EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Could Mr. Ningark clarify which of the two programs he’s referring to?
Mr. Ningark: Assuming that I wanted to try and make an application to access the Harvesters Fuel Tax Rebate Program, what do I have to show in my application?
What criteria do I have to meet?
I thank Mr. Ningark for clarifying that. The harvester can be either part-time or full-time, the information has to go through the Department of Finance, and they would have to provide receipts.
We can provide that information for Mr. Ningark if he wants to take it back to his community. We can provide that to all of the members.
Many of the people my age are not getting younger, obviously, who go out hunting on the weekend.
Would I be eligible if I go every weekend in the 12 months out of the year? Would I qualify for the funding?
I thank Mr. Ningark for that question.
Yes, you would be eligible.
Just keep the receipts so that you can file them with the application.
I thank the hon. minister for the answer.
Many of us make a little bit of money here and we go hunting on the weekend in order to supplement what we can for our family.
I thank the minister for the clarification. Thank you.
I thank Mr. Ningark for that comment.
We encourage all MLAs if they could encourage the harvesters in their communities to apply for this program.
As I said, it hasn’t been all that active. There are a lot more harvesters than the applications we received. I think we received less than 100 applications last year and there’s got to be a lot more than 100 harvesters in Nunavut.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $1,217,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Page C-5. Branch Summary.
Policy and Planning. Total Operations and Maintenance. $2,863,000.
My question is on Policy and Planning.
In 2007, the Legislative Assembly passed a motion on the issue of the federal Northern Residents Deduction. The motion called on the Government of Canada to increase the residency portion of the Northern Residents Deduction and ensure that the residency portion be adjusted on an annual basis to an inflation index that reflects the cost of living in Canada’s Arctic.
Have you had the opportunity to raise the issue of the Northern Residents Deduction with the federal Minister of Finance and if so, what is his position on the issue of making further improvements to the program?
I thank Mr. Rumbolt for that question.
I remember that time very clearly. I actually made that motion in the House and it received unanimous support from all members.
It’s unfortunate that we received a small percentage increase.
I haven’t had the chance as of yet to discuss the matter with Mr. Flaherty, but at some point, I may get that opportunity.
I have Mr. Schell.
Going back to the 2 percent that I was talking about earlier, I’ll bring it up again.
The government estimates that it will raise approximately $14.35 million in 2009-2010 from the 2 percent territorial payroll tax.
Approximately how much of this revenue is being raised by GN’s own employees and how much is being raised from employees of private sector companies and other levels of government?
I thank Mr. Schell for bringing that question up.
Mr. Chairman, we don’t have that information with us, we will have to get that information and get it back for the committee.
I guess the payroll tax was put in back in 1993 and then I guess in January of 2007, it was up to 2 percent.
According to the figures I’ve got here, approximately 25 percent of employees in Nunavut make more than $60,000. So in other words, 25 percent of employees in Nunavut don’t get all of their 2 percent back.
So my question to the minister is like I had asked him earlier.
I don’t think it’s fair because this was supposed to be there to penalize southern employees coming up here.
I don’t think it’s fair for people who make their residency in Nunavut not to be able to get all of that money back. Basically, my feeling is that you are penalizing people for living in the north.
I again thank Mr. Schell for that question.
We just got this in 2007 as MLAs and ministers and it’s an ongoing issue, but we decided that it would be based on the ability to pay.
So if single parents and individuals make under a certain amount, they do get tax credits so that they’re not harmed. But people who are earning, for example, $100,000 or more, we didn’t feel that the amount that they would have to pay would be harmful to them.
So at the time, our primary concern was the lower income individuals’ ability to pay the tax, hence the tax credits.
Has the government ever thought: why is the 2 percent collected from northern residents anyway?
Why can’t it just be, according to your income tax forms, that if you live in the north, you shouldn’t have to pay the 2 percent?
It should only be charged to southern companies.
Has the government ever thought of doing a two-tax system where basically if you live in the north, and it’s proven that you live in the north and you fill out a form, you shouldn’t be taxed the 2 percent?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again thank Mr. Schell for that question.
I’m not sure if I understand the line of questioning, if Mr. Schell wants us to eliminate the payroll tax and then raise taxes for the higher income earners, because we have to bring in a certain amount of taxes to pay for some of the services that we provide.
So if Mr. Schell was willing to support us on doing that, we could make changes.
Well, I mean if you want to do that, that’s fine because I don’t think it’s right or fair. Basically, what you are doing is kind of like a hidden tax.
You’re trying to say that you’re going to give 2 percent back and you don’t.
So if you’re going to increase the taxes for over $100,000, well, that’s your prerogative.
I didn’t hear a question there.
