1 Standing Committee on Legislation

Standing Committee on Legislation ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ Hearing on Bill 55, An Act to Amend the ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ 55, ᒪᓕᒐᖅ Property Assessment and Taxation Act ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ Iqaluit, Nunavut ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖓ June 23, 2021 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᔫᓂ 23, 2021 Members Present: Tony Akoak ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᐅᐸᒃᑐᑦ: Pat Angnakak ᑑᓂ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ Pauloosie Keyootak ᐸᑎᑯᓗᒃ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ Adam Lightstone ᐸᐅᓗᓯ ᕿᔪᒃᑖᖅ John Main, Chair ᐋᑕᒻ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ Calvin Pedersen ᐋᕐᓗᒃ ᒪᐃᓐ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ David Qamaniq ᑳᓪᕕᓐ ᐲᑐᓴᓐ Emiliano Qirngnuq ᑕᐃᕕᑎ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ Allan Rumbolt ᐃᒥᓕᐊᓄ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ Craig Simailak ᐋᓚᓐ ᕋᒻᐴᑦ ᑯᕆᒡ ᓯᒪᐃᓚᒃ Staff Members: Michael Chandler ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ: Stephen Innuksuk ᒪᐃᑯᓪ ᓵᓐᑐᓗ ᓯᑏᕙᓐ ᐃᓄᒃᓱᒃ Alex Baldwin ᐋᓕᒃᔅ ᐹᓪᑐᐃᓐ

Interpreters: ᑐᓵᔩᑦ: Andrew Dialla ᐋᓐᑐᓘ ᑎᐊᓚ Philip Paneak ᐱᓕᑉ ᐸᓂᐊᖅ Jacopoosie Peter ᔭᐃᑯᐴᓯ ᐲᑕ Blandina Tulugarjuk ᐸᓚᓐᑏᓇ ᑐᓗᒑᕐᔪᒃ

Witnesses: ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ: Thomas Ahlfors, Acting Director, Legislation ᑖᒪᔅ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ, ᑐᑭᒧᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᐅᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, Division, Department of Justice ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Ken Armstrong, President, Northwest ᑭᐊᓐ ᐋᒻᓯᑐᕌᖕ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᓗ Territories and Nunavut Chamber of ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᑦ Mines ᐋᓕᒃᔅ ᐹᓪᑖᕝ, ᐅᖃᐅᔾᔪᐃᔨᒻᒪᕆᒃ, ᕋᐃᔭᓐ Alex Baltov, Senior Consultant, Ryan LLC ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᓪ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ for Agnico Eagle Mines ᑖᓐ ᑳᓪᓴᓐ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᓪᓕᐊᑕ Dan Carlson, Assistant Deputy Minister of ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᖓ Finance ᑎᐊᕆ ᑖᐱᓐ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨ, ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᒃ, Terry Dobbin, General Manager, Nunavut ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ Office, Northwest Territories and Nunavut ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᑦ Chamber of Mines ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ, ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᓪᓗ Jeannie Ehaloak, Minister of Community and ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ Government Services ᑳᓴᓐ ᒋᓕᔅ, ᑐᑭᒧᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ ᓄᓇᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Carson Gillis, Director of Lands and

Resources, Nunavut Tunngavik ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ Incorporated ᑖᒻ Hᐅᐃᕗ, ᑐᑭᒧᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᒻᒪᕆᒃ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ Tom Hoefer, Executive Director, Northwest ᓄᓇᕗᒥᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᑦ Territories and Nunavut Chamber of ᑭᓕᒃᕙᒃ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖅ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒻᒪᕆᒃ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Mines ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ Kilikvak Kabloona, Chief Executive Officer, ᐊᓗᑭ ᑰᑦᑎᖅ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated ᐹᑦ ᒫᒃᓇᒫᕋ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑉ ᑐᓪᓕᐊ, ᑖᒃᓯᓕᕆᓂᖅ, ᐊᒡᓃᑯ Aluki Kotierk, President, Nunavut Tunngavik ᐄᒍᓪ Incorporated ᐋᓐᑐᕉ ᒧᐊ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ Pat McNamara, Vice-president, Taxation, ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓂᑦ Agnico Eagle Mines ᑐᓴᐅᒪᑦᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᓄᓘᔮᓐᓂ ᓴᕕᕋᔭᒃᓴᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ Andrew Moore, Manager of Government ᒫᑎᓐ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑉ ᑐᓪᓕᐊ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᐊᒡᓃᑯ Relations and Public Affairs, Baffinland ᐃᒍᓪ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ Iron Mines Corporation ᑲᐃᔪᓪ ᓰᓕ, ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᓪᓗ Martin Plante, Vice-president, Nunavut, ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᓪᓕᐊ Agnico Eagle Mines Kyle Seeley, Deputy Minister of Community and Government Services

>>Committee commenced at 13:30 >>ᑲᑎᒪᓯᒋᐊᖅᑐᑦ 13:30ᒧᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ

ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᒪᐃᓐ): ᐅᑉᓗᑦᓯᐊᖅ. ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᒋ’ᕼᐃ. Chairman (Mr. Main)(interpretation): Good ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᑕ ᐊᐱᕆᕼᐅᐊᖅᖢᒍ ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᔪᒃᑖᖅ day. Welcome, everyone. Before we proceed, ᑐᒃᕼᐃᐊᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑎᑦᓯᔫᓪᓗᐊᕐᓂᖅᐸᑦ? ᒪ’ᓇ. I would like to ask Mr. Keyootak to say the opening prayer, please. Thank you. >>ᑐᒃᓯᐊᖅᑐᑦ

>>Prayer ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᔪᒃᑖᖅ. ᕼᐃᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ ᐅᕙᓃᑦᑐᓗᒃᑖᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᖁ’ᖢᒋᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᒋᐊᖅᕼᐃᒪᔪᑦ Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᒐᑎᖃᑎᒋᓂᐊᒃᑲᕗᑦ Keyootak. I am pleased to begin by ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᖁᖅᖢᒋᑦ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐊᓛᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒍᑦ welcoming everyone to this meeting of the ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ Legislative Assembly’s Standing Committee ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᓕᖅᑎᖦᖢᑕ. on Legislation. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᒃ 55 ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᑉᓗᒍ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ ᑲᑎᕼᐃᒪᒐᑉᑕ. We have convened today on the occasion of ᑐᕼᐊᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᕋᑉᑕᐃᓛᒃ ᑕᒪᑐᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᐅᑉ the Standing Committee’s televised hearing ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᖅ on Bill 55, An Act to Amend the Property ᐊᕼᐃᐊᓐᖑᕆᐊᕈᑕᐅᓇᔭᕐᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ Assessment and Taxation Act. ᐱᖁᑎᒻᒪᕇᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᕼᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕈᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦᑕᓗ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ. I would first like to introduce my Standing Committee colleagues: ᕼᐃᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ ᐅᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑎᒃᑲ ᑭᑐᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒋᐊᓪᓚᒡᓚᒃᑲ:  Tony Akoak, Member for Gjoa Haven;  Pat Angnakak, Member for Iqaluit-  ᑑᓂ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ, ᐅᖅᑯᖅᑑᒧ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ, Niaqunnguu;  ᐸᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ, ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ-ᓂᐊᖁᓐᖒᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ,  Pauloosie Keyootak, Member for  ᐸᐅᓗᓯ ᕿᔪᒃᑖᖅ, ᐅᖅᑯᒻᒥᐅᓄᑦ

Uqqummiut; ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ,  Adam Arreak Lightstone, Member for  ᐋᑕᓐ ᐋᕆᐊᒃ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ, ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ-ᒪᓂᕋᔭᕐᒧᑦ Iqaluit-Manirajak; ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ,  David Qamaniq, Member for Tununiq;  ᑕᐃᕕᑦ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ, ᑐᓄᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᖅ.

Good day, Mr. Qamaniq. ᐅᓪᓗᑦᓯᐊᖅ ᒥᔅᑕ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

 Emiliano Qirngnuq, Member for Netsilik;  ᐃᒥᓕᐊᓄ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ, ᓇᑦᓯᓕᕐᒧᑦ  Allan Rumbolt, Member for Hudson Bay; ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ,  and ᐋᓚᓐ ᕋᒻᐹᑦ, ᑕᕼᐃᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ,  ᑯᕌᒃ ᓯᒪᐃᓚᒃ, ᖃᒪᓂᑦᑐᐊᕐᒧ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ,  Craig Simailak, Member for Baker Lake. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ

Also joining us through Zoom is Calvin ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑕᐅᖕᒥᔪᖅ ᑭᐅᕙᓐ ᐲᑕᓴᓐ Pedersen, Member for Kugluktuk. ᖁᕐᓗᖅᑑᒧ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ.

The Standing Committee had previously ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒍᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᓐᓂᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ scheduled a televised hearing on the bill in ᐋᖅᑭᓐᓂᐊᓚᐅᖅᕼᐃᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᑎᕆᓪᓗᐃᑦ April of this year. However, this hearing was ᐊᐃᐳᓗᖑᓚᐅᖅᑎᖦᖢᒍ ᑕᖅᑭᓂᒃ ᖄᖏᖅᑐᓂᒃ postponed as a consequence of the COVID-19 ᑭᕼᐃᐊᓂ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᓐᓂᕆᓂᐊᒃᑲᕗᑦ outbreak. We are pleased that it is able to ᑭᖑᕙᕆᐊᕆᐊᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᓄᕙᖕᓇᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᑉᓗᒍ. proceed today. ᖁᕕᐊᕼᐅᒃᑐᒍᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᖅ ᑲᔪᕼᐃᔫᓪᓗᐊᕐᒪᑦ.

(interpretation ends) The territorial Property (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᑭᐅᖅᑕᖅᑐᒥ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᓐᓄᑦ Assessment and Taxation Act provides the ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦ ᑕᐅᓄᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ legal framework for the levying of property ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. taxes.

Property taxes are an important source of ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ revenue for the territorial government. The ᒫᓐᓇᕈᓘᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖏᑦ most recent public accounts indicate that ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑎᕕᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᒃᑐᑕ $8.3-8.4 $8,384,000 was raised during the 2019-2020 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ 2019-2020-ᒥ fiscal year through the levying of property ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᑎᒍᑦ. 2021-22 ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐊᑐᕈᒫᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ taxes. The 2021-22 main estimates project ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ $11.6 ᒥᓕᐊᓐᓂᒡᒎ that $11.6 million will be raised from property ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᑐᒪᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ. taxes during the current fiscal year.

These revenues flow to the Consolidated ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ Revenue Fund. Through the annual budget ᑮᓇᐅᔭᒃᑯᕕᖓᓐᓅᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑎᑦ process, the elected Members of the ᐊᑐᕈᒫᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᓯᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒋᑦ Legislative Assembly approve the ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᔨᐅᕗᑦ. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ government’s proposed operations and ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᒪᑭᒪᐅᑎᖏᓪᓗ ᐊᑭᑐᔪᖅᑐᕈᑏᓪᓗ maintenance and capital expenditures, which ᓲᕐᓗᖃᐃ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᓄᑖᓄᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓄᑦ encompass everything from the construction ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᓄᑦ of new schools and other community ᐊᑐᖅᑐᒃᓴᒫᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᓄᓪᓗ infrastructure to the provision of health care ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓕᒫᓄᑦ. and other public services to Nunavummiut.

(interpretation) Bill 55 received second (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐱᖁᔭᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᑐᒡᓕᐊᓂ reading in the Legislative Assembly on ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᑕᐅᓂᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒥ October 23, 2020, and was referred to the ᐅᑐᐱᕆ 23, 2020-ᖑᑎᖦᖢᒍ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ Standing Committee for consideration. ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖑᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᕈᔭᒃᕼᐊᓕᕆᓂᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓕᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ (interpretation ends) The government’s ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᐅᖁᑉᓗᒍ. official description of the bill indicates that it “amends the Property Assessment and (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᑎᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ Taxation Act to provide for taxation of Inuit ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ Owned Lands in accordance with Article 22 ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ of the Nunavut Agreement. It also abolishes ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ the territorial board of revision, makes other ᑖᒃᓯᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓗᒍ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 22 ᐊᖏᕈᑎᐅᑉ updates to appeal processes, expands ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᓄᖑᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔩᑦ enforcement powers and makes various other ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᓄᑖᓐᖑᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒡᓗ. ᐊᓯᖏᑦ amendments to the Act.” ᐊᔪᐃᓐᓈᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᓕᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗᑎᓐ. (interpretation) The Minister of Community and Government Services, who is the sponsor (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓄᓪᓗ of the bill, is appearing before the Standing ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑐᖓᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᖓ Committee to respond to Members’ questions ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᕼᐊᖅᑮᕼᐃᒪᑎᖦᖢᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒧᑦ concerning its provisions. Welcome, Minister ᑲᑎᒪᐅᑎᒋᓂᐊᕋᑉᑎᒍ, ᐃᓛᒃ ᐅᕙᓃᒻᒪᓂᓛᒃ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᕼᐊᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑭᐅᑦᑕᖅᑑᕐᓗᐊᓂᐊᕋᒥᒃ. Ehaloak. ᑐᓐᖓᕼᐅᒋᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ.

A number of other witnesses will be ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᕼᐃᖏᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᓚᐅᖅᑎᑉᓗᑕ appearing before the Standing Committee ᑐᕼᐊᕐᕕᒋᓂᐊᕋᑉᓂᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ during this hearing, including: ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᑉᓗᑎᒃ:

 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated;  ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦ;  Agnico Eagle Mines;  ᐅᔭᕋᑦᑕᕆᐊᑦ ᐊᓐᓃᑯ ᐄᒍ;  Baffinland Iron Mines; and  ᐅᔭᕋᑦᑕᕆᐊᑦ ᐹᐱᓪᓛᓐ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ  The Northwest Territories and Nunavut  ᐅᔭᕋᑦᑕᕆᐊᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ Chamber of Mines. ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑖᑉᕕᐊ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓂ.

This hearing will provide an opportunity for ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖃᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ Members of the Standing Committee to pose ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᕼᐊᕆᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕᐃᓛᒃ questions to stakeholders regarding their ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒋᐊᖅᑐᒃᕼᐃᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᑐᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᐅᑉ submissions on the bill. ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ.

ᑲᔪᕼᐃᒋᐊᖅᑳᖅᑎ’ᓇᑕ ᐅᑯᓂᖓ I will now cover a number of housekeeping ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᕌᓪᓚᒡᓚᖓ. matters.

ᑲᑎᒪᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂᑦᑐᓘᒃᑖᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᐅᒪᓂᐊᖅᐳᑦ I ask all Members and witnesses to ensure that ᐅᖃᓘᑎᐊᓛᕆᔭᕼᐃ, ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᓕᔭᕐᓂᕈᑉᕼᐃᓘᓐᓃᑦ their cellphones and other electronic devices ᓂᐱᖃᕈᓐᓃᖅᑎᖔᖅᕼᐃᐅᒃ ᐃᓱᐃᓪᓗᑕᐅᖁᓇᒋᑦ. do not disrupt these proceedings. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᐅᑦᑕᕈᐊᖅᖢᖓ ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᑉᐸᑉᕼᐃ In order to assist our interpreters and technical ᑲᑎᒪᒋᐊᖅᑐᖅᕼᐃᒪᔪᕼᐃ. ᐅᑯᐊ ᑐᕼᐋᔨᒋᔭᕗᑦ

staff, I ask that all Members and witnesses go ᐅᐊᑦᓯᔨᒋᔭᕗᓪᓗ ᑕᕐᕆᔭᐅᕼᐃᐅᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ through the Chair before speaking. ᐃᕼᐅᒪᒋᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᐅᕈᖅᐳᖓ ᐃᒃᕼᐃᕙᐅᑕᕆᔭᐅ’ᖢᖓ. Members of the Standing Committee have been provided with a number of documents ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᒃ for their ease of reference during this televised ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᒃᕼᐊᓂᒃ hearing. For the benefit of our witnesses and ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓕᐊᕆᔭᐅᕼᐃᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᐅᑉ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ interpreters, I ask Members to be precise ᐊᑐᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᕐᓂᐊᕋᑉᕼᐃᐅᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖃᑉᑎᓪᓗᑕ. when quoting from or making reference to ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᕼᐃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᕆᐊᕌᖓᑉᕼᐃ ᕼᐅᓇᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᒥᒃ specific documents. ᑕᐅᑐᖕᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᓐᖏᓐᓂᖅᕼᐊᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ

ᑲᑎᒪᓐᓂᕆᓂᐊᖅᕼᐊᕗᑦ ᕼᐅᓇᒥᓪᓗ This hearing is being televised live across ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᕼᐊᕐᒪᖔᑉᕼᐃ. Nunavut on community cable stations and the direct-to-home satellite services of both the ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᓐᓂᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᑕᑯᒃᕼᐊᐅᔪᖅ Bell and Shaw networks. It is also being live- ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑕᕐᕆᔭᒃᕼᐊᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ streamed on the Legislative Assembly’s ᖃᖓᑦᑕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕼᐃᒪᔪᖅᑎᒍᑦ (Bell) ᐊᒻᒪ (Shaw- website. ᖑᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ) ᑖᒃᑯᑎᒎᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖅᑭᕕᖓᒍᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᓐᓇᖅ Transcripts of the televised hearing will be ᑕᑯᖅᕼᐅᒋᕗᖅ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ. posted on the Legislative Assembly’s website ᑲᑎᒫᓂᒃᕼᐃᒪᓕᕈᑉᑕ ᑲᑎᒪᓂᒃᑯᕕᓂᖅᐳᑦ at a later date. ᑎᑎᖅᑲᕈᖅᑎᒃᕼᐃᒪᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᕐᕆᕕᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒫᖅᑐᑦ. I will now invite the sponsor of Bill 55 to introduce her officials and begin her opening ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᓕᖅᐸᕋ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᕼᐊᖅ 55-ᒥᒃ statement. Thank you. Minister Ehaloak, you ᕼᐊᖅᑭᑎᑦᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᖁᑉᓗᒍ may begin. ᐱᓕᕆᔨᒋᔭᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᒃᕼᐊᖏᑦ ᐃᓛᒃ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᓕᕐᓂᕋᖅᖢᒍ. Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Good afternoon and ᒪ’ᓇ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑑᓗᐊᓕᖅᐳᑎᑦ. thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑲᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐅᓐᓄᓴᒃᑯᑦ like to say “good afternoon” to my colleagues ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ and especially to one of my constituents who ᐅᓐᓄᒃᓴᕈᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᐅᓐᓄᓴᒃᑰᕈᒪᔭᒃᑲ is participating through Zoom, Carson Gillis. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᖃᑎᒃᑲ ᐱᓗᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑎᒪ ᐃᓚᖓ It’s good to see you from this far away. ᐃᓚᐅᖃᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑳᓴᓐ ᒋᓕᔅ. ᑕᑯᒐᒃᑯᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓇᖅ First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ᐅᖓᓯᒃᑑᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑎᑦ. introduce my colleagues: Mr. Kyle Seeley, ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐅᑯᐊ ᑭᒃᑰᒻᒪᖔᖅ who is the Deputy Minister of Community ᓇᓗᓇᐃᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᔭᒃᑲ. ᑳᐅᕈ ᐱᓕ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ and Government Services, on my right; Mr. ᑐᖏᓕᐊ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᖅᑏᑦ. Thomas Ahlfors, who is the Acting Director ᑕᓕᖅᐱᓐᓂ ᑖᒪᓐᔅ ᐃᐅᐳᐊᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ for the Legal Division from the Department of ᐃᓕᓯᒪᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᓴᐅᒥᓐᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ Justice, to my left; and Mr. Dan Carlson, who ᑖᓐ ᑳᕈᑕ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ is the Assistant Deputy Minister with the ᑐᖏᓕᖓᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᐊ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Department of Finance, on Mr. Ahlfors’ left. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᐳᐊᑦ ᓴᐅᒥᖓᓃᖦᖢᓂ.

