings.
If it does not specify the amount for each community, is it for all the 12 communities in the Baffin region?
Of course each community in the Baffin has government buildings.
My question was for example, Pond Inlet would get an allocation, Arctic Bay would get 15,000 or an allocation of a certain amount.
So, if he could respond to my question.
I asked him if that money was just specified as a contingency fund.
Is it for emergency repairs to the government buildings in the Baffin Region?
Is it a reparation contingency fund?
It does not specify a particular amount for a particular community.
This 135,000 is just set aside for the repairs of government buildings.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Is it because we have to repair or renovate government buildings annually?
Starting in March, usually the O&M dollars are insufficient at that point and usually what we end up doing is to use the various minor capital project dollars to supplement the O&M dollars.
Total Qikiqtaaluk region, 205 thousand.
Chairman (interpretation): The Kivalliq region. Total Kivalliq region, 685 thousand.
Chairman (interpretation): Turning over to the next page, Technical Services, tangible assets, the Kitikmeot region.
Total Kitikmeot region, 110 thousand.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Tangible Assets. 100 thousand.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Tangible Assets. Kitikmeot Region. 1 million.
Chairperson (interpretation): Petroleum Products Division 6-8 and 6-9.
Total Headquarters Region, 150 thousand.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Spill response equipment, is that a contingency plan also, or is it just for Resolute Bay where they had a spill?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): I’ll get my Deputy Minister to answer that question.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Mrazek.
The 150 thousand identified in the plan is for purchasing of equipment for responding to potential oil spills required by Canada Shipping Act.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Nutarak
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): 2002/2003 was 145 thousand and it's increased by 5 thousand for 2003/2004, is that following the cost of living increase?
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Kattuk.
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): I’ll have my Deputy respond to your question.
One hundred and fifty thousand has been identified for 2003/2004.
The figures before were 145 thousand and even after that it’s 400 thousand for the future years, which means that the equipment is needed in many different locations through the Nunavut Territory.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Is that following the increasing prices on cost of living
Mr. Mrazek: No. it basically means that we have the equipment ready in different communities throughout Nunavut.
Chairman (interpretation): Petroleum Products Division.
Headquarters Region Total, 150 thousand.
Chairperson (interpretation): Total Qikiqtaaluk Region, 930 thousand.
Chairperson (interpretation): Qikiqtaaluk Region.
Total Qikiqtaaluk Region, 6 million 930 thousand.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I’m just wondering if the Minister of Finance put up his hand if he had a question, I was just wondering.
Chairman (interpretation): Well, he didn’t raise his hand.
Total Qikiqtaaluk, 6 million 930 thousand.
Total Kivalliq Region, 250 thousand.
Chairperson (interpretation): Kitikmeot Region, 2 million 360 thousand.
Chairperson (interpretation): Total Tangible Assets, 9 million 680 thousand.
Chairperson (interpretation): To go back to 6-4.
Total capital expenditures, 10 million 680 thousand.
I had a question; I think we already dealt with 6-5, the total expenditures of capital one million.
Grants and contributions tangible assets, computer hardware and software total is one million.
Is this for all the communities, is that why it’s one million?
I think Jobie wants to respond to my question instead.
Chairperson (interpretation): This portion that you agreed to, on page 6-6, the sum is there only, on page 6-7, the total is 1 million.
Now the total capital expenditures is ten million six hundred eighty thousand, do you agree?
Does the committee agree to all the details of expenditures for the Department of Public Works and Services?
Mr. Minister do you have closing remarks?
The capital estimates for the communities will be used in the communities and we try to service equally all the communities in Nunavut and I would like to thank my officials for their hard work.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you for being able to appear before us.
Total Capital Appropriation.
Bill 18, in the binder, Bill 18 in your binders.
Does everyone have their binders?
We’ll go page by page.
We’ll go clause by clause.
Bill 18 on page 2.
Amounts appropriated. 2003-2004 Agreed?
I’m on one, but to go up to March 31st 2004 and it looks like they will be used up to that date, is that the case it goes up to March 31st 2004, before we agree with the one?
It means that is the last time that you are authorized to spend money under this Act.
But when it goes past March 31st in 2004, it will have to come back to the Assembly for capital carryover.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Another question I have is in regards to these contracts.
They all have dates, and I wonder if the contracts have expired and if we have to renew them, would we have to get them a different expiry date too?