I thank Mr. Schell for that comment.
Mr. Chairman, we don’t want to be raising taxes. We said that in our budget speech.
At the current time, I don’t recall hearing too many concerns from people across Nunavut about the payroll tax.
Our main concern with the payroll tax has been with the collection of taxes from consultants and contractors who come into the north.
During the Second Assembly, we had that brief discussion.
We felt that the consultants and contractors would just pass on the extra costs to businesses and government if we went after them for their 2 percent.
So I’m not sure where we can go with this.
It’s an issue that’s out there, but I don’t think it’s really a critical issue at this time.
My questions are in regard to the review of the Liquor Act, which is outlined in the business plan.
How much is actually budgeted for this review?
Before I ask the minister to respond to your question, there is some information on pages 0-V-4 and 0-V-5 pertaining to the Nunavut Liquor Commission.
I just wanted to note that for the members.
I thank Mr. Elliott for asking the question.
We don’t have a hard number on it yet, but we intend to fund the review unit with internal resources and we will find additional funding once we get approval from our cabinet colleagues.
I was just going through trying to find it in the binder there.
The next question I have is: who is actually doing the consultation?
Is it the Government of Nunavut or is it going to be contracted out to a different agency?
I thank Mr. Elliott for the question.
Mr. Chairman, the intention at this time is to do it internally.
Continuing along with those lines of questioning, will there be community consultations?
Will the committee be going out to the communities to talk to different communities and if they are, how many communities do they plan to visit?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again thank Mr. Elliott for the question.
The intention is to do community consultations, and we’re hopeful that we can get to all communities and get their input.
My next question is: has there been a scope of work that has been created or what the review will actually try to accomplish?
I know it says in the business plan that it “will immediately improve customer service.” I’m just wondering if there’s some information that is broader than that.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don’t think we have a detailed scope of work, if I understand that, Mr. Elliott.
We’re going to open the entire Act up for review and get input from everybody. So it’s not a small piece of it, it’s the entire Act.
Mr. D’Arcy has been the key person in the department who’s heading up that initiative.
If you would like him to provide some details, he is more than willing to speak to it right now.
Mr. Elliott and members, would you like to have Mr. D’Arcy put an input into the committee?
(interpretation) Is it okay?
Chairman: Mr. D’Arcy.
As the minister has said, we haven’t finally decided on the total scope of work, but we’re going to look at the Liquor Act from A to Z, from the beginning to the end.
The beginning of the Liquor Act has to deal with the liquor board itself.
Even though the liquor board reports to Justice, it still comes under the Liquor Act.
So we will look at and ask communities, all stakeholders, and all interested parties: what about the liquor board, what its role should be, the role of the local option, which would be dry, or controlled, or open communities, take a look at the way we market liquor through the Liquor Commission in the territory and how that should be looked after.
Certainly, things that are near and dear to everybody’s hearts that we know about now has to do with fines for bootlegging and how we interact with the RCMP.
Virtually everything that we do in the Liquor Commission and how that works with our Enforcement Division and with the Liquor Licensing Board will be examined over the next little while.
Mr. Chairman, as we know, the minister has mentioned that this is a complex process that’s going to take a while, the Act is big.
There are lots of very interesting issues that we’re going to be talking about and we look forward to doing it over the next little while, which could be as much as two years, so my minister tells me.
Thank you for that explanation. I was just having some concerns in terms of improving customer service might be taken as allowing more access to alcohol in the communities.
I honestly believe that it’s a personal choice whether people want to drink or not.
But I find, living in Arctic Bay for so many years where it’s controlled within the community, there are no options for people to learn how to drink responsibly.
Again, I think it’s the people’s choices to decide what they want to do and how they want to live their life and we keep pushing for self-reliance.
So I’m glad to hear that the committee is going to be doing a wide range of reviews as to what we can do.
Are you saying that we won’t hear anymore of this probably for the next two years, or will work start right in September once everyone gets back in off the land?
I thank Mr. Elliott for those comments.
Mr. Chairman, we don’t want to prejudice ourselves against what will be discussed in the communities out there in consultations, so that’s why I say everything is wide open.
The comments that Mr. Elliott made are some of the comments that I’m sure we will hear and there will be other comments from other people, so we will take it all in.
The plan right now is to start in September and we will go from there, and I’m sure we will have the opportunity to brief the members in Full Caucus or Regular Caucus meetings as we progress.
Also in this section, one of the priorities of the government for 2009-2010 talks about the finalization and implementation of the Memorandums of Understanding and that’s for the territorial corporations.
Does that mean that from March 31 until now, they’re going on the Memorandums of Understanding from the previous government?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliott for that question.