Mr. Chairman, Members, and invited guests, I ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓗ am pleased to be here today to speak to you ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᑐᖓ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᓵᔅᓯᓐᓃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕋᒪ about Bill 55, An Act to Amend the Property ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᖢᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ

Assessment and Taxation Act. This Act is the ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔾᔪᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ core piece of legislation that sets out how we ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ administer properties in Nunavut: how we ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᕗᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ define them, how we transfer them, how we ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ value them, and how we tax them. ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᒃᑎᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᖃᓄᕐᓗ The existing Property Assessment and ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᖃᓄᕐᓗ Taxation Act (PATA) was enacted in 1988, ᑖᒃᓯᔮᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᒪᕐᖔᑦ. before the Nunavut Agreement. Bill 55 proposes to update this Act in different ways. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑏᑦ Together the changes we are proposing will ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ improve our administrative processes and, 1988-ᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓚᐅᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒍ. importantly, will ensure that the Government ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᒪᔪᖅ of Nunavut’s property assessment process ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᑏᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ aligns with the Nunavut Agreement. ᐱᐅᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔾᔪᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐱᓗᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ Overall, Mr. Chairman and Members, our ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᓯᒪᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ goal is to improve the effectiveness and ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑏᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. clarity of existing property assessment processes. Such clarity will benefit both ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᓪᓗ property owners and the Government of ᐊᑑᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᖁᔭᕗᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᓪᓗ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ Nunavut. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ

ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ First, a bit of context to help “set the scene” ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᓪᓗ. for your consideration of Bill 55.

ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᓐᖑᐊᓕᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 A property is a defined area of land. Many ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. properties have improvements on them. An improvement could be a building, like a house ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᓄᓇ or office building, or something else that has ᐅᓄᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᖁᑎᖃᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᐸᔪᖃᐅᖅᑐᓪᓗ been built, like an airstrip, a generating ᐱᐅᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᐅᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᖓ ᐃᒡᓗᕐᔪᐊᖅ station, or a railway. ᑎᑎᕋᕐᕖᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑭᓱᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. ᓲᕐᓗ ᒥᕝᕕᒃ ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑎᖃᐅᑎᖃᕐᕕᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ Both the land and the improvements have ᐊᖅᑯᑎᕐᒧᑐᐊᖅ. value. Together the value of the land plus the value of any improvements on that land make ᓄᓇ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖄᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᒃ up the assessed value of the property. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓐᖑᕈᓐᓇᖅᐳᑦ ᑲᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ This assessed value is not the same as a ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑖᔅᓱᒪ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᐅᑉ market value (how much you could sell the ᐊᑭᓪᓗᐊᖓ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᓕᖅᐳᖅ. property for) but instead is a value assigned ᖃᐅᔨᓵᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓂᐅᕐᕈᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ by professional property assessors following ᐊᑭᓪᓗᐊᖓᓂ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑖ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ the rules of the Property Assessment and ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔨᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᖅᖃᑦᑕᖅᐳᑦ Taxation Act. ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᖢᒍ. Each property is assigned a “class” depending on how it is used. For example, residential ᑐᖏᓕᕆᖅᓱᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑦᑎᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ

single homes are one class of property, ᐃᒡᓗ ᐃᒻᒥᒃᑰᖅᑐᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑎᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᒪᑯᐊ residential multi-unit dwellings (apartment ᐅᓄᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᓐᖓᔪᑦ ᖁᓕᕇᖅᑐᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᒃ buildings) are another, and commercial ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑦᑎᖅᑕᐅᕗᑦ. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑏᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᕐᔪᐊᑉ properties are a third. ᐊᓯᐊᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᑦᑎᖅᑕᐅᕗᖅ.

Properties in Nunavut are owned in different ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓛᕇᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᕈᑏᑦ ways, as set out in the Nunavut Agreement. ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒋᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᕗᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᑯᐊ ᑯᐃᓐ Essentially, properties fall on Crown land, on ᓄᓇᖁᑖᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᒥᓴᓇᐅᑉ Commissioner’s lands, on Inuit-owned lands, ᓄᓇᖁᑎᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖏᑦᑕ or on municipal lands. Landowners may lease ᓄᓇᖁᑖᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᕼᐊᒻᒪᓚᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕐᑯᑎᖏᓐᓂ. properties to others for a variety of uses. ᓇᖕᒥᓂᓖᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᐳᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᖕᓂᒃ.

Landowners also have different types of ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ property rights. A landowner can own surface ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕆᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ rights (controlling how the top of the land is ᖄᖓᓂ, ᓲᕐᓗᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᖄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖓᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ used) and subsurface rights (ownership of the ᐃᑭᐊᖓᒍᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᔅᓯᓂᒃ resources under the ground, and the resulting ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖓ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ royalties). ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓗᒋᑦ.

Each year the tax authority sets a mill rate, which is simply a tax rate that applies to ᑕᐃᒪ ᖃᐅᔨᓵᕕᓂᖅ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᔭᖅᑕᐅᒐᒥᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᕗᖅ ᖃᔅᓯᓂᒃ properties. The tax authority multiplies the ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ mill rate by the assessed value of a property to ᐊᑭᖃᐅᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒋᑦ. determine taxes owing. Different property classes can have different mill rates.

ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᓯᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᐳᑦ The City of Iqaluit is its own tax authority. It ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᖃᔅᓯᑖᓚᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᖅᑖᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖏᑦ sets its own mill rates and collects its own ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ taxes. The Government of Nunavut plays this ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᐅᕗᑦ ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓃᑦᑐᓄᑦ role in all other communities outside Iqaluit ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓂᒃ. and on lands outside these communities. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᐳᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓇᐃᓈᖅᖢᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᕋ I appreciate this was a quick summary but ᑭᓯᐊᓂ hope it has been a helpful reminder of a very ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒃᑲᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓐᓇᒃᑲᐅᑎᒋᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ. complex issue.

I would now like to spend the next few ᑕᐃᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᒪᓕᖅᐸᕋ minutes talking about Bill 55 itself and how it ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᖓᓱᓪᓗᐊᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ touches upon three different aspects of ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ: property:  ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓂᖏᑦ  Treatment of Inuit-owned lands  ᐅᖃᐱᓘᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᒃᑕᐅᔾᔪᓯᖏᑦ  Streamlining review of initial complaints ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ  Other matters  ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ

Treatment of Inuit-owned Lands ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ

Mr. Chairman and Members, Bill 55 proposes ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 amendments that would clarify how Inuit- ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᐳᖅ owned lands are to be treated in terms of ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ property assessment. ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓐᖑᐊᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. Before going on, I will first confirm that Inuit- owned lands will remain exempt from ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔪᒪᔪᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ property taxation, other than the exceptions ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ already specified by Article 22 of the Nunavut ᐱᓐᖏᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 22 Agreement. ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓃᑦᑐᖅ.

Specifically the Nunavut Agreement establishes that Inuit-owned lands are not ᐱᓗᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᕈᑏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ subject to taxation unless they are: ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᕕᐅᔾᔮᖏᓚᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᒪᐃᑉᐸᑦ: 1) Lands within municipal boundaries with improvements or that lie within a planned 1) ᓄᓇᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ or approved subdivision, or ᖄᖓᓂ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐸᕐᓈᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ 2) Lands outside municipalities on which ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒦᑉᐸᑕᓪᓘᓐᓃ, ᐅᕝᕙᓗᓐᓃᑦ 2) ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᕼᐊᒪᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᖄᖓᓂ improvements have been made. ᓇᐸᔪᖅᑕᓕᒃ.

Put another way, Inuit-owned lands are ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᕐᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ exempt from taxation if they are outside ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐃᓚᐅᖏᓚᑦ ᕼᐊᒪᓚᒃᑯᑦ municipalities and used only for traditional ᓯᓚᑖᓃᑉᐸᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᖁᓯᖏᑦᑎᒍᑦ activities. Bill 55 does not propose to change ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᐅᓗᓂ. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 this situation. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᑕᒪᑐᒥᖓ.

Not only does the current approach make sense to us, but crucially, we cannot change the Nunavut Agreement or legislate in ways ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑐᑭᖃᑦᓯᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ that go against the Nunavut Agreement, which ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᕈᓐᓇᖏᓱᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍᓪᓗ takes precedence over territorial legislation. ᑭᐳᒃᓯᒪᑐᐊᖅᐸᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂᒃ. One of the requirements of the Nunavut ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ. Agreement is that when Inuit-owned lands are ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒋᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ taxed, they must be taxed in accordance with ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᒑᖓᑕ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ the laws of general application. This means ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ that the law cannot treat certain taxable ᐃᒫᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ privately owned lands, in this case Inuit- ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᖏᑦᓱᓂᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ owned lands, differently from other taxable ᑖᒃᓯᔭᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᓲᖑᔪᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ privately owned lands. It means that when the ᓄᓇᓂᒃ. ᑐᑭᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᒥ government or the Legislative Assembly ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᖃᑐᐊᕈᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᖏᓚᑦ makes amendments to laws of general ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ application, they cannot do so with the intent ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ of treating certain taxable privately owned

lands differently from other taxable privately ᓄᓇᓂᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᖏᑕᖓᒍᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ owned lands. ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ.

Although the Nunavut Agreement is clear ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᐊᖅᓱᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ when Inuit-owned lands are taxable, it is not ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕌᖓᑕ ᓇᓗᓇᐸᓗᖕᒪᑦ quite so clear on who should be assessed ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᓕᖕᓂᒃ. those taxes. That is left to the laws of general ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᑲᔭᕐᒪᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ application, such as the Property Assessment ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ and Taxation Act, and this is one of the issues ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᖓᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᐊᕈᒪᕙᕗᑦ. we intend to clarify through Bill 55. ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᐸ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ What does it mean to be the “assessed owner” ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ? ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓗᒍ. under the Act? In short, this simply clarifies ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᓇᒃᑯᑦ who is on the hook to the government at the ᑲᓱᖅᓯᒪᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. end of the day for paying taxes. Being an ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ “assessed owner” for tax purposes does not ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓪᓚᕆᒃᐸᖏᑦᑐᖅ change actual ownership or other rights. It just ᐱᖁᑎᖃᓪᓚᑦᑖᕐᓂᕐᒥᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ means we know who to assess the taxes to ᑐᑭᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᐳᖅ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ first and who to collect from in the end. ᐊᒻᒪ ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ.

Mr. Chairman and Members, our starting ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ, ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔨᔪᒃᓴᐅᕗᓯ ᓯᕗᓂᐊᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᒋᐊᓐᖓᑎᓪᓗᖓ position, as you may remember from our early ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᒪᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ internal work, was to amend the legislation to ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ confirm that landowners were to be assessed ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᑕᖏᖅᑐᒥᒃᑕ the full taxes on their property. We were ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᒥᖕᓄᑦ. ᐸᕐᓇᓚᐅᕋᓗᐊᖅᐳᒍᑦ planning to use Bill 55 to clarify that ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᑦᓯᐊᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ landowners in Nunavut were also, for tax ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᖅ purposes, the assessed owners. This is how all ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ, private property owners are currently treated. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᔭᐅᕙᒃᐳᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓕᒫᑦ.

Mr. Chairman and Members, before drafting ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗ Bill 55, we reached out to Inuit organizations ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓕᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐃᓄᐃᑦ to invite their input. Seeking feedback from ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᐳᒍᑦ Inuit organizations is an important and normal ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᔪᒪᓪᓗᑎᒍᑦ. ᐅᑎᕐᕕᐅᔪᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ part of our legislative process. During these ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᖁᓯᐅᒐᔪᒃᑐᓂᒃ consultations, Inuit organizations expressed ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕆᕙᑦᑕᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒃᐸᓪᓕᐊᑎᓪᓗᑕ their clear preference that, for the purposes of (ᑐᓴᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ) ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ general taxation, the Government of Nunavut ᐅᖃᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᑐᕈᒪᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᑕᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᖅ should treat Inuit-owned lands like Crown ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ lands. Their feedback included written ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦᑎᑐᑦ responses to our initial letter, email ᓄᓇᖓᑎᑐᑦ. ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᑦ exchanges, and in-person responses during ᑭᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑎᒍᑦ, our meetings. We appreciated their ᑎᑎᕋᒋᐊᓐᖓᓚᐅᖅᑕᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ engagement. ᐃᑭᐊᖅᑭᕕᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᑭᐅᖃᑦᑕᐅᑎᕙᑦᑐᑕ, ᑲᑎᒪᓕᕌᖓᑦᑕᓗ. ᐅᐱᒋᕙᕗᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑦᓯᐊᕈᓐᓇᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ.

Under their recommended approach, the ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Government would treat Inuit organizations ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓂᐊᕐᕕᒋᓇᔭᖅᐸᐃᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ like a public government and assess taxes to ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᑦᓴᓄᑦ the lessee, the individual or firm leasing the ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ, ᐃᓄᖕᒧᑦ, land, instead of assessing the taxes to the ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ. landowner. In order to adopt the Inuit ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖔᖏᓪᓗᑎᒃ organizations’ recommended approach and ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᓖᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ comply with the Nunavut Agreement’s ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᐊᕈᑦᑎᒍ ᒪᓕᓐᓂᐊᕈᑦᑕᓗ requirement that Inuit-owned lands be taxed ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᒥᒃ ᒪᓕᒋᐊᓕᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ in accordance with the laws of general ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᓯᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ application, Bill 55 would need to treat all ᒪᓕᒐᐅᒡᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55, privately owned lands across Nunavut the ᐊᔾᔨᒌᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᓗᑦᑖᒥᒃ same way as Crown lands. This is simply not ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖁᑎᒋᔭᕐᓄᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᖅᑎᑐᑦ, a reasonable approach. However, we took this ᒐᕙᒪᑯᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓈᒻᒫᓂᖏᒻᒪᑦ. feedback seriously, and developed Bill 55 in a ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒐᓗᐊᕐᓗᓂ, ᑭᐅᔾᔭᐅᔪᑎᕗᑦ way that partly accommodates their request ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᓄᑦ, ᐋᖅᑮᓕᖅᓱᑕᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55, while also complying with the Nunavut ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᒐᓚᖅᖢᓂ ᕿᓄᐊᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ. Agreement. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᒪᓕᑦᓯᓐᓈᖅᖢᑕ ᓄᓇᕘᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᐅᔪᒥᒃ. As proposed, Bill 55 would create the following situations, which would apply to all ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᓴᖅᑮᑎᑦᓯᒍᒫᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᒪᐃᒍᑕᐅᓗᓂ, ᑐᕌᖓᒐᔭᖅᖢᓂ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᓗᑦᑖᓄᑦ private landowners, including Inuit ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. organizations.

ᑖᒻᓇ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑑᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ In cases where the landowner has only surface ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᖅᐸᑦ, ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ, ᓲᕐᓗ rights and where subsurface resources (like ᓱᓇᑦᓴᓂᒃ. minerals) are being extracted through a ᐅᔭᖅᑭᐊᖅᐸᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55, ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ mining operation, Bill 55 proposes the ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᕋᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ government would assess the landowner only ᐊᑭᑐᓂᖓᓄᑐᐊᖅ. ᐃᒻᒥᒍᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯ for the value of the land. Separately, the ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕋᔭᕐᒥᔪᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑭᖃᖅᐸᑦ government would assess the lessee, the firm ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒥᓂᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. leasing the land, for the value of any ᒫᓐᓇᒧᑦ ᓱᓕ, ᑕᒪᒻᓇ ᑐᑭᒧᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ improvements associated with their operations ᒪᓕᑦᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. on the land (e.g. mining). So far, this largely aligns with the recommendation from Inuit organizations.

However, in cases where the landowner owns both surface and subsurface rights, Bill 55 ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒐᓗᐊᕐᓗᓂ, ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑑᔪᖅ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᖅᐸᑦ proposes to maintain the existing system, ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒡᓗ, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 which is to assess the landowner for both the ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᕗᖅ, ᓱᖁᔨᔭᐅᖏᓪᓗᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᕗᑦ value of the land and of all improvements ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᒥ, ᑖᒻᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐊᑭᑐᓂᖓᑕ made to it. In this way, Mr. Chairman and ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒥᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ. Members, we modified our initial position to ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒃᑯᑦᑕ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ accommodate the feedback we heard from ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᕙᕗᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᐊᖓᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ Inuit organizations through our consultation ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᒍᒪᓪᓗᑎᒍᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᓱᑎᒍᑦ.

process with them. We think Bill 55 has ᐃᓱᒪᒋᕙᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55, ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᒥᒃ reached a reasonable middle ground on this ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓃᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓕᑕᕆᒐᓗᐊᖅᓱᒍ point, though acknowledge it does not fully ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᐅᔮᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᑦ ᑕᑯᒍᒪᔪᓄᑦ. satisfy their preferred approach.