No, Mr. Chairman, if there were quotas that weren’t completed by March 31st, 2004, whether it hadn’t, if there had been financial commitments made, then we would come back with a supplementary appropriation for that capital carryover after March 31st, 2004.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Under one, in this definition, the Financial Administration Act applies to this act because it’s written like that.
We didn’t want to see this going on and I hope we won’t be expending money too much according to this act.
What my concern is, if we run into major cost overruns we would then have to approve.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: This act, once it’s passed, it allows us to spend $143,080,000 that’s in this Act for capital.
Definitions 1.
Schedules of appropriated funds for capital expenditures, 143 million, 80 thousand.
Total appropriation, 143 million, 80 thousand.
Chairperson (interpretation): The bill as a whole do you agree?
Bill 18 is now ready for third reading.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, we would like to deal with proposed Bills 21, 25 and 26.
Chairperson (interpretation): Premier, do you have opening remarks?
Okalik.
I have a very brief opening remark in regards to Bill 21.
It’s an Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.
As there has been a concern among the residents of Nunavut that the hourly rate is too low, this Act increases the minimum hourly wage employment rate in Nunavut. It will now be $8.50 and it is the highest minimum wage in Canada.
Once this act is passed, then we’ll have the highest minimum wage rate in Canada.
We’ll be happy to answer questions or hear concerns.
Bill 21, turn the page.
An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act, section 1.
Chairperson (interpretation): I am sorry; I am getting ahead of myself.
Does the Ajauqtiit Chair have any opening remarks?
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee has reviewed Bill 21 – an Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee is pleased that this amendment will increase the minimum wage to $8.50 per hour, making it the highest minimum wage in Canada.
Members feel that this review was long overdue.
It has been almost 11 years since the last review was undertaken by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee would like to ensure that the Government reviews the minimum wage on an annual basis.
Members were very pleased that the Minister agreed to an amendment proposed by the Committee that will require the Minister responsible for the Act to review the minimum wage on an annual basis, and report the results of the review to the Legislative Assembly.
This measure strengthens the transparency and accountability of Government.
Mr. Chairman, the Members feel that the cost of living in Nunavut is very high.
Some Members felt that even this increase may not be sufficient.
Members would therefore encourage the Government, when reviewing the minimum wage in future years to take into account the circumstances facing Nunavummiut.
The minimum wage should be high enough to encourage people to seek employment.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee agrees that this change should not take effect until 3 months after it has been passed, in order to give businesses time to adjust to the change.
Mr. Chairman, Members noted that the proposed new minimum wage will be consistent for employees, regardless of their age or location.
The Committee is pleased with this change.
Members of the Committee are in support of the Bill.
Welcome to the table, our legal counsel.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): We dealt with this for quite a long time and I am pretty confident that I will be able to handle it.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 21.
Bill 21 do you have the pages?
Bill 21 – An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Mr. Chairman.
The Ajauqtiit Chair comments or the opening remarks he made stated it has been almost 11 years since the last review. He also stated that it should be done on an annual basis as to the review of the minimum wage.
The reason we wanted that is because when they start working they have to pay for rent, for water, the services that are provided among other things that wage earners have to pay.
These services cost money and there have been concerns that a lot of times, people who want to hold a job even though they are making a little bit of money, they get discouraged because of all of the bills that come pouring in.
This is because when they are under income support, they only pay thirty two dollars for a house and they don’t have to pay for other services while under the program.
It starts to be perceived as being easier to deal with than trying to be independent of the government.
So even though the eight dollars and fifty cents is fairly high and it will be the minimum wage here in Nunavut, the reason why we wanted to have it reviewed on an annual basis so that people willing to work, but facing all of these problems, will be encouraged and still be able to pay bills.
While we are on this, I would like to state again that the committee made it clear that eight dollars and fifty cents hourly wage is, especially in regards to their rent, if the people are working because the policy is not changed and so it will affect the income support recipients, people who are on income support.
Maybe because they are getting more than from the income support, then they will not be discouraged to work and that has caused problems for the parents in the past, especially if they are older.
When the young person starts to work, the parent is charged for household income and their rental arrears suddenly pile up.
This becomes a punishment and a barrier to employment opportunities of the younger people.
That has been a problem. So keeping that in mind, that was why we used the $8.50, when it was six dollars or seven dollars it was creating problems like that.
It will probably have an affect on the rental arrears.
We hope that this will not continue to be the practice of the government.