The territorial corporations are still operating on the letters of expectation from the previous government. We hope to initiate this new initiative in the fall.
In terms of finalizing and implementation, is there any type of follow-up?
How does the government follow up on whether the Memorandums of Understanding are being followed through?
Is it reviewed every six months or three months?
The reason I ask this question is in the review of the Auditor General with the Nunavut Housing Corporation, we saw that there was I guess four years ago, in the Memorandum of Understanding to the President of the Nunavut Housing Corporation saying that a strategy had to be completed.
It’s four years later and the strategy is still not completed.
With the new direction for the government with the report card coming out, is there some way of following up to make sure that the Memorandums of Understanding are being followed?
I thank Mr. Elliott for that question.
The Public Agency Council that’s chaired by me and the Premier is on there as well as the Minister of Human Resources, I’m also on there again as the Minister of Justice, so that’s where the Memorandum of Understanding comes from.
There will be quarterly meetings by the committee and our officials will be meeting quarterly with the management teams for the territorial corporations, so there will be regular follow-ups.
I want to assure the member that this isn’t an exercise that we’re just going to talk about, but we’re going to actually work with the territorial corporations.
I have Mr. Aupaluktuq.
I wanted to ask the minister or his officials.
The department’s business plan states that one of its priorities for 2009-2010 is “Via an interdepartmental committee on liquor issues, bring forward changes to the Liquor Act that will immediately improve customer service and administration and complete planning for a comprehensive review of the Act, including a consultation plan.”
What changes to the Liquor Act do you support making and when do you plan to introduce a bill in the Legislative Assembly?
We’re probably not going to bring anything into it until the wintertime.
Possible immediate changes could be to the distribution system of liquor. For example, there are concerns in Iqaluit that they have to order from Rankin Inlet and there are concerns in Rankin Inlet that they have to order from Iqaluit.
So that’s something that could be easily rectified with consultation with the communities and other individuals.
There could be some changes to the fines that are currently being charged to people for committing illegal acts under the Act.
I’m referring specifically to bootlegging.
I thank the minister for that response as well.
On May 31, 2007, a letter was tabled in the Legislative Assembly in which the idea of allocating revenues that were received by the government from fines posed under the Liquor Act to alcohol education and treatments programs was supported. As minister, what’s your current position on this issue?
Was that me who wrote that letter then?
It just goes to show that these things come back to haunt you… no, I still support that kind of activity.
As I’m learning as finance minister, we can do it internally.
We can allocate resources through the internal process because the fines come into the consolidated revenue fund.
But internally, through the budgeting process, we can find ways to allocate more resources to substance abuse programs and other good programs that help people out there.
Just a quick comment along the lines of my colleague, Mr. Elliott, that I believe education is key in alcohol and I believe that people have to be informed and also make educated decisions.
Along the lines of liquor, as minister, what’s your position on the issue of allowing over-the-counter retail sales of alcohol in Nunavut?
I don’t have a position on that at this time.
We’re going to undertake a review of the Liquor Act and let the people of Nunavut have their say.
I also thank the minister for that response as well.
That’s nice to see an official statement made like that and left in the public hands to provide their feedback.
This other question I have, Mr. Chairman, for the minister is in regard to tax. I’m asking the minister or his officials: does the GN tax fuel in the north besides the federal gas tax?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do have a tax on fuel in Nunavut.
At what percentage or what rate is the tax, just out of interest?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for your patience.
The petroleum tax rates on gasoline in zone A is 10.7 cents per litre, gasoline in zone B is 6.4 cents per litre, diesel motive is 9.1 cents per litre, diesel non-motive is 3.1 cents per litre, aviation is 1 cent per litre, other is 3.1 cents per litre, and on propane and heating, there is none, zero cents per litre.
We can provide the information if you guys want it in detail.
I have Mr. Ningark.
On page C-5, under Contract Services, there is a substantial amount of money, $280,000. Is that for policy advisors or contractors from outside the system?
You can almost put someone on regular payroll with that kind of money.
Under that category, we’re developing some fiscal policy software and we’re doing some employee training.
We don’t have all of the details. If the member would like to have it, we would be more than willing to provide them after the meeting.
I’m going to go back to the motion that Mr. Daniel Shewchuk did on the sealskin ban a few months ago with the European Union voting to disallow sealskins to Europe.
I was just wondering if maybe the minister could get a hold of the European Union and say that we’re going to have a vote in the leg. in the next month or so to find out if it’s humane or inhumane to have European liquor spirits in Nunavut.
I thank Mr. Schell for that interesting question.
I had no plans personally to make any phone calls, though I have heard the rumblings around the Legislative Assembly in the last couple of months.