We also recognize that our “made-in- ᐃᓕᑕᕆᒐᓗᐊᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᒐᐅᔪᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ, Nunavut” approach does not neatly align in ᒪᓕᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᔾᔮᖏᒻᒥᒻᒪᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᔾᔪᓯᐅᕙᑦᑐᓂᒃ, every way with approaches that other ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᕐᕕᐅᔪᓂ provinces and territories have taken. You will ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᐅᔪᓂᓪᓗ. ᐊᓯᐊᓂᒃ not be able to point to another system in ᑎᒃᑯᐊᑦᓯᒍᓐᓇᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᔾᔨᑯᓗᐊᓂᑦ. ᐅᕙᒍᑦ Canada and match it identically to what we ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᑦᑕ ᓴᓂᐊᓂ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ are proposing here. Members will appreciate ᐅᐱᒍᓱᑦᑐᑦᓴᐅᕗᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᑎᑐᒃᐸᓗᖕᒪᑦ. that this is much like the Nunavut Agreement ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᖦᖢᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒍᑎᐅᑉᓗᓂ itself, which is unique to Nunavut and sets out ᓄᓇᖃᕐᓂᐅᑉ ᓄᓇᒥᑦ ᒥᒃᑖᓄᑦ, aspects of land ownership and taxability that ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ, ᐊᑑᑎᖃᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ do not apply outside Nunavut. We have ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓂ. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᕗᒍᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55-ᒥᒃ drafted Bill 55 to align with the Nunavut ᒪᓕᑦᓯᐊᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᐅᔪᒧᑦ, Agreement, not necessarily to align with other ᒪᓕᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ land claim agreements or provincial laws. ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓗ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᕐᕖᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂᒃ. Importantly, we are not suggesting that ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᕗᓪᓗ, ᐅᖃᕋᓱᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ, landowners must be the ones to bear the cost ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑐᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᑑᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᑦ of the tax. Inuit organizations already require ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᓱᓕ ᓄᓇᑦ land leases and other agreements with their ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᑎᒥᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᐱᒌᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ tenants. These agreements are robust, legally ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᖏᕈᑏᑦ binding, and already set out a range of ᐃᓂᓪᓚᖓᑦᓯᐊᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᓕᒋᐊᓖᑦ, requirements and expectations of the tenant. ᓂᕆᐅᑦᑕᐅᔪᓪᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᒥᑦ, ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᖏᕈᑏᑦ Such agreements allow landowners to pass ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑑᔪᒥᒃ ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᓯᒍᓐᓇᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ along the costs of property taxes to the ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ. ᓇᓗᓇᖏᓚᖅ, ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑐᖅᓯᐊᖅᐸᕗᑦ, tenants. Indeed, we fully support and expect ᓂᕆᐅᖅᐳᒍᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᒋᔭᒥᓂᒃ that Inuit organizations would recover the ᐅᑎᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᐅᔪᒥᒃ costs of any tax assessed to them under the ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎᒥᑎᑦᑐᑦ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓪᓗᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᑦ Nunavut Agreement, like a landlord of an ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᓯᓯᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. apartment complex recovers costs by charging rent to the tenants.

Streamlining Review of Initial Complaints ᐊᑕᐅᓯᒨᓕᑎᑦᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖅ ᐅᓂᕐᓘᑦᑎᐅᒋᐊᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᒥᒃ Mr. Chairman and Members, I have so far addressed one component of Bill 55. Through ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᒡᓗ, ᓱᓕ ᒫᓐᓇ this bill we are also proposing to improve the ᐃᓚᐃᓐᓇᑯᓗᐊᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55-ᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᐳᖓ overall management of property assessment ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᑎᒍᑦ, ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᕗᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ and taxation processes in Nunavut. ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᕙᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᕙᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. We are proposing to streamline the initial complaints process. Right now this process ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᕗᒍᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᓐᖑᕐᔫᒥᒋᐊᖁᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᐅᓯᐅᕙᑦᑐᖅ

requires two layers of quasi-judicial ᒪᕐᕈᐃᓕᖅᑲᖓᔪᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᒧᑦ administrative proceedings. The existing ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᔾᔪᓯᐅᔪᒧᑦ. ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᓕᖅᑐᑦ legislation provides mechanisms for ᐊᖅᑯᓯᓕᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ, ᑭᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒡᒑᕈᓐᓇᖅᓱᑎᒃ individuals to address disagreements with ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ, ᐅᓂᕐᓗᒍᓐᓇᖅᓱᑎᒃ assessments or to appeal factors impacting ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᖅᐸᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ their assessment by submitting a complaint to ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔨᐅᔪᓄᑦ. ᒫᓐᓇ, ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐃᓄᖃᐅᖅᑐᑦ a territorial board of revision. Currently the ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ board consists of at least three appointed ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᓂᕐᓗᑦᑐᓂᒃ members and is mandated to hear complaints ᓈᓚᒋᐊᖃᕐᓗᑎᒃ. ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᓈᓚᓐᓂᖃᓲᖑᕗᑦ related to assessments. The board conducts ᐅᓂᕐᓗᑦᑐᖃᕌᖓᑦ, ᑭᓱᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ, ᐊᑭᖏᑦ hearings in response to complainants ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᖁᑏᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᑎᒋᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ, regarding issues, such as assessed value, ᐊᑭᓖᒋᐊᑐᖏᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ, ᑕᒻᒪᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᓪᓗ. ᒪᑯᐊ ᐊᒥᓱᑦ property classes, exemptions, and clerical ᐅᖃᑦᓯᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᓪᓚᕆᑦᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ errors. Many of these initial issues are ᐋᖅᑭᑦᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ. straightforward and relatively administrative in nature.

Issues that escalated beyond the board of revision go on to a separate assessment appeal ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓕᕌᖓᑕ, ᑖᑉᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ tribunal, another level of process. Issues that ᐅᖓᑕᐅᑦᓯᓯᒪᓕᕌᖓᑕ, ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔨᓄᑦ ᐅᓂᕐᓗᕝᕕᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ escalate beyond the tribunal go to the courts. ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑖᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ. ᑭᓱᑦ ᐱᓗᐊᓕᕌᖓᑕ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᖓᑦ ᐅᓂᓪᓗᕝᕕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᒨᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ. Each layer adds complexity, time, and costs ᐊᑐᓂ ᐃᓂᓪᓚᖓᔾᔪᓯᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐅᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ for all parties involved. ᐊᑭᑐᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑮᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᔪᓄᑦ.

Bill 55 proposes to transfer the first-level responsibilities currently before the Territorial Board of Revision to the director of ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55, ᑐᓂᓯᒍᒫᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ assessment, an employee of the Department of ᑲᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ. ᑖᑉᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ Community and Government Services. We ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔨᐅᔪᓄᑦ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔨᒧᓪᓗ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ [expect] the proposed reassignment of the ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂᓪᓗ board’s responsibilities will improve the ᐱᔨᑦᓯᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ. ᓂᕆᐅᑉᐳᒍ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᕗᑦ efficiency of this first-level review of ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, complaints. By being able to better manage ᕿᒥᕐᕈᕙᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓘᑎᐅᔪᓄᑦ. administrative issues in house, we hope to ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᑦᓯᐊᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᓕᕆᔾᔪᓯᓄᑦ, improve the overall complaints system, ᐃᓪᓗᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᔫᒥᓯᒪᖁᓐᓇᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ keeping the other layers of decision-makers ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑕᐅᕙᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ, for more complicated issues. ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᖔᖅᐸᓪᓗᑎᒃ.

It is important to emphasize that those making the complaints will remain eligible to escalate ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᕗᖅ ᐅᖃᕆᐊᓪᓚᕆᒋᐊᑦᓴᖅ, ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ issues to an assessment appeal tribunal. If ᐅᓂᕐᓘᑎᐅᔪᑦ ᓲᖑᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᕌᖓᑕ complainants do not agree with the first-level ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ, ᐅᓂᕐᓗᕝᕕᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᕈᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ. decisions of the director, they retain the right ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᕝᕕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᖃᕐᓂᕌᖓᑕ to a second level of review. This is entirely ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕆᐊᕐᖓᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐊᐃᑉᐹᓅᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ appropriate. However, we expect our ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔨᒧᑦ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᓈᒻᒪᒡᓗᓂ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ proposed approach will be able to ᓂᕆᐅᑉᐳᖑᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᕗᑦ

productively address most initial concerns, ᓯᕗᒧᑦᓯᐊᕈᑎᐅᕙᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ those that do not need multiple layers of ᐅᓂᕐᓘᑎᐅᒋᐊᖓᖅᑐᒥᓂᕐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ review, in a more streamlined way. The ᐃᓂᓪᓚᖓᐅᑎᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᒋᐊᑐᖏᑦᑐᑦ amendment to legislation will also improve ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒨᓕᖓᓂᖅᓴᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᐅᔪᖅ the handling of complaints by clarifying the ᒪᓕᒐᕐᒧᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᐅᓂᐊᕐᒥᔪᖅ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᕙᓐᓂᖏᑦ process and timelines of submitting ᐅᓂᕐᓘᑏᑦ, ᓇᓗᓇᕈᓐᓃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᓂ complaints, as well as detailed information on ᐱᐅᓯᐅᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᑭᒡᓕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓪᓗ, the content required within a complaint. ᑐᓂᓯᔪᖃᕋᔭᖅᐸᑦ ᐅᓂᕐᓘᑎᒥᒃ. ᐊᓯᖏᓪᓗ ᐃᓗᓪᓕᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑐᓴᕋᑦᓴᓂᒃ, ᐱᔭᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ Additional Measures ᐅᓂᑦᓗᑦᑐᖃᕌᖓᑦ.

Mr. Chairman and Members, the complexity ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ of matters being dealt with by the Assessment Appeal Tribunal have increased in recent ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᔭᕆᑐᓂᖓ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ years. ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᓂᕐᓘᑎᓄᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᐅᓄᖅᓯᕙᓪᓕᐊᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂ ᐊᓂᒍᓵᖅᑐᓂᒃ. The bill provides additional measures to reduce disruptions in matters before the ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓯᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ tribunal by allowing tribunal members to ᐊᑦᓯᕚᓪᓕᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑐᓗᖅᓯᒪᐅᑎᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ continue participating in appeals that extend ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᕕᐅᔪᓄᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᓂᕐᓗᕝᕕᐅᔪᑦ ᓱᓕ beyond their appointed term. This issue has ᐱᓕᕇᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒃ ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓘᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᐅᖓᑕᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᑦ posed a challenge in previously scheduled ᐱᔭᑦᓴᕆᒍᒫᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᕐᒥᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ hearings. Bill 55 proposes changes to address ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᓇᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓄᑦ this issue in the future by ensuring continuity ᓈᓚᓐᓂᐅᒋᐊᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 within the tribunal until conclusion of specific ᐊᓯᔾᔩᖁᔨᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᓕᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓯᕗᓂᔅᓴᓐᓂᒃ appeals. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓄᑦ ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᕝᕕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᐊᓂᒃᑕᐅᓕᕌᖓᑦᑕ ᑭᑐᓪᓚᑦᑖᑦ ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᑎᒃ. Bill 55 also includes amendments intended to improve assessment practices and reduce the ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᐅᒻᒥᔪᖅ number of complaints associated with ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔭᐅᕙᓐᓂᖏᑦ differential interpretations of common ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᖑᑉᐹᓪᓕᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᕐᓂᓪᓘᑎᐅᕙᒃᑐᑦ assessment elements. For example, ᐊᑦᑐᐊᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᕙᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ disagreement regarding the classification of ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓂᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᖔᑦ. ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ, types of machinery and equipment that may ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᖃᖅᐸᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑑᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᐅᑏᑦ be assessed as improvements is a common ᐱᖁᑏᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᒐᔭᕈᑎᒃ element of complaints submitted to the ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᐅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᒍᑎᒃ. ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᒃᑕᐅᒍᔪᓲᖑᒻᒪᑦ Territorial Board of Revision and subsequent ᓄᓇᕘᒻᒥ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕐᓂᓪᓘᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ appeals submitted to the Assessment Appeal ᐅᕐᓂᓪᓘᑎᐅᓕᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᓂᒃ ᐅᕐᓂᓪᓘᑎᓄᑦ Tribunal. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕐᔪᐊᖏᓐᓄᑦ.

Additionally, Bill 55 proposes amendments to ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᑦ 55 ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᕗᑦ the enforcement provisions of the Act to ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑕᐅᓂᔅᓴᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ recognize that most land in Nunavut is leased ᐃᓕᑕᕆᔭᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᖏᑦ from the government, including municipal, ᐊᑐᖅᑐᖅᐊᖅᑕᐅᕙᒻᒪᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ territorial and federal governments. The ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᓐᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ existing enforcement provisions are primarily ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕙᑦᑐᐃᑦ

targeted at privately owned lands and do not ᑐᕌᖓᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ adequately address lands leased from the ᓄᓇᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑭᐅᓂᖃᑦᓯᐊᖏᒻᒪᑕ government. ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ. ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦᑐᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑭᐅᓂᖃᕋᑎᒃ Bill 55 also incorporates the requirements of ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂ ᓄᓇᓂᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ. the Nunavut Agreement that Inuit-owned ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ lands cannot be seized to pay for tax arrears. ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ In summary, amendments in Bill 55 would ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕈᓐᓇᖏᒻᒪᑕ make the enforcement provisions more ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᓇᐃᓪᓕᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ appropriate to Nunavut’s circumstances while ᐊᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᑖᓐᓇ complying with the requirements of the ᒪᓕᒃᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓈᒻᒪᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ Nunavut Agreement. ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᓯᒪᓗᑕ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᓄᑦ. The amendments proposed within Bill 55 introduce modern, comprehensive definitions ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 of machinery and equipment that will help ᓄᑖᖑᓂᖅᓴᓄᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᒻᒪᑕ ᓈᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓄᑦ clarify qualifying assets and should reduce the ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ volume of complaints in relation to other ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ assessments. ᓇᒻᒪᒃᓴᖏᓐᓂᐅᔪᑦ ᖃᔅᓰᓐᓇᕈᕆᐊᕋᔭᖑᐊᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᓂᖏᑎᒍ.

Conclusion ᐃᓱᓕᓐᓂᖓ

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Members, ᐃᓱᓕᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ Bill 55 proposes to support the fair and 55, ᐊᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᓇᒻᒪᒃᑐᒥᒃ ᓇᒻᒪᓈᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᒥᓪᓗ responsive management of property ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖁᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. ᑖᓐᓇ assessment and taxation measures in Nunavut. ᑎᑎᕋᕆᐊᕐᖓᐅᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᓪᓗᒋᑦ We drafted this bill in consultation with Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᕙᖃᑎᒃᑲᓗ organizations. My colleagues and I considered ᐃᓱᒪᒋᖃᓯᐅᑎᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ the feedback they provided, both written and ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑎᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ oral, and incorporated it into this bill before ᐃᓚᓕᐅᑎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒧᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ this Assembly. We admit the approach we ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᐅᑉ ᓵᖓᓐᓃᑦᑐᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᓐᓇ propose here is not exactly what they ᑐᒃᓯᕋᓪᓚᒃᑖᖅᑕᖓᑕ ᐊᔾᔨᑯᓗᒋᓐᖏᑕᕋᓗᐊᖓ requested but think Bill 55 presents a ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55, ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑐᒪ ᓇᒻᒪᒃᑐᒥᒃ reasonable middle ground. ᐊᑯᓐᓂᖓᓃᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ.

Bill 55 aligns with the Nunavut Agreement, as ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᓇᓕᒨᑎᕗᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᒥᒃ, it must. Bill 55 does not align entirely with ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 approaches used elsewhere in Canada. ᓇᓕᒨᑎᓪᓚᒃᑖᖏᑦᑐᑯᓘᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓄᑦ.

Bill 55 does not create a new tax nor does it ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑎᑦ change the taxability of Inuit-owned lands; it ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓇᓂ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ cannot, as this is already established in the ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕈᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ Nunavut Agreement. Instead, Bill 55 clarifies ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᕙᒌᕐᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᒻᒥᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ that in certain circumstances the lessees are to ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᑦᑎᒋᐊᖅᐳᖅ ᐃᓚᖏᑎᒍ be assessed the value of the improvements. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᑭᖓᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖏᑦᑕ.

Bill 55 also proposes more administrative ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᑐᒃᓯᕋᕆᕗᑦ ᐊᒡᓚᕕᓕᕆᑦᑎᒍᑦ improvements. ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ.

I would like to thank you for your time and ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᒪ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒐᓱ consideration of this important issue. Thank ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᒧᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ, you, Mr. Chairman, Members, and guests. ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓪᓗ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ehaloak. Nunavut Tunngavik ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ : ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪ Incorporation is also participating through ᓄᓇᕘᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦ, Zoom. I now give you the floor, ᐅᕙᓃᖃᑕᐅᒥᖕᒪᑕ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ. ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ (interpretation ends) President Kotierk. ᑐᓂᓕᖅᐸᕋ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑰᑦᑎᖅ. (interpretation) Welcome and you may now (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ begin. ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᓕᖅᐳᑎᑦ.

Ms. Kotierk: Unnusakkut, Chairperson Main, Co-Chairperson Towtongie, and Members of ᑰᑦᑎᖅ: ᐅᓐᓄᓴᒃᑯᑦ, (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᓕᖅᑐᖅ) ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, the Standing Committee on Legislation. ᒪᐃᓐ. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᐅᖃᑎᖓ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᖏ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ. Before I begin, I would like to highlight that I have Kilikvak Kabloona, the Chief Executive ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖏᓂᕐᓂ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᒪᕗᖓ ᑭᓕᕝᕙ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖅ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Officer for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃ ᑎᒥᖓᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᖃᑎᒋᔭᕋ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑳᓴᓐ ᒋᓕᔅ here with me, as well as Carson Gillis, who ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨ ᓄᓇᓂ has already been recognized. He is the ᐃᖃᓗᒃᑑᑦᑎᐊᓂ. director of lands out of Cambridge Bay.

We appreciate the opportunity to make ᖁᔭᓕᕗᒍᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓇᕋᑦᑕ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᑕ presentations to you on this important topic. ᐃᓕᔅᓯᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᒻᔪᒧᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒧᖓ.

The impact of this legislation would be far- ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᓯᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᖃᓯᒥᓕᐊᕌᓗᓐᓂᒃ reaching; it would transfer millions of dollars ᓅᑦᑎᕋᔭᕐᖓᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᓪᓗ in legal and financial liabilities from mining ᐊᑭᓕᔅᓴᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ companies to Inuit, and make Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕ organizations liable for potentially millions of ᖃᔅᓯᒥᓕᐊᕌᓗᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ dollars in unpaid property taxes if a mining ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ company becomes insolvent. In other words, ᑲᔪᓯᔪᓐᓇᐃᓪᓕᔪᕕᓂᐅᑉ. ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪ ᑖᓐᓇ the Government of Nunavut intentionally ᓂᕈᐊᕆᔭᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᓐᓂᕐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ chose an approach that would harm Inuit and ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒐᔭᖅᑐᓂᒃ. benefit private companies from outside Nunavut.