It will probably be a problem before they change the rental scale policy, then this will create problems, arrears for tenants so the increase to eight fifty is good but it could also have a different effect on our lives.
That was a comment made to our committee and I wanted to repeat it here again.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Please keep in mind that Bill 21 is An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.
It’s to increase the minimum wage, so if there are any questions or comments.
I always wanted to ask; this is a minimum wage and usually a lot of times when people were working, we get an annual increase even with the minimum wage if the person is working well then they would be able to get an increase anyways.
Will this include an annual cost of living increase?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): It’s up to the individual businesses to see how much they can pay, but once they find somebody they like, then they entice the staff person to stay by increasing their pay, so this eight fifty is to show that nobody in Nunavut is allowed to pay somebody under eight fifty but it is up to the businesses to have higher wages.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Under Clause 2, Section 12 (1.1).
I just want to find out what the last minimum wage was before this act came into affect?
The last minimum wage was for the age of sixteen, it was $6.50 and $7.50 if you’re more than sixteen, also it was according to where you lived.
There were two of them, based on age and location of various communities, and this was a problem that the people had with having two minimum wages.
So we are now proposing is to have a minimum wage of $8.50 it doesn’t matter what age you are or where you live.
Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill as a whole. Agreed?
Chairperson (interpretation): The Bill is now ready for third reading. What is the wish of the committee?
Bill 25, what is the wish of the committee in dealing with that?
Bill 25.
Do you have opening remarks, Mr. Minister? Mr. Okalik.
Yes. Under Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and with that, I would like to make a brief comment about an Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act.
Bill 25 is an Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act, the law came to us from the NWT government, and it was not relevant to the Nunavut government.
Now we have one Nunavut Court of Justice and the current act mentions an NWT judge instead of the Nunavut one.
So, these are just cleanup items, to clean up the bill.
These are the amendments to the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act.
Chairperson (interpretation): Does the Ajauqtiit Committee Chair have any comments?
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit has reviewed Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act.
Mr. Chairman, the committee feels that this bill is straight forward and will add a provision in the event of conflict with the Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Act.
Mr. Chairman, this also gives jurisdiction to the Nunavut Court of Justice to vary extra-territorial orders.
Mr. Chairman, Members agree that outdated references to the Northwest Territories and its judicial system should be removed.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee are in support of the Bill.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 25 – An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act.
Chairperson (interpretation): The Bill as a whole.
Bill 25 is now ready for Third Reading.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): We would also like to deal with Bill 26.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 26.
I would just like to make a comment on this Bill 26.
As the Legislative Assembly we just talked about the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act to protect the children of a divorce.
If they were living outside of the Nunavut Territory sometimes the parents were not supporting their children.
It does not matter where they reside as long as they have children they have to make provide support. We did not want the children to have a financial hardship.
What we did was we wanted to be able to make it into law, whereby we would be the same as the Provinces and have a Bill to allow us to collect support even if people are living in other Provinces.
So this Bill is about that.
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit has reviewed Bill 26 – The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.  Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit has reviewed Bill 26 – The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee feels that this bill is straight- forward and will facilitate the enforcement of support orders in reciprocating jurisdictions within and outside of Canada where one of the parties resides in Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, this act also repeals and replaces the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act and eliminates the complex and lengthy process for enforcing maintenance orders under that Act.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee are in support of the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Just a short one, Mr. Chairman.
We appreciate the government for producing and providing this Act.
At this time, just before we begin to deal with the Bill can we have a break for about 10 minutes, thank you.
>>House recessed at 18.21 p.m. and resumed at 18.32 p.m.
We can begin now with Bill 26.
Just a short comment, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say thank you to the government for bringing out Bill 26 and I’m sure it’ll be very good for the people of Nunavut.
Especially the children that have to be supported, but I wanted to ask the Minister if he knows how many provinces in Canada have similar legislation.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Okalik
We met last month with the provinces or the Ministers of each province.
I think all of the provinces right now had an agreement that by January 1st we would try to have a Bill such as the other provinces.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Arvaluk.
I understand that at the end of January in the new year that the Nunavut people will be expecting that wherever the spouse is who has to make a payment that they will be able to receive payment through this Bill.
Yes you are able to do this today but you have to go through a lot of bureaucratic paper work where the individual has to receive a payment so what we’re trying to do is trying to make it easier for those spouses to pay their children.
I have a comment but I would also like to thank the government for bringing up the Bill.
I could probably make a lengthy comment about this Bill, perhaps if I can ask a question first.