I believe the Premier is making representations through her channels to try and convince the European Union that they should reverse their stance on sealskins, but I don’t think it would include a ban on alcohol at this point.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation) Mr. Schell, is that it?
Mr. Ningark: Under this page, Policy and Planning, there is a statement about liquor enforcement and inspection.
In just about every community that is dry, there are always complaints that liquor is still coming in, that liquor is flowing freely although it’s prohibited.
Mr. Minister, is there any plans to increase inspection and enforcement in dry communities, such as my communities, in the coming year?
I thank Mr. Ningark for the question.
I’m well aware of the concerns that Mr. Ningark is raising. As the Minister of Justice, I get notifications all the time about bootleggers and other alcohol offences that go on in Nunavut and there are quite a few.
The Department of Finance works very closely with the RCMP and we have regular discussions. Mr. D’Arcy was meeting with the RCMP earlier this week to talk about enforcement and how we can control the flow of illegal alcohol.
I have to state though that it will be helpful to the RCMP and to the community that if people see illegal activities relating to alcohol, they have to call the RCMP or talk to the mayor.
If there’s an alcohol education committee in town, perhaps they could call them as well.
But it would be helpful to the communities if the people living in communities are also participating in helping stem illegal alcohol.
Mr. Ningark: Thank you. I just wanted to make a comment. In a small community, a voter could be a mayor’s brother.
Everyone knows everyone, everyone is related to everyone, and a bootlegger may be a supporter of the council, and so on. It’s really, really, really hard to enforce liquor in the smaller communities.
Nobody, Mr. Chairman, wants to report the source of liquor coming into their community, especially when 50 percent of the community is using liquor in a dry community.
It’s very tough.
I don’t think anybody wants to report their brother, or brother-in-law, or cousin, or what have you.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ningark. I believe that was just a comment.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Ningark for his comment.
While we’re around this topic, I just wanted to clarify that liquor enforcement and inspection is primarily to do with licensed establishments in Nunavut, whereas Mr. Ningark is referring, I think, more to the flow of illegal alcohol and bootlegging activities.
Mr. Ningark: Thank you. What I mean in my statement is that we need every conceivable help that we can get - airlines, travel agencies, air transportation - name it, we need it.
It’s just a comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again this is a comment.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Mr. Ningark, everybody should be involved and concerned about the alcohol situation.
I talked to the RCMP commanding officer last week and met with him for an hour. He told me that the level of violence in Nunavut is largely fuelled by alcohol, so we have to be very concerned about alcohol, especially illegal alcohol.
I have Mr. Komoartok.
With a preamble first of all, liquor plebiscites used to be held in some communities.
In Pangnirtung, the alcohol education committee was dissolved and wasn’t reinstated after they voted to have a prohibited community.
As the minister stated earlier, the Liquor Act will be amended and we will probably wait about two years for it to be fully implemented.
I would like to ask the minister: even if we had the Liquor Act today, what would be happening with the alcohol education committees and could the communities see the re-establishment of these committees?
In some communities, we hear of alcohol related incidents or accidents happening on a weekly basis. As the minister said, many court cases involve the abuse of alcohol.
In our community this year, there have been snowmobile parties going over 200 miles to Iqaluit just to pick up alcohol.
Some people are willing to go that far.
So we have to make sure that the Liquor Act is enforced in all of the communities in Nunavut.
With what’s been happening these days, is it possible for the Department of Finance to help hamlets or communities establish alcohol education committees?
Just for the member’s information, there is a plebiscite in Pangnirtung on October 26 to vote and then an advance poll on October 19.
But with respect to alcohol education committees, it’s up to the individual communities if they would like an alcohol education committee and our department fully supports every community that wishes to have one. I think that you would have to have a plebiscite.
We’re having a meeting this fall with alcohol education committees. I think the dry communities are also being invited, so we’re trying to encourage participation from all of the communities.
I appreciate the member for raising that point.
I have no more names on my list. Branch Summary.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) We will move on to C-6. Branch Summary.
Financial Management. Total Operations and Maintenance. $2,534,000.
Last year, your department’s business plan indicated that one of its goals was to “Continue to work with the Department of Human Resources to implement the comprehensive training and development strategy for accounting training in Nunavut including inter-jurisdictional training programs for finance professionals.”
Your department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicates that “This task will contribute to achieving the goals of the new government’s mandate and will be incorporated into a comprehensive centralized training plan.”
As of today, what is the status of this initiative?
I thank the member for asking the question, it’s a very good and important question.
We have heard in the Auditor General’s reports that a lot of our financial problems in the Government of Nunavut is because we don’t have enough qualified or trained financial administrators and accountants.