We urge the Members of the Committee to ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔭᐅᖅᑐᖅᐸᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ reject the bill in its current form. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐋᒡᒑᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ.

Inuit organizations had made a detailed joint ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᓂᓯᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᓄᑦ. submission. I will be happy to answer any ᖁᕕᐊᓱᓐᓂᐊᖅᐳᖓ

questions you may have on the submission. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᕐᓂᕈᔅᓯ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᐅᑐ.

We will use the opportunity now to ᑕᐃᒪ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᓐᓂᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇ

 Highlight the lack of justifications for the  ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓈᒻᒪᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ Government of Nunavut’s proposal; and ᑐᔅᓯᕋᖅᑕᖏᑦ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ  Use Baffinland’s Mary River project to  ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐ ᓄᓘᔭᓕᕆᓂᖓ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ illustrate how the Government of Nunavut ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ receives substantial revenue from mining ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑖᑐᒻᒪᕆᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ companies and has the ability to fund its ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ tax own collection efforts. ᓄᐊᑦᑎᓇᓱᓪᓗᑎᒃ.

Lack of justifications for the Government of Nunavut’s proposal ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕐᕕᖃᑦᓯᐊᓐᖏᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎᖏᑦ The fundamental issue is who, Inuit or mining ᑖᓐᓇ ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓪᓗ companies, should be legally responsible for ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᖓᑕ ᐊᑭᓖᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᒧᑦ paying for property taxes for mining ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎ improvements on Inuit-owned lands where ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕕᔅᓴᖏᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. Inuit own mineral interest.

I would note that the Government of Nunavut ᐅᔾᔨᕆᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓ ᐊᖏᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ has agreed that on Inuit-owned lands where ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ the Crown owns mineral interest, mining ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᒐᔅᓴᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ companies should be made legally responsible ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ for paying for property taxes for mining ᓈᒻᒪᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓃᖏᒻᒪᑦ. improvements. This represents a positive change in the bill that is not in the current legislation.

However, on Inuit-owned lands where Inuit ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ owns mineral interest, also known as ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕋᔅᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ subsurface, the Government of Nunavut ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓪᓗ believes that Inuit, instead of the mining ᐅᑉᐱᕈᓱᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ companies, should be responsible for property ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕕᒻᒥ taxes for mining improvements made and ᓴᓇᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᑎᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ. owned by mining companies.

It is worth pointing out that until recently and except in the case of Baffinland Iron Ore Corporation’s Mary River project, the ᐅᔾᔨᕆᓗᒍ ᐊᑲᐅᔅᓴᓐᖏᓚᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ Government of Nunavut’s general practice ᓄᓘᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ has been to assess against mining companies ᐊᑐᒐᔪᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ for mining improvements, a practice ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᓂᒃ. consistent with the intent and spirit of the ᓇᓕᒨᑎᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖓ 22 ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Article 22 of the Nunavut Agreement as well ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ

as the universal practice across this country. ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᑦᑐᒥ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ.

The Government of Nunavut now proposes to ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᑐᔅᓯᕋᓕᖅᐳᑦ transfer the property tax burden on certain ᓄᑦᑎᖅᑎᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑐ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Inuit-owned lands from mining companies to ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ regional Inuit associations, or make regional ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ Inuit associations tax collectors as well as ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᔨᐅᓕᖅᑐᑎᒃ guarantors for the Government of Nunavut. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᓗᑎᒃ.

The Government of Nunavut had a choice: they could have chosen mining companies ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᒐᒃᓴᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ instead of Inuit organizations. It would have ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎ ᓂᕈᐊᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ been a policy option that is easily acceptable ᑎᒥᖁᑎᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᐊᒐᐅᒐᔭᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ to all parties, including the mining industry. ᓂᕆᐅᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᕋᒃᓴᐅᒐᔭᑦᑎᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᓪᓗ. That option would have also bypassed or avoided an interpretative dispute between the ᑖᓐᓇ ᓴᓂᖅᑯᑦᑎᒐᔪᒃᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑐᑭᓯᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ Government of Nunavut and Inuit ᓴᓂᖅᑯᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ organizations on the interpretation of Article ᑎᒥᖏᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᒍᑕᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐃᓗᓕᖓ 22 22 of the Nunavut Agreement. The ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓᓂᒃ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ interpretive dispute is currently before the ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒧ ᒫᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᕝᕕᓂ ᑲᑎᒪ Nunavut Assessment Appeal Tribunal and ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒻᒧᐊᖅᑐᔅᓴᐅᓕᖅᑕᖏᑦ. will likely be heading to court.

In other jurisdictions, where the property tax ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᕐᕕᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑐᑎᑦ burden is placed on mining companies ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕋᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ directly, the government is able to collect ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ against mining improvements, including ᓴᓂᕕᖓ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᑭᓕᔅᓴᓂᑦᑎᑦᑎᓗᑎᒃ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ placing a special lien on these improvements. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓗᐊᖅᓯᒪ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ The Government of Nunavut has not fully ᓄᐊᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅ ᑐᓂᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ explained why it decided to give away this ᑖᓐᓇ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑑᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ. valuable collection tool and focus on regional Inuit associations as the only possible collection targets.

The Government of Nunavut appears to justify its unexplainable choice on two ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪ ᓈᒻᒪᓴᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᖁᔨᔪᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ grounds: (1) Inuit organizations receive ᐃᖅᑲᖓᓪᓗᓂ: (1) ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᐅᓗᑎᒃ royalties; and (2) Inuit could contractually ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑖᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᕕᐅᓗᑎᒃ; ᐊᒻᒪᓗ (2) require mining companies to pay the taxes. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑖᒃᓰᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᑎᒃ.

On the first ground, other public ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅ ᐊᓯᖏᑎ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ organizations, including governments, also ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑖᖃᑦᑕᒥᕐᒪᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓅᖅᑐᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ receive royalties from Crown lands but are not ᑲᒪᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ made responsible for paying property taxes ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ. for mining improvements.

Inuit organizations have been recognized by ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᑦ the governments, for many purposes, as ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓗᑎ. ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᕐᓄᑦ public bodies performing the function of a ᑎᒥᖁᑎᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ government, and are holding Inuit-owned ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑎᒍᒥᐊᕈᔾᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᑎᑐᑦ lands for the collective benefit of Inuit, and ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖅᑐᑦ should be treated akin to governments instead ᖄᖏᕐᓂᑯᓘᕋᓱᓐᓂᖅᑐᑎᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ of a private, for-profit entity like a mining ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓂᒃ. company or a regular private land owner.

On the second ground, the Government of ᑐᒡᓕᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐱᕕᖃᕋᔭᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ Nunavut would also have the opportunity, by ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓯᓂ contracts or legislation, to require mining ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ. companies to pay taxes.

Simply because Inuit organizations may require mining companies to pay contractually ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃ does not mean Inuit would not be facing ᑐᑭᖃᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑑᓪᓗ substantial legal and financial risks. For ᐅᓗᕆᐊᓇᖅᑐᒦᒃᑲᔭᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑐᑭᓯᔪᑦ ᐹᕙᓐ example, if Baffinland became insolvent, the ᓛᓐᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᒍᑎᓐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ Qikiqtani Inuit Association could be ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᒌᒃᑐᓂ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᔅᓯᑦ responsible for paying millions of dollars in ᒥᓕᐊᓐᕌᓗᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓯᔭᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55. property taxes, based on Bill 55.

Mining companies control when and how to ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᖕᒪᑕ ᖃᖓᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ make mining improvements, and own and ᓴᓇᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ derive the primary benefits from the ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒨᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ improvements. Mining companies come to ᖄᖏᓐᓂᑯᓘᕆᐊᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑲᒪᑎᑕᐅᔭᕋᖅᑐᑎᓗ Nunavut to make profits, and should be made ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓈᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᓴᓇᐅᒐᕐᒥᓄᑦ. responsible for paying property taxes on their own improvements.

Instead of working with Inuit organizations to ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᑎᖃᖏᖔᖅᑐᑎᒃ maximize tax revenues from mining ᑖᒃᓯᒧᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ developments, the Government of Nunavut ᖁᕝᕙᕆᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᓇᑕᖃᓐᓂᕐᒧᓄᑦ chose to escalate an internal fight with Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ organizations, essentially giving mining ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ companies a free pass, at least in terms of ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᓂᑦᑎᑦᑎᖏᖔᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ. legal liabilities on property taxes. In other ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐱᔮᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ words, the Government of Nunavut ᐋᓐᓂᖅᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᑲᔪᖔᖅᑐᑎᒃ intentionally chose an approach that would ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕋᓱᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕘᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓂ. harm Inuit and benefit private companies from outside Nunavut.

Baffinland Example: ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ:

As of September 2020, Baffinland had paid, ᓰᑏᕝᕙ 2020-ᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐ-ᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓯᒪᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ

since commencing production in 2014: ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂ 2014ᒥᓂᑦ:

 To the Government of Nunavut, $53  ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ $53 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ million of total revenue in payroll and fuel ᐃᓯᖅᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᒃᓵᓄᑦ taxes ($68 million if including the $15 ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᒻᒧᓪᓗ ᑖᒃᓯᔭᕐᓂᖅ ($68 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ million of property tax in dispute) ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᕙᐃᑦ $15 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᒧᑦ  To the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, $67 ᑖᒃᓯᔭᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᖏᔾᔪᑕᐅᔪᑦ) million of total revenue in advance  ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ $67 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ royalties and rent for land lease. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪ ᓂᖏᓂᖅᑎᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ.  No royalties to Nunavut Tunngavik  ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃ 2030 ᑐᖔᓂ Incorporated are expected before 2030. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ ᓂᕆᐅᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃ.

The current Baffinland production is on ᒫᓐᓇ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐᒥ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖓᓂ subsurface Inuit-owned lands with a “ᐱᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᓐᖓᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ” ᓂᖏᖅᑕᓂᕐᒧᑦ grandfathered royalty regime. ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᒥᒃ.

Including property taxes, the Government of ᐃᓚᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Nunavut would have received more revenue ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᒐᔭᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᓄᕐᓂᖅᓴᓂᒃ each year from Baffinland than Inuit ᐃᓵᔪᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ organizations would have to date. It is fair to ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᓂᒃ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ. ᓈᖕᒪᑦᑐᖅ say that the Government of Nunavut is in a ᐅᖃᕆᐊᒃᓴᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ position to fund any tax collection efforts ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓖᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᓯᓇᓱᐊᕈᑎᓂᒃ against Baffinland or other mining companies. ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐᓂᑯᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᓂᒃ. In sum, there is simply no need for the Government of Nunavut to transfer tax ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓗᒍ, ᓄᒃᑎᕆᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ liabilities from mining companies to Inuit ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᓯᓂᕐᒥᒃ organizations for the sake of facilitating tax ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ collection. ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. Illegality of Some of the Government of Nunavut’s Proposed Amendments ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᓯᓂᖓ ᐃᓚᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ Further, Inuit organizations are extremely alarmed by the Government of Nunavut’s ᓱᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ unreasonable approach in attempting to ᑲᑉᐱᐊᓱᐊᓪᓚᑦᓯᒪᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ amend the Nunavut Agreement through Bill ᓈᖕᒪᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᕆᓇᓱᐊᖅᑕᖓᓄᑦ 55. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᒐᓱᐊᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒃᑯᑦ 55.

The Supreme Court of Canada, the highest ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᖁᑦᓯᓂᖅᐹᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔨᕐᔪᐊᑦ, ᖁᑦᓯᓂᖅᐹᑦ legal authority in Canada, has stated that ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᓯᔨᐅᔪᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ legislatures may not pass laws that undermine ᒪᓕᒐᑦᓴᑦ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᒋᐊᖃᙱᑦᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ the Constitution as the supreme law in all ᒥᑭᓪᓕᑎᕆᓯᒪᑉᐸᑕ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᔾᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᖁᑦᓯᓂᖅᐹᖅ Canada. However, this is precisely what the ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᑕᐃᒫᓪᓗᐊᑦᓯᐊᖅ Government of Nunavut proposed to do. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᒪᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ.

The Nunavut Agreement is a constitutionally ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᔾᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ protected modern treaty. The Crown and Inuit ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓂ. ᑯᐃᓐ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ painstakingly negotiated its terms over ᐊᑦᓱᕈᓇᑐᒃᑰᑐᕐᔪᐊᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐋᔩᕋᕈᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ decades. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᕋᓵᓗᓐᓂᒃ.

Negotiators included an entire article on how ᐋᔩᕋᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑕᖏᖅᑐᒥᒃ and when Inuit-owned lands in Nunavut may ᐃᓛᒃᑰᖓᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ and may not be taxed. Article 22 limits the ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᑖᒃᓯᔭᐅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ Government of Nunavut’s ability to tax Inuit- ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑕᐅᓂᐊᙱᒻᒪᖔᑕᓗ. ᐃᓛᒃᑯᑦ 22−ᒥ ᑭᒡᓕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ owned lands in the hinterland or outside ᑖᒃᓯᔭᐃᑎᑦᓯᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᕙᑖᓂ municipalities to situations where taxes are ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓂ ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ for “local government services and ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓᖓᒋᐊᖏᑦ “ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ improvements including for schools and ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕈᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᐅᓯᑎᑦᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ water,” a limitation that makes sense, ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᐃᒪᕐᓗ”, otherwise Inuit lands could be taxed when the ᑭᒡᓕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᑐᑭᖃᑦᓯᐊᖅᑐᖅ − ᐃᒪᐃᖓᕋᔭᕐᒪᓪᓕ Government of Nunavut provides no services. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᔭᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕈᑎᖃᖅᑎᑦᓯᙱᑉᐸᑕ.

The above definition was intentionally made ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᖁᓛᓂ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᔮᖅᑯᒻᒥ to be different from and narrower than the ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᔭᐅᖁᓇᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ property tax definition in Property Assessment ᐋᖅᑭᑦᓯᒪᑦᓯᐊᓂᖅᓴᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ and Taxation Act, which defines it as “for ᑐᑭᖓᓂᒃ PATA-ᒥ, ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᔾᔪᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ territorial purposes.” “ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒨᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓕᓐᓄᑦ.”

ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᖅᑮᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᑖᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ The Government of Nunavut introduced a ᐱᖁᔭᒃᓴᖅ 55-ᒥ, ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓ 48, new provision in Bill 55, section 48, which ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ “ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ declares that “all property tax raised” are ᑖᒃᓰᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ” ᐅᑯᓄᓐᖓᖓᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑦ deemed for “local government services and “ᓄᓇᓖᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ improvements.” Through this provision, the ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ”. ᑕᕝᕘᓇ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᒍᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Government of Nunavut is attempting to ᒐᕙᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᓇᓱᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᑐᑭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂ, amend the property tax definition in the ᒪᓕᒐᓱᐊᙱᓐᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕᑦᑕᐅᖅ Nunavut Agreement, which is not only ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᓯᔪᖅ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᑦᓴᖓ dishonourable but illegal. Territorial ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᔾᔪᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ legislation cannot amend a constitutionally ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᒌᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖏᑦ. protected treaty like the Nunavut Agreement. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐊᓪᓗᕆᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᓱᐃᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᓯᔪᓂᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᓂᒃ The Government of Nunavut took it a step ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ. further by making those illegal amendments ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑲᓂᕐᓗᒍ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᐊᕈᑎᓖᑦ apply retroactively. In other words, the ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᑎᓯᓂᒃ, Government of Nunavut is adding new ᐊᓱᐃᓛᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᓯᔪᑦ sections that are illegal, and then makes those ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓕᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ new illegal sections apply to situations since ᖃᓄᐃᒍᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐱᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ 1999-ᒥ. the creation of Nunavut in 1999. ᑕᑯᓐᓇᑕᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᔾᔪᐊᕐᒥᒃ In our view, the Government of Nunavut is ᐊᔪᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᑦᓯᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐱᖁᔭᒃᓴᖅ 55 constitutionally barred in applying Bill 55 ᐱᒋᐊᕐᕕᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖓᓂᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ retroactively given its clear and illegal impact ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᓯᓂᖓ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓯᒪᓂᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ

to Inuit aboriginal and treaty rights protected ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦ by sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ 25 ᐊᒻᒪᓗ 35 ᑐᓐᖓᕕᔾᔪᐊᕐᒥ. If Bill 55 passes as is, Nunavut Tunngavik ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᑲᔪᓯᑎᑕᐅᑉᐸᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑎᓪᓗᒍ, Incorporated would have no choice but to ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᒎᕐᕕᑦᓴᖃᕈᓐᓃᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ seriously consider legal avenues to protect the ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖃᕋᓱᐊᓕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓯᒪᓂᕐᒧᑦ Nunavut Agreement and Inuit rights. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. Conclusion ᐃᓱᓕᒍᑖ

Bill 55 would improperly transfer millions of ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᓈᖕᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᒃᑎᕆᓇᔭᖅᑐᖅ dollars in property tax liabilities from mining ᒥᓕᔭᕋᓵᓗᓐᓂᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᓂᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑕᐅᔪᒧᑦ companies to Inuit, and illegally infringe on ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᒍᑎᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ Inuit rights. It was the wrong choice for Inuit ᑲᒻᐸᓂᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᒃ ᓯᖁᒥᑦᓯᓗᑎᒃ and wrong choice for Nunavut. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᑕᒻᒪᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᓂᕈᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᒻᒪᖅᑐᑎᒃ Core sections of the bill need to be revised ᓂᕈᐊᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ. substantially to be consistent with Article 22 of the Nunavut Agreement and the universal ᐃᓗᓕᖏᓐᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᖁᔭᒃᓴᒥ practice across this country. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒻᒪᕆᒋᐊᓖᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓛᒃᑯᑦ 22 ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᓂᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᒥᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ. We urge the Members of the Committee to reject the bill in its current form. ᐊᔪᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᕿᐱᓗᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ (interpretation) Thank you. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᓯᒪᓂᖓᓂᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Chairman: Qujannamiik, President Kotierk. (interpretation) Moving on. Baffinland Iron ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᒥᔅ ᑰᑦᑎᖅ. ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑕ. ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ Mines Corporation officials are participating ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑕᐅᕝᕕᒻᒦ’ᒪᑕᐅᒃᑯᐊ, ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ in the meeting, if they are available through ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᐸᑕ. ᐱᑕᖃᖅᑑᔭᖏ’ᒫᑦ, ᐱᑕᖃᕐᓂᕋᒥ. Zoom. It doesn’t look like there’s anyone. Oh, ᑐᖓᓱᒋᑦ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᒧᐊ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) there he is. Welcome. (interpretation ends) ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓃᓐᖔᖅᑐᖅ ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦ, Welcome, Mr. Moore, on behalf of Baffinland ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᑎᑦ. Iron Mines. The floor is yours.

Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ᒧᐊ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᔅᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᑲᑎᒪᔩᓪᓗ. Members of the Committee. My name is ᐊᑐᕉ ᒨᕋᐅᔪᖓ, ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᔪᖓ ᒐᕙᒃᑲᓐᓄᑦ Andrew Moore, Manager of Government ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᖕᓂᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ. Relations and Public Affairs with the ᐹᕙᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᐃᑦ Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓘᑉ Baffinland is the owner and operator of the ᐅᐊᖕᓇᖅᐸᓯᖓᓂ 160 ᑭᓛᒥᑕᐃᑦ ᓂᒋᐊᓂ Mary River Iron Ore Project located on North ᒥᑦᑎᒪᑕᓕᐅᑉ. ᑖᓐᓇ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓃᓐᓇᕈᔪᖅ Baffin Island, approximately 160 kilometres ᓇᔪᖅᑐᖅ, ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ south of Pond Inlet. This project sits largely ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᒌᖓᓂ. on Inuit-owned lands, which Baffinland leases for its activities from the Qikiqtani Inuit Association.

Baffinland thanks the Committee and the ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᕐᕕᒻᒥᓪᓗ Legislative Assembly for the kind invitation ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᒍᓐᓇᕈᓘᔭᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ. to present here today. I extend the sincere ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᒥᐊᓪᓚᕆᑉᐳᖓᑦᑕᐅᖅ, ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ apologies of Baffinland’s Vice-president of ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖓᑕ ᑐᖏᓕᕆᔭᖓ ᓄᓇᓕᓕᕆᔨᖓ Community and Strategic Development, Ms. ᑐᑭᒧᐊᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᖓ, ᐅᓪᓗ ᕼᐊᓐᓴᓐ ᐅᕙᓃᒍᓐᓇᖏᒻᒪᑦ, Udlu Hanson, who wanted to be here today ᐊᐅᓚᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ. but is travelling.

I will make very brief opening remarks and then would be happy to answer any questions ᓇᐃᑦᑐᕈᓗᒻᒥᒃ ᓂᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᖅᑐᖓ ᐊᒻᒪ from Committee Members. If there are any ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᔅᓴᖃᕈᔅᓯ ᑭᐅᒐᓱᐊᕈᓐᓇᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖓ. questions that I am unable to answer today, ᐅᓪᓗᒥᓗ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᒃᑯᒪ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓂᒃ, ᑎᑎᖅᑲᖅᑎᒍᑦ Baffinland would be pleased to submit written ᑭᐅᒍᓐᓇᓛᖅᑐᒍᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᖁᔭᐅᒍᑦᑕ ᑭᖑᓂᐊᒍᑦ. responses to the Committee, if requested.

As Members of the Committee may be aware, Baffinland is currently engaged in an “Assessment Appeal Tribunal” process ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᔅᓴᐅᒻᒪᑕ, ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ concerning property tax assessments for Mary ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᔪᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᕐᓂᒦᖕᒪᑕ ᐱᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ River. At this point in the process, Baffinland ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᓂᖏᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᓱᒪᐃᓛᒃ ᓄᓘᔮᑉ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ. and the other parties to the appeal have made ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐊᔪᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖅᑐᓂ, ᐊᔪᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖅᑐᒡᒍᑎᐅᒻᒪᑕᐃᓛᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕐᔪᐊᓄᑦ, their submissions to the tribunal and the ᑲᑎᒪᔩᓪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓪᓗᑎᒃ tribunal is in the process of reviewing the ᐊᔪᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᕈᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᑎᒃ. submissions in order to render their decision. ᒫᓐᓇ ᓵᖓᓃᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔩᑦ, ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᔮᖏᑦᑐᖓ As this matter is currently before the tribunal, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ, ᑲᑎᒪᔪᐃᑦ. I will not be responding to questions related to that process.

Baffinland would like to thank the Government of Nunavut and former Minister ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓐᓂ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᒪᔪᑦ, of Community and Government Services ᒥᓂᔅᑑᓚᐅᖅᑐᕐᓗ ᑯᓱᒐᖅ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ Kusugak and current Minister Ehaloak for ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᑎᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑑᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᓂᔅᑐ bringing this legislation forward. ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ, ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᑲᔪᒋᐊᖅᑎᑎᒻᒪᑦ. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ We have reviewed Bill 55, An Act to Amend ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᔾᔪᑕᐅᒐᓱᑦᑐᖅ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ the Property Assessment and Taxation Act, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕈᑎᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ. ᐅᕝᕙᐅᑯᐊ and offer the following observation for the ᐃᓱᒪᔅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᖁᔭᕗᑦ: Committee’s consideration:

 Baffinland will limit its comments to one specific provision of Bill 55, which is  ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᑐᐊᕐᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᕐᒥᒃ section 48, subsection 10, which states ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓐᖑᓱᒃᑲᑦᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᒥᒃ, “All property tax raised in the general ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕ 48 ᐃᓗᓕᑲᓐᓂᖓ 10. ᐱᖁᑎᓕᒫᑦ taxation area under the previous Act since ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᕕᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂ April 1, 1999 is deemed to have been ᐊᐃᐳᕈᓪ 1, 1999-ᒥᓂ. ᑐᑭᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ raised to fund local government services ᐊᑐᖅᑕᒥᓂᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ and improvements within the general ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᕈᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ

taxation area.” ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕐᕕᐅᔪᒥ.

 Baffinland is concerned that this provision  ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᑦᑐᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ of the bill retroactively imposes taxes ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᕆᔭᖓ ᐅᐊᑦᑎᐊᕈᐊᓗᓐᓂ under the guise of being used to fund local ᐱᒋᐊᖅᓯᒪᒐᔭᕐᖓᑕ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᒥᓂᖏᑦ government services and improvements ᐃᔨᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔫᔮᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᐅᑎᓄᑦ that have not and will not be provided. ᑐᕌᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᓱᓐᖑᐊᓛᖅᑑᔮᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᕆᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᐅᔪᓄᑦ  As such, Baffinland respectfully requests ᐱᐅᓯᕚᓪᓕᕆᐊᖅᓯᔪᖃᖅᑎᓐᓇᒍ. that section 48, subsection 10 be struck from the bill or otherwise clarified as to its  ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᔅᓯᕌᒃᑯᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 48 intent and application. ᐃᓗᓕᒃᑲᓐᓂᖓ 10 ᐲᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᓱᒻᒪᑦ Baffinland continues to make substantial ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᑎᑕᐅᒻᒪᖔᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ payments in taxes to the Government of ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᕐᓗ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᑎᐊᓐᖏᑉᐸᑦ. Nunavut through both the payroll tax and fuel ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓱᓕ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑐᐃᓪᓗᐊᑲᓪᓚᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᓰᓂ tax. Since 2017, taxes paid by Baffinland to ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᐅᓇ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᔅᓵᑦ the Government of Nunavut have totalled ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒑᓯᑖᖏᑎᒍᑦ over $52 million. In 2020 alone, this ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕐᓂᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ amounted to approximately $15 million. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ $52 ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᐅᖓᑖᓄᑦ. 2020-ᑐᐊᒥ ᐊᑭᓖᔪᒻᒥᔪᑦ $15 ᒥᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ Baffinland remains hopeful that it can ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ. continue to invest in Nunavut to support the growing economy and to create opportunities ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓱᓕ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᑎᒐᓱᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ for growth in government tax revenues ᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐃᖏᓐᓇᕈᒪᓂᐊᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᒪᑭᒪᐅᑎᓂᒃ through its operations. We remain committed ᐊᖏᓪᓕᒋᐊᕆᕙᓪᓕᐊᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑎᒍᔭᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᒃ to being a partner of the Government of ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᔅᓴᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᒍᒪᓂᐊᕐᒥᔪᑦ Nunavut, especially through the joint ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ. priorities identified in our memorandum of ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑕᕝᕘᓇ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᐅᑎᑕᐅᔪᐃᑦ understanding which was signed in 2019. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑕᐅᓯᒪᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᒃᑯᑦ 2019-ᒥ. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for providing Baffinland ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃᑲᓂᖅᑲᒋᑦ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᑲᑎᒪᔩᓪᓗ this opportunity. (interpretation) Thank you. ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᕙᓂ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Moore. (interpretation) Moving on. Agnico Eagle ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᓕᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ Mines officials are also participating in the ᒧᐊ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑕ. ᐅᔭᕋᑦᑕᕆᐊᑦ meeting through Zoom, if they are available. ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᖃᑕᐅᒻᒥᒻᒪᑕ ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ. (interpretation ends) We may be having ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᖃᕐᓂᖅᐸᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᓕᖅᑐᖅ) technical difficulties with the attendants by ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᓐᖏᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᖓᑕ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ Zoom, as I cannot see anybody currently from ᐱᖃᑕᐅᒐᓱᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ. ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᖏᑦᑎᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᒫᓐᓇ Agnico Eagle. Mr. Plante from Agnico Eagle, ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᓃᖔᖅᑐᐃᑦ. ᑐᓴᖅᓴᐅᕗᖓ? ᒥᔅᑕ Martin Plante, yes, we can hear you and now ᐸᓛᓐᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᓐᓂ, ᒫᑎᓐ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ, ᐄ’ we can see you. Mr. Plante, the floor is yours. ᑐᓴᖅᓴᐅᔪᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᕈᖅᑯᑎᑦ. ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᓯᔪᑎᑦ.

Mr. Plante: Mr. Chairman and Members of ᐸᓛᓐᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ, the Committee, (interpretation) good day. ᐅᓐᓄᓴᒃᑯᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᖄᕈᒪᔭᒃᑲ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᒪᑦ (interpretation ends) I would like to thank the ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᒐᒪ Standing Committee on Legislation for ᐅᖃᕆᐊᖅᑐᕈᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᖓ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ inviting me here today to speak about Agnico ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖓᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐱᓪᓗᒍ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Eagle’s views on Bill 55, An Act to Amend the ᒪᓕᒐᓱᐊᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍᐃᓛᒃ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᕆᓯᒪᔭᖓ Property Assessment and Taxation Act. We ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ. have followed the Committee’s work with interest and are happy to provide the Committee with any assistance that we can.

My name is Martin Plante. I am the vice- president of operations in Nunavut for Agnico ᐅᕙᖓ ᒫᑎᓐ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳ ᑐᖏᓕᕆᔭᐅᔪᖓ Eagle. I have the pleasure of being ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᓕᕆᔨᐅᔪᓂᒃ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᐸᑦ accompanied today by Mr. Pat McNamara, ᒪᒃᓇᒥᐊᕋ ᐅᕙᓃᖃᑕᐅᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳ ᑐᖏᓕᖓ Vice-president of Taxation at Agnico Eagle ᑖᒃᓯᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐋᓕᒃᔅ ᐸᐅᓪᑖᒃ, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ and also Mr. Alex Baltov, Senior Consultant, ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎ ᐱᖁᑎᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᕋᐃᔭᓐ LPP- Property Tax, with Ryan LLP, our tax ᑯᓃᖔᖅᑐᖅ. advisory firm.

Let me begin my opening statement by ᒫᓐᓇ ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑳᓐᖑᓱᒃᑲᒪ ᐋᒡᓂᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ providing some context about Agnico Eagle ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᐊᕐᔪᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᐅᖅᐸᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. and our work in Nunavut.

Overview of Agnico Eagle and its Nunavut ᖃᓄᐃᓐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ Operations ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ

Agnico Eagle is a global gold producer with ᑖᓐᓇ ᐋᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᒎᓗᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ mines in three countries, Canada, Mexico, and ᐱᖓᓱᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᕐᔪᐊᓂ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ, ᒥᐊᒃᓯᑯᒥ ᐊᒻᒪ Finland, and nearly 12,000 employees and ᕕᓐᓛᓐᒥ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᑦ. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ 12,000 contractors. We are headquartered in Canada ᐸᓗᓐᓂᒃ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᑎᖃᖅᑐᑕᓗ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓈᓗᓐᓂ. ᑲᓇᑕᒥ and are the largest producer of gold in Canada ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖃᕐᕕᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᒍᑦ and one of the top 10 worldwide. ᒍᓗᑕᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓯᓚᕐᔪᐊᓕᒫᒥ ᖁᓕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᑕᑉᐹᓂᖃᑕᐅᔪᒍᑦ. Agnico Eagle has been in business now for more than 64 years. Our mission is simple: we 64-ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂ ᒪᑭᑕᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ. ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᐅᑎᖃᕈᒪᔪᒍᑦ work hard to be a high-quality, easy-to- ᐱᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᑐᑭᓯᔭᕐᓂᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓯᕗᓂᑐᖃᖅᑎᓄᓪᓗ understand business, one that generates ᐅᑎᕐᕕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖁᑎᓕᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ superior long-term returns for our ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᑦᑎᐊᕚᓘᒍᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑎᓐᓄᑦ shareholders, creates a great place to work for ᑐᓐᖓᓇᕈᒪᓪᓗᑕᓗ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ. our employees, and contributes positively to the communities and countries in which we operate.

I am proud to say that Agnico Eagle has earned a reputation as a partner of choice ᐄ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐋᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᕈᐊᕋᔅᓴᑦᑎᐊᕚᓗᒻᒪᑕ

within our industry for being reliable, ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᕚᕆᔭᔅᓴᑦᑎᐊᕙᐅᒻᒪᑕ operating with respect for others, for building ᐃᑉᐱᒍᓱᑦᑎᐊᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᐊᓯᒥᓂᒃ trust and sharing opportunity with all our ᑕᑎᒋᔭᔅᓴᑎᐊᕙᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᔭᐅᓯᒪᓕᕐᖓᑕ. stakeholders.

One of our most meaningful partnerships is ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᕝᕙ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᑦᑎᐊᕙᓂᖅᐹᕆᔭᕗᑦ with the government, partners, peers, and ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᖃᑎᑦᑎᓂᓪᓗ people of Nunavut, where we currently ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑕᖃᑎᑦᑎᓂᓪᓗ. operate the Meliadine and Amaruq mines, ᐱᓕᖃᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᒥᓕᐊᑏᓐᒥ ᐊᒪᕈᖅ along with our Meadowbank mining complex ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖁᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᒪᑐᕚᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒃ in the Kivalliq region, as well as our newest ᐱᖁᑎᕈᓘᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓄᑖᖅ ᑏᒫᒃᑯᑦ acquisition, TMAC Resources with the Hope ᐱᑖᕆᕋᑖᔪᒻᒥᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᕼᐅᐸᐃᒥ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓ Bay project in the Kitikmeot region. ᕿᑎᕐᒥᐅᓂ.

Generating Employment and Economic Benefits ᐃᖃᓇᐃᔭᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᓴᕿᑎᕆᑉᓗᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᕚᓪᓕᕈᑎᓂᒃ

Nunavut, as the rest of Canada, has the ᓄᓇᕗᓂᓛᒃ ᑲᓇᑕᑎᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓴᓐᖏᔪᐊᓗᒻᒥᒃ ambition to build a strong and diversified ᒪᑭᒪᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᕕᒻᒥ ᓴᖅᑮᒍᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ economy. The substantial economic ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖃᕈᓐᓇᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ contribution of mining – the revenues we ᓴᖅᑮᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᒐᕙᒪᓄᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᐅᑎᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓰᖃᑦᑕᕈᓐᓇᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᓱᒍᒪᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. generate for governments, the businesses we ᐱᓕᒻᒪᒃᓴᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᑎᑕᕗᓪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ create to support our activities, the people we ᑐᓐᖓᕕᕈᑦᑎᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᕕᐅᔪᓄᑦ train and educate – provides the foundation ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᕈᓘᔭᕐᓄᑦ. upon which a strong, diversified economy is built.

Agnico Eagle plans to be in Nunavut for the ᐋᒡᓂᒍ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᐸᕐᓇᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒦᒍᒪᓪᓗ ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ, long term and we are determined to help build ᐃᑲᔪᕈᒪᔪᒍᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᓅᓯᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ the social and economic infrastructure that is ᐅᑭᐅᑕᖅᑑᑉ ᓯᕗᓂᖓᓄᑦ. so vital to the North’s future.

Here are a few numbers demonstrating our ᐅᕝᕙᐅᑯᐊ ᓈᓴᐅᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᖁᔭᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᒧᑦ: contribution to Nunavut:

 We are the largest miner and largest private sector employer in Nunavut.  ᐊᖏᓂᖅᐹᒐᑦᑕ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᓪᓗᑕ  In 2020 we directly and indirectly ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᐅᑎᓕᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᐅᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᒍᑦ. employed 2,940 full-time positions for  2020-ᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ 2,940-ᓂᒃ employees and contractors, 378 of which ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᓪᓚᕆᓐᓂᒃ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ were filled by Inuit. ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᑎᐅᔪᓄᓪᓗ, 378 ᑕᕝᕙᓐᖓᑦ  In 2020 still, more than $200 million was ᐃᓅᖑᔪᓪᓗᑎᒃ. paid in salaries for our Meliadine and  2020-ᒥ ᓱᓕ $200 ᒥᓕᐊᓐᖑᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ Meadowbank operations, and of this, more ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᔅᓴᑎᑦᑎᔪᔪᒍᑦ ᒥᓕᐊᑏᓐ ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᑐᕚᒃ than $25 million was paid to Inuit ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖁᑎᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ, ᑕᕝᕙᖓᓪᓗᑦ $25 employees. ᒥᓕᐊᓐᖑᓗᐊᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑖᖑᔪᔪᑦ.

 In 2020 the amounts paid to the Kivalliq  2020-ᒥ ᑮᓇᔭᐅᖅᑖᖑᔪᐃᑦ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᐊᕐᒥᐅᓄᑦ communities in donations and ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᓪᓗ ᑲᑎᑦᑐᒋᑦ $1.4 sponsorships totalled more than $1.4 ᒥᓕᐊᓐᖑᓗᐊᔪᔪᑦ. million.  ᐋᒡᓂᒍ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᐹᖑᔪᑦ  Agnico Eagle is the largest road builder ᐊᖅᑯᑎᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᖃᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ and owner in Nunavut, with over 200 ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, 200 km-ᖑᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ kilometres developed to date at a cost of ᐊᖅᑯᑎᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᑭᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂ $200 over $200 million. ᒥᓕᐊᓐᖑᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ.  Since 2007 we have invested in Nunavut  2007-ᒥᓂᑦ ᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ $7 over $7 billion. ᐱᓕᐊᓐᖑᓗᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ.   Agnico Eagle now represents more than ᐋᒡᓂᒍ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ 25 ᐳᓴᓐᑎᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᓂᐊᑦᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᓂᐊᑦᑎᕙᓕᖅᑐᑦ. 25 percent of Nunavut’s GDP.