It states that the Bill allows the parents to be able to claim some money to support their children and I feel that the people of Nunavut will have to have a clear understanding of the Bill.
In order to get some money from the other parent, there’s been a lot of children that were born in Nunavut and the father resides outside of Nunavut, it happens quite a bit here in Nunavut.
If the people don’t know anything about their fathers out of province how they can be able to claim money?
We’re trying to give easier access for individuals to try and obtain some money from the individuals who are the fathers of those children.
Because according to law they have to pay support for their children, as long as they are making money, they have to pay support.
It’s up to the parent or the mother to try and obtain the money from the father, this will continue, but it’ll be easier for the mother, or the father to get the money from the other individual if this Bill passes.
Is it only for married couples, if they are not married are they going to be recognized as a legally married?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): As long as they have children and through law even if they are legally married or not, they can ask for support, inter-jurisdictional support through the act.
Or if they have adopted the child, through law they can get support from the other person who doesn’t have the children.
We’re trying to make it easier for couples to get inter-jurisdictional support orders.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Possibly through income tax or other provisions they are not recognized when they are not legally married, even when they are living together.
Is it going affect the people or the couple who are not married because they are not recognized to be legally married if they are just living together?
I want more clarification on that portion of the proposed Bill, please.
Chairperson (interpretation): For the information of the Members this is for supporting children.
We have to look at all avenues through the courts and see who they have been living with.
What we usually do is scrutinize everything in order to determine the amount of the support payment that the spouse will be paying.
It is going to be the same thing under this act.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): This I think will have to be fully understood by the people of Nunavut starting today.
If I look at my son or my daughter’s future, I would think that they would have to know this Act if they should get children or a child out of wedlock.
I think that the people of Nunavut will have to be well aware of this Act and its provisions.
If my son should produce a child and if he is not going to be living with the woman who bore his child, how would it work in that situation?
If you produce a child, you would have to take this avenue in order get support orders.
If I were the father, whether I am a young man or an elder, it would still apply, as I am one of the parents.
If the spouse can afford to pay support for the child, then they are legally obligated to do so.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Another question.
Some really young people, who don’t make any sort of income get children today.
It happens quite often up here in Nunavut.
What would happen in that case where these young people have no source of income?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): We would look at their income level.
If they cannot afford to pay support orders, we would not make a decision on the payment levels.
We would look at the unemployment situation and if he or she works and could not afford to pay, then that would be abusing the system.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): I will try to keep to the auspices of this Bill.
There are a lot of unemployed young people around Nunavut who are of the child bearing age, if we use an example of an individual who is receiving income support.
What would happen in that case?
Would they have to pay support for the child?
The Act would still apply because the wage earner would pay the support.
If they are income support recipients, I am sure that this would be the same for the other spouse.
If they are the primary wage earners then the provisions of the Act would apply.
Would they have to go through court to get support payments?
According to the Bill, this would be an Inter-Jurisdictional Support Order which would be recognized in any court of law and that’s the intent of this Bill, so that the parents with children can have an easier time accessing their support payments.
What or how are you going to get this information out to the people of Nunavut?
Are you going to be putting out informational publications so that the people of Nunavut will be aware of the contents of this act?
Chairperson (interpretation): Our legal advisor wishes to make comments.
Ms. Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is by way of background; biological parents; whether or not they’ve ever lived together or legally married, common-law or have never lived together, have a legal obligation to support their children.
Parents who want support from the other party would bring an application to court under the Family Law Act and they would get a support order. With that order, if the parent who is supposed to be paying is not paying the amount of money they are supposed to be paying under the court order, that order would be put under the maintenance enforcement officer here in Nunavut who has the ability to garnishee your wages and things like that directly to get the money.
Then it is only in situations where the person who is supposed to be paying or the person who is seeking support live in two jurisdictions that this act would apply.
And it basically just provides for registering those court orders between the different provinces and territories so that they can be enforced.
But there is that legal obligation whether or not the parents have ever lived together or not.
Is this only applicable in the Canadian provinces and Nunavut and is it applicable outside of Canada?
This is mainly for within Canada, but if we had an agreement with any jurisdiction outside of the country, outside of the Canadian boundaries, it is possible if there is an act regarding child support.
But this is only for the courts under Canadian jurisdiction.
So, you can only get the support orders to apply if you are a Canadian?
Chairperson (interpretation): You should know that we are a Canadian legislature, created as a Nunavut legislature.