Of course, in 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic 2020-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᕙᒡᓇᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ created unique challenges to the communities ᐱᒡᒐᓇᖅᓯᑎᑦᑎᓪᓚᕆᓚᐅᕐᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ in which Agnico Eagle operates, including in ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᖁᑎᒋᕙᑦᑕᑎᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. Nunavut. We worked closely with local ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᖃᖅᐸᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓂ ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᓂᒃ authorities and businesses to leverage our ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᐅᑎᓕᐅᔪᓂᓪᓗ ᓂᐅᕕᐊᕆᒍᒪᖃᑦᑕᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᑦ ability to access materials to support the most ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐋᓐᓂᐊᖃᕐᓇᖏᑦᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ vulnerable people and to provide critical ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑕᐃᓕᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᓂᕿᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᒃᑯᓪᓗ health, safety, food and other supplies. ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᕙᒻᒥᒐᑦᑕ. ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᒍᑦ Among the actions taken, we delivered food ᓂᕿᓂᑦ ᑐᓂᐅᖅᑲᐃᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ baskets and supported food banks, provided ᐅᐊᓴᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᖁᐱᕐᕆᔭᐃᒃᑯᑎᓂᓪᓗ hygiene and PPE supplies to communities, ᓄᕙᒡᓇᕐᔪᐊᑕᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑐᕋᔅᓴᓂᑦ and provided workforce, equipment, and ᐱᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒥᔪᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᓪᓗ material for community-led support initiatives ᐃᑲᔪᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑕ ᑕᒪᐅᓇ. through our “Good Deeds Brigade.”

Due to the risks presented by COVID-19, beginning in March 2020, Agnico Eagle took measures to isolate its Nunavut operations ᓄᕙᒡᓇᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᒫᔅᓯ 2020 from local communities with the aim of ᐱᒋᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐋᒡᓂᒍ ᐄᒍ minimizing any risk of the virus spreading to ᐃᓄᑑᑲᐃᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᑎᑦᑎᒪᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ these communities. As part of these isolation ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᓂᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓄᑦ protocols, designed to reduce the risk to the ᓯᐊᒻᒪᖁᓇᒍᑦ ᓄᕙᒡᓇᕐᔪᐊᖅ. ᐃᓄᑑᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ people, we sent all of our Nunavut-based ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒨᑎᑦᑎᑕᐃᓕᒪᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ, workforce (employees and contractors) home ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓕᒫᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᑎᔪᔭᕗᑦ, from the Meliadine and Meadowbank ᒥᓚᑏᓐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ ᒪᑐᕚᒃᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ operations as well as the exploration projects. ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᑎᑲᐃᓐᓇᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕿᓂᖅᑏᑦ Employees remaining at home have been ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᑲᐃᓐᓇᔪᒻᒥᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᑎᑦᑐᑎᒍ receiving 75 percent of their base pay. I want ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖏᑦ 75%-ᒥᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔾᔭᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅᑎᔪᒻᒥᔭᕗᑦ to note that Agnico Eagle hasn’t applied to the ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖅᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐋᒡᓂᒍ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy. I am ᑐᐊᕕᕐᓇᑐᒃᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᔅᓴᓂᒃ happy to report that with the recent progress ᑐᔅᓯᕋᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᕙᓐᓇᕐᔪᐊᖅ of the COVID-19 vaccination program, our ᑲᐱᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᕙᓐᓇᕐᔪᐊᖅ Nunavummiut employees will start working ᑲᐱᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᑎᐊᖅᑑᐊᓘᓚᐅᕐᖓᑕ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ

within our sites starting this week. ᐅᑎᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒍᓐᓇᓛᓕᖅᑐᐃᑦ.

Agnico Eagle’s Contribution to Nunavut ᐅᔭᕋᒃᑕᕆᐊᖅ ᐋᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓂᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ

In 2014 the Canadian mining industry adopted disclosure of payments to governments as a 2014-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ best practice and we have always been a ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᓕᔪᒻᒪᑕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅ strong supporter of this initiative. Agnico ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖅᑕᒥᓂᒃ. ᐋᒡᓂᒍ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ Eagle has a long tradition of ensuring ᓵᖓᔭᔅᓴᒫᖑᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᑦᑎᐊᕋᓱᑦᑐᑎᓪᓗ accountability and transparency, and we are ᑕᒪᓐᓇᓗ ᐊᖏᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᐊᖏᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ. committed to building on this.

Our company publicly discloses on an annual ᑕᖅᑲᐅᖓ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ, basis specific payments to governments, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᕈᑎᒥᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, including taxes and royalties, as per the ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᒥᓂᑦᑎᓂᒃ, ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑕᒥᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ Canadian Extractive Sector Transparency ᓄᓇᒥ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᒥᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕆᐊᖃᖅᐸᒻᒥᒐᑦᑎᒍ, Measures Act, commonly known as ESTMA, ᒥᔅᓴᐅᓯᔭᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᖅᐸᑦᑐᑎᒃ. and our 2020 ESTMA report was recently ᑕᐃᑲᓂ 2020-ᒥ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᒥᓂᑦᑎᓃᑉᐳᐃᑦ. filed.

Let me briefly summarize Agnico Eagle’s ᒫᓐᓇ ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓗᒍ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᑲᐃᓐᓇᓚᒃᑲ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᒋᓯᒪ.ᔭᕗᑦ, ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑰᓪᓗᑕ 2020-ᒥ: contribution and payment arrangements for

2020:

 In 2020 Agnico Eagle’s Meadowbank and Meliadine mines contributed  ᐄ, 2020-ᒥ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᐊᑐᕚᖕᒥ ᐊᒻᒪ approximately $27.5 million in taxes, ᒥᐊᓕᑏᓐᒥ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᑦ ᑐᓂᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ royalties, fees, and compensation $27.5 ᒥᓕᐊᓐᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ, ᐅᑎᖅᑐᔅᓴᓂᓪᓗ, payments in Nunavut, both to the ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᒐᐅᔪᓂᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒧᑦ. ᑕᒪᒃᑮᒃ ᓄᓇᕘᑦ Government of Nunavut and to Inuit ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ, organizations representing Inuit ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᑖᕐᓂᐅᓯᒪᔪᒃᑯᑦ. beneficiaries under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

 As mentioned previously, Agnico Eagle acquired TMAC Resources in February of  ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒻᒥᒐᒪ, ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒡᑯᑦ ᓂᐅᕕᔪᒻᒪᑕ ᑏ this year. In 2020 TMAC paid ᒫᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᕕᐅᓗᐊᓕ 2020-ᒥ, ᑏ approximately $9.5 million in taxes, ᒫᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ $9.5 ᒥᓕᐊᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ, royalties, fees, and compensation ᐅᑎᖅᑐᑦᓴᓂᓪᓗ, ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᒋᐊᓕᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ payments both to the Government of ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᖅ Nunavut and to Inuit organizations ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᑖᕐᓂᐅᓯᒪᔫᑉ ᐊᑖᒍᑦ. representing Inuit beneficiaries under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

 Property tax invoices are sent annually by the Government of Nunavut directly to  ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑏᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ,

Agnico Eagle. Invoice payments are ᐊᒡᓃᒍ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᓪᓗᑎᒃ. issued by Agnico Eagle to the ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓖᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑦᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ Government of Nunavut and this is a ᐃᖢᕐᕆᔮᕈᑎᒋᓪᓗᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᓯᒪᓂᖓ. process that we follow diligently and one with which we are comfortable.  ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᑦ  The issue of the payment of property taxes ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᐳᑦ, is not included in the leasing arrangements ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ for our different properties, Meadowbank ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᒥᐊᑐ ᐹᖕ Complex, Meliadine and Hope Bay mines. ᑳᒻᐱᓕᐊᒃᔅ, ᒥᐊᓚᑏᓐ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕼᐅᑉ ᒪᐃᓐ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᓐᓂ.  We also have four separate Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements (IIBA) with the  ᑎᓴᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ Kivalliq Inuit Association (KivIA) and, ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᖏᕈᑎ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ following our recent acquisition of TMAC ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᕿᑎᕐᒥᐅᓪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Resources, one IIBA with the Kitikmeot ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ. 2007-ᒥᓂᑦ $109. ᒥᓕᐊᓐ ᐅᖓᑖᓃᑦᑐᓂᓪ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ Inuit Association (KitIA). Since 2007 we ᓂᖏᖅᑕᐃᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃ have paid more than $109 million in ᑎᒥᖁᑎᑖᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ royalties and fees to both Nunavut ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ. Tunngavik Incorporation (NTI) and the

Kivalliq Inuit Association.

 Royalty payments for gold extracted are  ᓂᖏᖅᑕᐅᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑏᑦ, paid directly to NTI, the designated Inuit ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᑦᓴᐅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, organization overseeing mineral ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᑯᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ, development on Inuit-owned lands, and ᓄᓇᓕᕆᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᐱᓕᕆᒍᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ the payment of royalties pursuant to the ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ IIBAs is issued by Agnico Eagle directly ᓂᖏᖅᑕᐅᑏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑎ to the Kivalliq Inuit Association and the ᐊᑐᖅᖢᑎᒃᑯᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑭᕙᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Kitikmeot Inuit Association. ᕿᑎᕐᒥᐅᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂᒃ.

Application of Bill 55 ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 Given that Agnico Eagle is the largest mining company in Nunavut and that Bill 55 has ᐊᒡᓃᒍ ᐄᒍ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᐹᖑᒻᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ, ᑖᓐᓇ particularly technical aspects related to ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐱᓗᐊᕐᓗᒍ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓄᑦ property assessment and taxation, we ᐃᑲᔪᑏᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ welcome this opportunity to express our ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᕐ ᓂᒡᓕᐅᑎᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ views on the present bill. ᖁᕕᐊᓱᑦᑐᒍᑦ.

Our understanding is that the Property Assessment and Taxation Act, as proposed to be amended by Bill 55, is the law that sets out ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐱᓪᓗᒍ how the territorial government collects taxes ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᓯᒪᕗᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ on private property located in Nunavut. ᓄᓇᕗᑦᒥᐅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑕ.

Following Agnico Eagle’s analysis of the ᐊᒡᓃᒍ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ proposed amendments to the Property ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ, ᐃᓱᒪᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐅᑯᐊ Assessment and Taxation Act set out in Bill ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓃᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᖃᓪᓚᕆᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᑦ 55, it is our opinion that the proposed changes ᐊᐅᓚᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. will not significantly impact our operations.

However, guided by a constructive intent and out of respect for the ongoing process, we ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ would like to draw to the attention of the ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐅᑯᐊ ᑕᑯᔭᐅᖁᓗᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ Committee the following observations ᐅᔾᔨᕆᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ, ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ regarding the fundamentals of the Property ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᓪᓗ, ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ. Assessment and Taxation Act and avenues we ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ: see for consideration:

 We note that while other jurisdictions have similar tax structures, the Northwest  ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖃᐅᕐᕖᑦ Territories and Nunavut are the only ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᖅ Canadian jurisdictions that levy property ᓄᓇᕗᓪᓗ ᑲᓇᑕᓕᒫᒥ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᑦᑐᓪᓚᕆᖕᓂ, ᐱᓗᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ taxes at significant levels. In particular we ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᖃᓂᖏᑦᑐᑦ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ note that mines in similarly remote areas ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ in other jurisdictions of Canada do not pay ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕ. property taxes.

 Regarding the scope of the taxable improvements, we would like to draw  ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᖅ ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᑯᐊ your attention to the following points: ᐅᔾᔨᕆᔭᐅᓗᐊᓐᖑᐊᖁᔭᕗᑦ:

In relation to underground o o ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᔪᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ improvements, piping and pumping ᓱᓪᓕᕈᔪᐃᑦ, ᐃᒪᐃᔭᐅᑏᑦ, ᒪᑯᐊᓗ for underground water evacuation, ᐊᓂᖅᓵᖅᑑᑏᑦ ᐅᐊᔭᓅᖅᑐᑦ, ducting and venting, electrical components, and lunch and safety shacks located in underground mines, ᓂᕆᕖᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑦᑕᓇᖅᑐᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ these items are currently considered ᐅᐸᑦᑕᐅᕖᑦ, ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂ taxable equipment. However, our ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᐃᒃᑲᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ understanding is that they constitute ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔪᒍᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᐅᕗᑦ, additional extraordinary costs ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᖏᒻᒪᑕᓕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖔᖅᑐᑦ compared to open pit operations that ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ, do not require such facilities or ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᖦᖢᑎᒡᓗ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓂᒃ. equipment.

 We also observed that based on the current legislation, a significant portion of  ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ, property taxes must be paid during the ᐱᕈᑎᒡᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑏᑦ closure and reclamation period of an ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᒪᑐᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ operation. For example, road liabilities at ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ. ᑕᐃᒪ

closure are currently taxable. We would ᑐᓴᕈᒥᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᓄᖅ suggest that it would be interesting to ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᖔᑦ, ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖁᑎᕐᔪᐊᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ consider that this infrastructure would be ᐊᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᑐᓐᓂᖅᑯᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᑕ kept as a legacy to the communities. ᒪᑐᔪᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ.

Always in a constructive spirit, we would be ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᒪᔭᕗᑦ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ open to discuss any of these items further with ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ. the Committee in the future.

Conclusion ᐃᓱᓕᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᖓ

To conclude, Agnico Eagle generates direct economic value to Nunavut through tax and ᐃᓱᓕᑦᑎᓕᕐᓗᖓ, ᐊᒡᓃᒍ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᑦ royalty payments, local hiring and ᐃᓯᐅᖅᑲᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔭᕗᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᒃᑯᑦ procurement, and community investments. ᓂᖏᖅᑕᐅᑎᑎᒍᓪᓗ, ᓄᓇᓕᓐᓃᑦᑐᓂᓪᓗ We work together with communities to assess ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ, ᓂᐅᕕᖅᐸᒃᖢᑎᒡᓗ, potential opportunities to enhance local ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒪᑭᑉᐹᓪᓕᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ economic benefits and create economic ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃ ᑕᒫᓃᓐᓂᖓᓂ. prosperity beyond the life of our mines.

We view Nunavut as a welcoming place to do ᑐᓐᖓᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ, ᒫᓐᓇ ᑕᒫᓃᓐᓇᔭᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ business. In fact we would not be where we ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓯᖅᑕᐅᓐᖏᒃᑯᑦᑕ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ are today without the support we have ᓯᕗᒃᑲᖅᑕᖅᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓄᑦ, ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓄᑦ, ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᓪᓗ, received from Inuit leaders, communities, ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᐅᔪᓄᓪᓗ 2007-ᒥᓂᑦ government, and businesses since the moment ᑕᒪᐅᓐᖓᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ. we arrived in 2007.

Agnico Eagle has always fulfilled its financial obligations and it is our intent to continue to ᐊᒡᓃᒍ ᐄᒍ, ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᒥᖕᓂᑦ do so. We are committed in building ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᖏᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᖅᖢᑎᒡᓗ. relationships with our stakeholders based on ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖃᑎᖃᕈᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᒋᓪᓗ trust through open and transparent ᑐᓴᐅᒪᖃᑎᒋᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃᑯᒡᓗ, ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᕗᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ communication and full disclosure of ᐃᓘᓐᓇᖏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. payments to all levels of government.

This concludes my opening statement. My ᑕᕝᕙᐅᕗᑦ ᒪᑐᐃᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᒃᑲ, ᑕᒫᓃᖃᑎᒃᑲ colleagues and I would be pleased to answer ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᕈᔅᓯ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ. your questions. (interpretation) Thank you. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᒪ’ᓇ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Plante, for your comments. Moving on. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ, (interpretation ends) Our last witness to ᐅᖃᐅHᐃᒃHᐊᖃᓚᐅᕋᕕᑦ. ᑲᔪHᐃᓗᑕ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) deliver an opening statement is the Northwest ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐅᖃᓪᓚᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᒪᑐᐃᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ, Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᑉ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ, Mr. Dobbin. ᒥᔅᑐ ᑖᐱᓐ.

Mr. Dobbin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for ᑖᐱᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᔅᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, allowing yourself and the Committee allowing ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᓵᖓᓃᑦᑎᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᑦᑕ, us to speak today. I’m sure everybody has the ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᑦᑕᓗ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᑦ submission from the chamber of mines. ᐱᓯᒪᔭᒃᓴᕆᔭᓯ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓃᖔᖅᑐᑦ.

By way of introduction, this is who we are: we have been around for 50 years and our ᑕᒫᓃᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ 50-ᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓄᑦ, vision and mission is to be a strong supporter ᐃᑲᔪᖅᓰᔨᓪᓚᕆᐅᓪᓗᑕᓗ ᓄᓇᒥᐅᑕᓕᕆᓂᕐᒥᒃ of healthy and responsible mineral ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. development in the NWT and Nunavut.

I’m the general manager of the Nunavut office and Ken Armstrong, who joins us here today, I don’t know if Ken is there or not…is Ken on ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᐅᕗᖓ ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ the line? Probably. Oh, yes, okay, there you ᑭᐊᓐ ᐋᒻᓯᑐᕌᖕ ᑕᒫᓂᖃᑎᒋᒻᒥᔭᕋ, ᖃᓄᑭᐊᖅ are. Okay, our chamber president, Ken ᓇᓃᑉᐸᑭᐊᖅ, ᑕᓚᕖᓴᒃᑰᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ. ᐄ, ᑕᐃᑲ. Armstrong, is on the line. Many of you may ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕗᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᓄᑦ ᑭᐊᓐ ᐋᒻᓯᑐᕌᖕ know Ken from his other job as president and ᑕᒫᓂᖃᑕᐅᔪᖅ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᕗᕈᓇ CEO of Norterra Minerals exploring for ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ, ᑭᐊᓐ. diamonds there in Naujaat. Hi Ken.

In our short presentation today, we want to ᓇᐃᓈᕐᓗᒋᓄᑭᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ, deliver these key messages to you today: ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐅᑯᓂᖓ:

 Mining is significantly important to  ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓗᒃ ᐱᕐᔪᐊᒍᔪᖅ Nunavut; ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑕᓄᑦ;

 Nunavut is really a costly jurisdiction,  ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐱᔭᕐᓂᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒡᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᓯᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ adding challenges to our mines; ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ;

 The property tax regime in Nunavut is  ᐊᔾᔨᐅᓐᖏᑦᑐᑑᒡᓗᑕ unique in Canada and adds additional cost pressures; and ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐅᒍᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑕ ᐊᓯᕗᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕈᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ.  We will close with some alternatives for the Committee to consider.  ᐱᔭᕇᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᓕᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒃᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ. The chart that is in front of you shows how mining has grown significantly in Nunavut. ᐅᑯᐊ ᓵᔅᓯᓐᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᓯᒃᑭᑦᑕᐃᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕈᕕᒋᑦ, As you can see, there were no mines operating ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓪᓚᕆᐅᔪᖅ, ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ in Nunavut in 2009 and the value of ᐱᑕᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ 2009-ᒥ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ production in Nunavut was zero. ᐃᓯᖅᑐᖃᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᖏᖦᖢᓂ.

Since 2010 we have seen openings of the Meadowbank gold mine, Mary River iron ᑕᐃᒪᖓᓂᑦ 2010-ᒥᓂᒃ, ᐊᐳᖅᑎᓐᓈᖅᑐᒥ ᒎᓗᓯᐅᕐᕕᒃ mine, Hope Bay gold and the Meliadine gold ᒪᑐᐃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ, ᓄᓘᔮᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᕼᐅᑉ ᐸᐃ ᒎᓘᓯᐅᕐᕕᒃ, ᒥᐊᓖᑏᓐᓗ.

mines. As a result, mining production has ᑕᐃᒪ ᕿᓚᒥᐊᓗᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᐃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ, risen rather quickly from zero to nearly $1.5 ᐱᑕᖃᖏᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᖕᓂᕐᒥᒃ $1.5 ᐱᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ billion in value at last report. ᐊᑭᖃᓪᓗᐊᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᕐᒥ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕕᓂᖅᐳᑦ ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒋᑦ. Also it’s shown in our submission that mining pays wages to workers, buys goods, supplies ᑮᓇᐅᔭᒃᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ, ᒪᑯᓂᖓᓗ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓂᒃ and operates the mines, and pays various ᓂᐅᕕᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᓂᐅᕕᖅᐸᒃᖢᑕ, taxes to government. ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑕᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂ.

In 2019 Nunavut’s mines employed over 5,000 workers and spent $1.8 billion, and 2019-ᒥ 5,000-ᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ about a quarter of those jobs went to ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ $1.8 ᐱᓕᐊᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᐊᑐᖅᖢᑕ, Nunavummiut and about half of the spending ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓇᑉᐸᓪᓗᐊᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑕᓪᓗᑎᒃ, went to Nunavut companies as well. These are ᓇᑉᐸᓪᓗᐊᖏᓪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒡᓗᑎᒃ fantastic benefits and there is room to increase ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᓄᑦ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ these and generate even more taxes paid to ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᕕᖕᓄᓪᓗ. ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᒍᑦ government down the road. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ, ᓯᕗᓂᒃᓴᑦᑎᓐᓂᒡᓗ ᐱᑕᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᖅᖢᓂ. But as you see, if you follow along in the submission, Nunavut is also a very expensive ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒃᑯᕕᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓗᒃ ᐊᑭᑐᔪᖅ, place to live and work. For the mineral ᐃᓅᕕᒋᓪᓗ, ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᒋᓪᓗᒍᓗ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐅᔭᕋᖅᓯᐅᕐᓂᖅ 6-ᖏᖅᓱᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᑭᑐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ, ᐊᒻᒪᓗ industry, it can cost up to six times more to ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥᒃ ᓴᓇᓗᓂ ᒪᕐᕈᕐᓗᐊᒃ ᓇᑉᐸᖓᓗ, explore in Nunavut, up to 2.5 times to build a ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᔾᔪᑎᓄᑦ 30-ᓂᒃ 60- mine, and up to 60 percent more to operate a ᐳᓴᑦ ᖁᕝᕙᓯᖕᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᑦ. ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓴᐃᑦ mine. This in general makes it more ᐊᑭᒡᓕᒋᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ, ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐅᓇᓂ challenging to work here, particularly when ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑦ ᓄᓇᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ. mineral prices go down. Industry doesn’t face these challenges in southern Canada, where there is so much more infrastructure.

Again, as I proceed with the submission, another reason costs are high in Nunavut is because our remote mines must look after ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑭᑐᔫᔾᔪᑎᒋᒻᒥᔭᖏᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ themselves entirely, they must provide their ᐃᒻᒥᑰᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᒪᑭᑕᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᖅᑯᓯᐅᕐᓗᑎᒃ, own power and their own roads, ports, rails, ᒪᑯᐊᓗ ᖃᐅᒻᒪᖅᑯᑏᑦ, ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᖃᐅᑏᑦ, and airports, they must provide camps for ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᓯᓂᕝᕕᒃᓴᐃᑦ, ᐃᓅᓕᓴᐃᕕᒃ, their workers with recreational facilities and ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᕈᓘᔭᐃᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. medical facilities too, and like a community, ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᒥᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᒡᓗᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ, ᐊᑦᑕᕆᐊᓖᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ. the mines must provide their own services like ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂᓪᓕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ water and sewer and garbage. All of these are ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖏᒻᒪᑕ, ᒫᓂᓕ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᑦᑎᐊᖅ added costs that most mines in southern ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑏᑦ Canada don’t have to pay. All of these are ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ. costs and business risks to northern mines.

As you can see in my submission, there are some examples from Nunavut and the NWT ᐅᑯᓇᓂ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᑦᑎᓂ, ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᓗ

just in the past 12 years, as you can see, there 12-ᓂᒃ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂᒃ ᐊᓂᒍᖅᑐᓂ, ᒎᓗᐃᑦ, ᐅᔭᕋᒃᓴᓪᓗ was, thankfully, a strong and healthy gold and ᐊᑭᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᐊᓘᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᖅᑎᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ, iron prices that helped the mines last year, not ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᐊᓕᒎᔭᐃᑦ ᐊᑭᒡᓕᒋᐊᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ like diamond prices in the NWT that actually ᑲᑕᑦᑐᖃᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓚᖓᓂᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᒥ. put one mine into bankruptcy protection.

No one can control the market prices, but government certainly can take action to help ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕕᖕᓂ the industry with costs like taxes, and as you ᐃᑲᔪᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖃᑦᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᓇᓂᓯᕕᖕᒥ can see again on our next submission, the ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ 18-ᐳᓴᓐᑎᒥᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓇᓂᓯᕕᖕᒥ. government used to help the mining industry ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᖏᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ, more than today. A good example was ᐊᖅᑯᑖᓂᒃ, ᐃᒡᓗᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒡᓗ. Nanisivik, where the government owned 18 ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᖅᑕᖃᖅᐸᒍᓐᓃᕐᒪ ᐅᓪᓗᒥ, ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᑭᐊᓯᓂ percent of the mine and provided much of the ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᒪᑭᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ. community services like the town site, the dock, the airport, and the roads. Sadly, government does not support like this anymore and companies have to do everything themselves.

Again, property taxes also add extra costs and ᐊᖕᒪᓗ ᐱᖁᑎᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᑦ ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ they can be significant. We’re not exactly sure ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑕᐅᔪᖅ. ᖃᑦᓯᓪᓚᕆᒎᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ of the exact figure for Nunavut and perhaps ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ the GN can make that information readily ᓇᓗᓇᐃᔭᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ ᑕᐃᑲᖓᑦ available, but in the NWT, where Nunavut’s ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ, $250 ᒥᓕᐊᓐᓂᒃ tax originated, you can see that the diamond ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓕᒎᔭᓕᐅᕐᕖᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ mines have paid over $250 million in property ᐅᓄᖅᑐᓪᓚᕆᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ taxes, and that’s a lot of money for those ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᑕᖃᖏᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. services.

Moving on, we would make some ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓇᕐᓗᒋᑦ: observations on property taxes:

 Property taxes are generally meant to help  ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᓲᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᕗᑦ ᒪᑯᓄᖓ pay for government/community services ᐃᒥᕐᒧᑦ, ᒥᓪᓗᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ, ᐊᒃᑕᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ like water, sewer and garbage, but in ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ. ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᓕ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ Nunavut the mines provide all their own ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔪᑦ, municipal and community services. ᕼᐊᒻᓚᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᖏᖦᖢᑎᒃ.

 Remote mines in other provinces do not pay property tax. The NWT and Nunavut  ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᖅ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔪᑐᐊᑦᑎᐊᑦ are the only Canadian jurisdictions that ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᓯᕗᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓄᑦ levy property taxes on remote mines at ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᖃᑦᑕᖏᑎᒡᓗᒋᑦ. significant levels.

 Property taxes are regressive, which  ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᑭᓱᓕᒫᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᕆᐊᓖᑦ,

means mines must pay everything, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕋᓗᐊᕈᑎᒃ whether or not they’re losing money or ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕋᓱᖏᒃᑲᓗᐊᕈᑎᓪᓗ. ᐊᖕᒪᓗ making money. This again adds additional ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᖕᒪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓕᐅᕆᐊᑦᓴᖅ costs and business risk to Nunavut mines, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᖁᓄᒋᔭᐅᔾᔫᒥᓲᖅ, ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᕆᐊᓖᑦ and it also makes Nunavut less attractive ᐅᓄᓗᐊᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ, for mining investment. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ.

 Again, nobody knows where Nunavut property taxes actually go. You guys  ᑭᓱᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓇᓗᔪᒍᑦ stipulate it is general revenue, but we’re ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᕗᑦ. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ not really specifically sure what they’re ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᔪᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ used for; they disappear into general ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᑭᓱᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ. revenues and government use them for ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒡᓗᖓ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ various services. We’re not really entirely ᒪᑭᒪᐅᑎᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. sure what these services are. You say schools, but again, we’re not totally sure on that.

 Not only do mines have to pay property  ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐊᖕᒪᓗ taxes, but they also have to pay security to ᒪᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᒡᓗᓂᒃ ᐃᒍᑦᑎᕆᓕᕌᖓᒥᒃ remove the buildings during reclamation, ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᕕᒋᓗᒍ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᐅᓲᖅ. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ which adds even more costs. It’s like ᓲᕐᓗ ᑕᕝᕙᖓᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᖃᑦᓯᐊᖅᑖᓗᒃ government is double-dipping. ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᒡᓗᑎᒃ.

Finally, some considerations for government ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᓯᐅᔾᔭᐅᖁᔭᕗᑦ: that we would like to relay onto the GN:

 Follow the lead of southern provinces and  ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑦ ᓄᓇᖓᓐᓂ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖏᑦ do not charge property taxes on remote ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐸᒐᓐᓂᖏᑦᑐᓃᑦᑐᑦ mines. They serve no purpose, given ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᖏᓪᓗᒋᑦ, mines have to provide their own services. ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ.

 If you’re going to tax, maybe consider  ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᖕᒪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒪᑯᓄᖓ some sort of a property tax rebate to mines ᕼᐋᒻᓚᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᒥᒃ for municipal community services that ᐅᑎᕐᕕᐅᓪᓗᐊᑐᖅ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᕕᓂᕐᒥᓐᓂᒃ mines, really, have to provide for ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᒥᕐᒧᑦ, ᒥᒡᓗᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᒡᓗ. themselves.

 Do not charge mines retroactively for any tax missed. We’re not really sure or understand clause 48(10) in Bill 55, which  ᓇᓗᔪᒍᑦ, ᑐᑭᓯᓐᖏᑦᑐᒍᒡᓗ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ 48(10) suggests maybe Baffinland… . Well, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ, ᐃᒻᒪᖄ Andrew has already explained more about ᓄᓘᔮᑉᒥᐅᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᔭᖓᑦ. section 48(10).

 Another point, tell the public how much  ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓂᑦ ᖃᔅᓯᓂᒃ

the GN is actually collecting in property ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑭᓱᓄᒡᓗ taxes and what the money is actually used ᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᖏᑦ. for. o ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ o If you’re adamant about keeping ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᑎᓐᓂᐊᕈᕕᑦ, ᐃᒻᒪᖄ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ property taxes, consider assigning ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᓗᓯᒃ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ them possibly to a housing fund so ᓄᓇᓖᑦ. that communities can see another benefit from mining in their communities.

 If you’re looking for new tax revenue, work to increase Nunavummiut  ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᑎᒍᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᒍᕕᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ employment. We would respectfully ᐃᒪᐃᓕᔪᒪᔪᒍᑦ 800 ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥᐅᑦ suggest that if you helped get another 800 ᑕᒪᐅᖓᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᑕ, ᑕᐃᒪ ᖃᔅᓯᑦ ᒥᓕᐊᕌᓗᐃᑦ Nunavummiut into mining jobs, it would ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᑐᒃᓴᔭᓄᑦ return tens of millions of dollars per year ᖁᕝᕙᕆᐊᕈᑎᒋᔭᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᖅ, ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓂᑦ in income tax alone, a bigger return than ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓂᑦ ᐊᖏᓂᖅᓴᐅᒻᒪᕆᒃᖢᑎᒃ. property taxes.

ᑕᒪᔾᔭᐅᕗᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔭᒃᑲ. ᓇᑯᕐᒦᒃ, Those are my recommendations. Thank you, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪ’ᓇ, ᖁᐊᓇ, ᒥᖅᓰ. qujannamiik, ma’na, koana, merci.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Dobbin. The Committee has heard from the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᑖᐱᓐ. ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᔪᑎᒍᑦ, witnesses. We will now be asking them ᑐᓴᖅᓯᒫᓂᓕᕋᑉᑕ, ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᒍᐊᓚᐅᕋᑉᑎᓐᓂᒃ. questions. (interpretation ends) We have just ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᕐᕕᒋᑦᑕᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᕐᓂᐊᓕᕋᑉᑎᒍ. heard the opening statements from the (ᑐᓵᔨᒃᑰᓕᖅᑐᖅ) ᒫᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓅᓕᖅᓱᑕ witnesses and now to the Committee, that we ᓈᓚᕋᑖᕋᑉᑕ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ. ᑖᑉᑯᐊ have heard the opening statements, also have ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖁᑎᖃᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᐱᓯᒪᓪᓗᓯᔾᔪᒃ, ᑕᐃᒪ ᒫᓐᓇ all the supporting documentation in your ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᓕᖅᐳᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ packages to go off of, and now it’s the ᐱᑉᔪᑎᒋᑉᓗᒍ. ᒪᑐᐃᓕᖅᐸᕋ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ, ᒥᔅᑐ Committee’s chance to question the witnesses ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. regarding this bill. I’ll open the floor to questions. Mr. Lightstone.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. would also like to thank all of the delegates ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᕈᒪᑉᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᐸᒃᓯᒪᔪᓕᒫᑦ for attending the hearings today. It was a great ᓈᓚᓐᓂᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᐅᑉᓗᒥ. opportunity to hear from each individual ᐊᑲᐅᓈᕋᑖᖅᑐᖅ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᒋᐊᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓂ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ, organization directly and there was a lot of ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅᓱᒋᑦ, ᑐᓴᕋᑦᓴᓪᓗ ᑐᓴᕋᑦᓴᖃᕈᓘᔭᖅᓱᑎᒃ pertinent information included in the opening ᐃᓗᓕᖏᑦ. comments.

Before I get into my questions, I just would ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓅᓚᐅᖏᓂᑉᓃ, ᐅᖃᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᐳᖓ like to express my respect for Agnico Eagle ᐅᒡᒍᕐᓇᖅᐳᖅ ᐊᓂᒎ ᐄᒍ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ, ᐃᓛᒃ Mines for their outstanding corporate social ᐅᖃᕈᒪᓪᓗ ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓗᒃ ᑲᒪᒃᓯᐊᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᓂᑦ,

responsibility which clearly goes above and ᐊᕗᒐᐅᔨᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᓪᓚᕆᑉᐸᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒐᔪᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ beyond the current standards here in Nunavut. ᓄᓇᕘᒥ. ᐊᓂᒎ ᐄᒍᒡᑯᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᑎᑦᓯᑦᓯᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ Agnico Eagle has set the bar for all other ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕐᕕᐅᕙᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᓗᑦᑖᒥ. major employers in the territory to strive for, ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒥ ᒎᓕᖃᕈᒥᓂᕋᖅᑐᖅ ᓇᓂᔭᐅᒍᒥᓇᖅᖢᓂᓗ and I wish there were economical gold ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦᑐᓄᑦ. deposits in the Qikiqtani region and I hope that prospectors will discover something soon.

Now to jump into my questions, I guess I’ll start off and my first question will be for the ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓐᓅᑲᐅᑎᒋᓗᖓ, ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ Government of Nunavut, Minister Ehaloak, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ, ᒥᔅ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᒧᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ and the first found of questions will be taken ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ, ᐱᓯᒪᔪᖅ from the opening comments provided by ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᑉ ᑰᑦᓯᐅᑉ President Kotierk. I’m assuming you have the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕆᐊᕐᖓᐅᑎᒋᖅᑲᐅᔭᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᖅ. opening comments in front of you.

On page 1, item 3, it states that “The impact of this legislation will be far-reaching and ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒋᐊᕐᖓᖅᑲᐅᔭᖏᓐᓂ ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖓᓂ 1, would transfer millions of dollars in legal and ᐱᖓᔪᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ. ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᕆᒐᔭᕐᓂᖓ financial liabilities from mining companies to ᒪᓕᒐᐅᑉ ᐊᒃᓱᐊᓘᓚᖓᒻᒪᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᕐᔪᐊᓂᓪᓗ Inuit, and make Inuit organizations liable for ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᓗᓂ, ᒪᓕᒐᑎᒍᓪᓗ ᑭᓱᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᑭᓕᑦᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓄᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᓂ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ potentially millions of dollars in unpaid ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓵᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ property taxes if a mining company becomes ᒥᓕᐊᓐᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ insolvent. In other words, the Government of ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ Nunavut intentionally chose an approach that ᐃᒪᐃᒐᓱᓚᐅᖅᐳᑦ … ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓇᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ would harm Inuit and benefit private ᓯᓚᑖᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᓂᒃ. companies from outside of Nunavut.”

I was wondering if the Minister would like to ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᕈᒪᕙ ᑕᒪᑐᒧᖓ provide a response to that comment made. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᐅᔪᒧᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Ehaloak.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for his ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ question. When it comes to mining companies ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ becoming solvent and, for example, leaving a ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ mess on Inuit-owned lands, if the government ᑕᒫᓃᑦᑐᓐᓃᕌᖓᑕ ᐊᐅᓪᓚᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᓲᕐᓗ ᓱᕈᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ does not receive taxes from either the Inuit ᕿᒪᐃᒍᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ, ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ organization or the mining company, the ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔾᔪᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᕙᖏᒃᑯᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ Government of Nunavut is liable to make sure ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ that the land is assessed and properly cleaned ᓵᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ up environmentally. We would be liable to ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᖅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍᓗ ᐊᕙᑎᓕᒫᖓ. ᑕᕝᕙ pay those if we didn’t receive taxes from ᐊᑭᓖᒋᐊᖃᓕᕋᔭᖅᐳᒍᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᒃᑯᑦ

either the Inuit organization or the mining ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᖏᒃᑯᑦᑎᒍᑦ company, so we would have to pay the brunt ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓂᖔᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᒋᐊᖃᓕᕋᔭᕋᑦᑕ of cleaning up with our own financial ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖁᑎᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. resources. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. Lightstone.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Ehaloak, for that response. ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Moving on in the same line of questioning, on ᒥᔅ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖓᓄᑦ. page 3 of President Kotierk’s opening ᑕᕝᕗᖓᑦᓴᐃᓐᓇᐸᓗᖃᐃ ᒪᒃᐱᒐᖓᓂᒃ 3, comments, item 19 digs a little further on that ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᒡᒍᑎᐅᑉ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖃᐅᔭᖏᑦ 19-ᒦᑦᑐᖅ specific example and states, “Simply because ᐊᕗᖓᐅᔨᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒍ ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Inuit organizations may require mining ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ companies to pay contractually does not mean ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᑎᒍᑦ that Inuit would not be facing substantial legal (ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᑎᒍᑦ) ᑐᑭᖃᔾᔭᖏᓚᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ and financial risks. For example, if Baffinland ᓵᑕᐅᔾᔭᕋᔭᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᑎᒍᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ became insolvent, the Qikiqtani Inuit ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᐅᒍᓐᓃᖅᐸᑕ Association would be responsible for paying ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᒋᐊᖃᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ millions of dollars in property taxes based on ᒥᓕᐊᓐᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᒧᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒍ. Bill 55.”

Digging a little further into that specific ᑕᕝᕙ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓪᓗᒍ statement, for example, Baffinland has, I ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᓪᓗᒍᓗ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ believe, a 100-year productivity life, ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ 100ᓂᒃ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖃᕋᔭᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᖕᒪᑦ estimated 100-year lifetime worth of minerals ᐃᓛᒃ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᒥᒃᓴᐅᓯᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓄᑦ 100ᓄᑦ to extract, in the event that Baffinland did ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᕆᒐᔭᖅᑕᖓ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ become insolvent, I’m assuming that another ᐱᑕᖃᕈᓐᓃᕐᓂᕈᑎᒃ ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ entity would be more than happy to take ᑲᖐᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᐳᖓ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓂᒃ advantage of the richest iron ore deposit in the ᖁᕕᐊᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᒃᓴᐅᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ world and continue operations for the ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᑦ 100ᖏᓐᓂᒃ remainder of that 100-year lifecycle. ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖃᕈᒪᒐᔭᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ ᐱᖕᒥᔪᑦ.

In the event that Baffinland did become insolvent, would the GN then make the QIA ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᕝᕙᐅᔪᓐᓃᕐᓂᖅᐸᑕ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ responsible for paying these back taxes or any ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐊᑭᓖᖁᔨᓕᕋᔭᖅᐹᑦ property tax liability or would the GN take a ᑖᒃᓯᔭᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ different stance and say that “We understand ᓵᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ that there is a liability and we will give time ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᒍᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᒃᑲᔭᖅᐸᑦ for the QIA to seek other interested mining ᐅᖃᕐᓗᑎᖅᑲᐃ, ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᕗᒍᑦ, extraction companies to take on that liability ᓵᑕᐅᔪ37ᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᓗ if they choose to purchase the property”? ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᑐᒪᖓᑦ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑎᒍᓯᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) Lightstone. (interpretation ends) As always in ᐊᒻᒪᐃᓛᒃ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑎᒍᑦ ᒪᑯᐊ ᑲᖐᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ Committee, we have to be cautious when it ᐊᐱᖅᑯᓱᐊᖏᔾᔫᒥᕙᒡᓗᑕ, ᑲᖐᓇᕈᑎᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇ comes to hypothetical questions and ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᑦ 18-ᖑᔪ38ᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ hypothetical situations because once you go ᑲᖐᓱᒍᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᑎᑦ ᐊᓯᖏᑦ. ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᒐᓚᖕᒪᑦ into hypothetical land, there are 18 different ᑭᐅᒋᐊᒥᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓇᖓᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ directions that you could hypothetically go in, ᑭᐅᑎᒋᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᕋ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ so it’s very difficult to answer those types of questions, but I will give the Minister a chance. Minister Ehaloak.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for his ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, question. If a company, if Baffinland were to ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᐸᕋ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᖓᓄᑦ become solvent and another company took ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᑉ, ᑲᒻᐸᓂᐅᔪᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐹᕙᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ over the project itself, then they would be ᐱᑕᖃᕈᓐᓃᕐᓂᕈᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᑎᒍᔭᐅᓇᔭᖅᐸᑦ liable to pay taxes to the Government of ᑲᒻᐸᓂᐅᔪᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᕋᔭᖅᐳᑦ Nunavut. Currently Inuit organizations are ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ already liable for property taxes on Inuit- ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ owned lands when improvements have been ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖓ made. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓐᓂᕈᑎᒃ.

What this bill is trying to do is set it so that ᓱᓕ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᑭᓖᓪᓗᐊᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ instead, the landowner should be the one to ᐱᖁᑎᕐᔪᐊᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᒥᒃ. pay the property taxes, not the person leasing ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒨᓕᖅᑎᑦᑎᖓᓇᓱᒃᑕᕗᑦ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ the property. We’re trying to streamline the ᐋᖅᑭᒃᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᑕᐅᖕᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ way property is assessed so that the process is ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓ ᐃᓗᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᖁᓪᓗᒍ. easier. I hope that answers the Member’s ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. question. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Lightstone. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again, Minister, for that response. I’ll move on next to item 9 on page 2. It states ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. that “…on Inuit-owned lands where Inuit own ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᐸᕋᓗ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖓᓄᑦ. mineral interest, also known as subsurface, ᐊᓯᐊᓅᓕᕐᒥᓗᖓ ᒪᒃᐱᒐᖅ 2, 9ᒥᒃ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ. the Government of Nunavut believes that ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑭᓱᒃᓴᓂᒃ Inuit, instead of the mining companies, should ᐱᖁᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ be responsible for property taxes for mining ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᒃᐱᕈᓱᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑉᐸᓂᐅᖏᑦᑐᑦ improvements made and owned by mining ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᖏᓐᓄᑦ companies.” I would also like to ask if the ᓄᓇᐅᑉ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᑐᓴᕐᕕᒋᔪᒪᑦᑎᐊᖅᖢᒍ ᑕᒪᔅᓱᒧᖓ Minister would like to provide a response to ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᖃᐅᔪᒧᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. that comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ. Minister Ehaloak.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The landowner with the surface ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, rights only is assessed for land and ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ, improvements. The landowners with ᓄᓇᖁᑎᓕᒃ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᓲᖑᕗᖅ ᐊᑭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ subsurface and surface rights are assessed for ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᓴᖓᓄᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᒃᓴᖓᓄᓪᓗ land and improvements. The landowners with ᐱᖁᑎᓕᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖁᓛᓂᒃ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᓗ ᐱᖁᑎᓕᒃ, surface rights only with a mine are assessed ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᖓᓄᑦ ᐱᓗᑎᒃ. for the land. Lessees on private lands are not ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ assessed for land or improvements. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓄᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᒐᓂ, ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ Landowners with surface or subsurface rights, ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ lessees on private lands are not assessed for ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᕙᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᒧᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ. land or improvements. Thank you, Mr. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) If you will allow me, Mr. Lightstone, the different scenarios that the Minister just described, it’s ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᖃᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᒐᒪ ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ, ᑕᐃᒪ included in the legislative proposal, which is ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᓐᓂᖓ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᕋᑖᖅᑕᖓ one of the first documents the Committee ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕐᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ received on this bill and so I think the ᐱᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᓐᖓᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑎᑎᖃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ question is: why was the decision made that ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᐅᕗᖅ. ᓱᖕᒪᑦ the landowner would be responsible for the ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓂᖅᐱᓯ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᒥ land and the improvements on subsurface… ? ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᑲᒪᔨᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᐸ, When it’s a subsurface parcel, why was the ᓱᖕᒪᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐱᓯ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ decision made to make the landowner ᑲᒪᒋᐊᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ responsible for the land and the improvements ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᒃᓴᓂᒃᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓ on these subsurface parcels? Minister. ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ? ᒥᓂᔅᑕᒧᑦ.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. Through you, I will ask Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ Ahlfors to answer your question. Thank you, ᑭᐅᖁᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕐᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ. Ahlfors. ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓰᓕ. Thank you. Mr. Seeley.

Mr. Seeley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank ᓰᓕ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. you, Minister. The decision to treat lands ᑐᑭᑖᕈᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ where the landowner didn’t maintain the ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᓖᑦ ᓄᓇᐅᓪᓗ ᖄᖓᓂ subsurface rights, it was made in response to ᐱᖁᑎᓖᑦ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᖏᑉᐸᑦ, ᑭᐅᓗᖓᖃᐃ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᒋᓪᓗᑎᒍᑦ

some of the feedback that was received in the ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᕙᓚᐅᕐᒪᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᕆᐊᖓᖁᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᑦᓯᓐᓂᒃ earlier stages of the consultation. In the ᓯᕗᓂᐊᓂᓗ ᐅᖃᖃᑎᒌᒃᐸᒃᑎᓪᓗᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 original proposal and in some of the earlier ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᒃᓴᖓᓂᒃ discussions regarding Bill 55 and its initial ᐸᕐᓇᐅᑎᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ. ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᓪᓗᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ composition, the proposal was to treat all ᓄᓇᖁᑎᓗᒃᑖᖏᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑐᑦ ᐱᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ Inuit-owned lands as private lands in that ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᑐᓴᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ sense. Following and as an outcome of the ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔪᒪᓕᓚᐅᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ consultations with the landowners, the ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᖅᑑᑉ ᐊᓯᒋᒃᐸᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ decision was ultimately made to make a ᓄᓇᖁᑎᓕᒃ ᑲᒪᔪᒃᓴᒫᓐᖑᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ. change where subsurface rights were not possessed by the landowner to not make them responsible for the improvements in regard to that.

I hope that that answers the Member’s ᑭᐅᔭᒃᓴᕆᕙᕋ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. question. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Lightstone, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᒥᐊᓇᖅ ᒥᔅᑕ apologies for hijacking your question. I’ll give ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᖅᓵᖅᓯᕋᑖᕋᒪ. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᒃ you one more and then I’ll move on to the ᑐᓂᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᖅᐸᒋᑦ ᐊᓯᐊᓅᓚᐅᖏᓐᓂᓐᓂ. ᒥᔅ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. next person. Mr. Lightstone.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Moving on to my last question, it’s on page 5 ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. and it’s item 31, which states that “The ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ ᒪᒃᐱᒐᖅ 5 ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 31 Government of Nunavut introduced a new ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 48 ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 provision in Bill 55, section 48, which ᐃᓗᐊᓂ, ᑖᔅᓱᒪ 48 ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᑦ declares that ‘all property tax raised’ are ᐃᓯᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑕᕝᕘᓇ ᓴᓇᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ deemed for ‘local government services and ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᓇᓱᖕᒪᑕ ᑖᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒃ improvements.’ Through this provision, the ᐱᖁᑎᕐᔪᐊᓄᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᒥᒃ ᓱᕋᐃᓂᐅᖕᒪᑦ Government of Nunavut is attempting to ᐃᓱᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖃᐃ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᐳᖅ amend the property tax definition in the ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᔭᖓᓄᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Nunavut Agreement, which is not only ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. dishonourable but illegal.” I was wondering if the Minister would provide a response to that allegation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ. Minister Ehaloak.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for his ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ question. Because of the legalities to the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ question, through you, Mr. Chairman, I’ll ask ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᖓᓄᑦ. ᓱᖃᐃᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒎᖓᓂᖓᓄᑦ Mr. Ahlfors to give a detailed answer to Mr. ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ ᑭᐅᖁᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ ᒥᔅᑕ

Lightstone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐᒧᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ..

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ. Ahlfors.

Mr. Ahlfors: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To answer that question, I have to give a small ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. background in that the Property Assessment ᑭᐅᓂᐊᕈᒃᑯ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᖓ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᐅᖕᒪᑦ. and Taxation Act was not amended once the ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Nunavut Agreement came into force, and so ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ what the Government of Nunavut has had to ᒫᓐᓇᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᑦᑐᒍ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕆᐊᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍᑦ, ᒫᓐᓇ do until now, when we are amending the Act ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕋᓱᓕᖅᑕᕋᓗᐊᕗᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒨᖓᓕᕋᑦᑎᒍᑦ or attempting to amend the Act, is to read the ᑲᑎᑦᑐᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ two documents together, Property Assessment ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᕈᑎᖓᓂ and Taxation Act and the Nunavut Agreement, ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᖅ 22 ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ particularly Article 22, which deals with ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᒪᑦ. taxation of Inuit-owned lands.

In these circumstances, for example, the Property Assessment and Taxation Act says that all fee simple land in Nunavut should be ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᕋ ᒪᓕᒐᑎᑦ taxed, but there is a lot of Inuit-owned land ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓪᓗ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ out there that has no improvements on it. The ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᒋᔭᖏᑦ ᐅᓄᕐᒪᑕ Property Assessment and Taxation Act says ᓴᓇᕕᐅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ. ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ that it should be taxed, but the Government of ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓪᓕ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ Nunavut recognizes that in these ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ circumstances, the Nunavut Agreement states ᑖᒃᓰᒃᔭᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓪᓗᐊᕐᒪᑕ, ᖁᓚᐅᑦᑎᖕᒪᑦ that it’s not taxable, so because the Nunavut ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᓇᕕᐅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ Agreement prevails over the Property ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᐊᖏᓐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. Assessment and Taxation Act, the Government of Nunavut has not been assessing or taxing those empty pieces of Inuit-owned lands or those that are only used for traditional purposes.

In the same way, when the Government of ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᔾᔨᖓᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ Nunavut has been collecting taxes from Inuit- ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ owned lands, it has been using those taxes for ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓯᔭᕈᑎᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ local government services and improvements ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᕼᐊᒪᓚᒃᑯᓐᓂᒃ by funding municipalities, by funding DEAs, ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂᓗ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ by funding schools. It has, perhaps, not ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂᒡᓗ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ communicated that information the best way ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑕᐅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ it could to date, but the amount of taxes that ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᓄᐊᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᖃᔅᓰᓐᓇᐅᓂᖅᓴᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑕ are collected are significantly less than the ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ amount that the GN provides to ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ municipalities, DEAs, and schools for local ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ.

government services and improvements.

The matter of the fact is that since division and perhaps before, but at least since division, ᐃᒪᐃᑦᑑᖕᒪᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᑦ ᐊᕗᑎᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ that is what these taxes have been funnelled ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑐᕌᖅᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ. to, and so this amendment is simply to clarify ᑖᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᕋᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ, that that is what has been going on all along. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᓗᒍ It’s an unfortunate fact that the Act was not ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᐸᒌᕐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ. ᐊᐃᑦᑑᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ amended in ’93, following the ratification of ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓂᖏᒻᒪᑦ 1993ᒥ the Nunavut Agreement, but the government ᑖᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᑖᕈᑎ ᐊᖏᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ of Nunavut has always taken the steps ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑭᖏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᖅᓯᒪᒪᑕ necessary to interpret and apply the Property ᑐᑭᓕᐅᕈᑎᓗᒍ ᐊᑐᓕᖅᑎᑎᓂᖅ ᐱᖁᑏᑦ Assessment and Taxation Act in accordance ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓᓂᒃ with the Nunavut Agreement and ᐊᐃᑦᑖᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᓇᓱᓕᑕᐃᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ unfortunately is only now making the changes ᐊᐃᑦᑖᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ. ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑎᒍᑦ, to the Act to sort of clearly put those on paper, ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑎᒎᕋᓱᓕᖅᑐᑎᒍ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᖅ those practices that have already been ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᑦ ᐊᑕᐅᑦᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᑐᒋᑦ occurring with reading the Act and the ᓇᓕᒧᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᓇᓱᓕᑕᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Nunavut Agreement together. Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) (interpretation ends) Before we move to the ᑲᔪᓯᒋᐊᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐊᑎᖁᑎᖕᓄᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ next person on the list, I would just like to ᑭᐅᑎᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑭᑦ ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᑲᐅᔪᖅ give you a chance to respond, Minister. The ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᓐᓃᖔᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ line that Mr. Lightstone just quoted from, ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᐅᑉᐱᓐᓇᖅᑑᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓂᓪᓗ from Nunavut Tunngavik, characterizes this ᓱᕋᐃᓪᓗᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᑕ. as this bill is “dishonourable and illegal” or ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑎᓐᓂᐊᕆᒃᑭᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ that particular part of it. I would like to give ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ. you a chance to respond to that, Minister Ehaloak. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Chairman. Since Nunavut was created, the ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Government of Nunavut has always taxed for ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑏᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ properties. The Government of Nunavut has ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᓱᕋᐃᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑦ not broken the Nunavut Agreement. We have ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓂᒃ, been taxing mining companies and the Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐃᐅᕗᔅ ᑕᐃᒪ organizations, as Mr. Ahlfors has stated, to ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕐᓂᕗᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᕐᓗᒋᑦ cover some of our costs within our ᐃᓚᖏᑦ ᕼᐊᒪᓚᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᓄᑖᖑᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ. municipalities. It’s not new. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐃᒪᐃᓘᕋᓱᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᒥᓂᒃ What this bill is trying to do is tax the ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ landowner rather than the mining company or ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᒃᑰᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᐅᔪᑦ the company that’s using the Inuit-owned ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ, ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ lands. Should this bill pass, the Government ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᐅᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᖄᖏᑦᑎᑕᐅᔪᕕᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ

of Nunavut will tax the Inuit organization. ᒐᕙᒪᖏᓪᓗ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ The Inuit organization is the one who should ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ be passing those charges onto the lessees to ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖃᖅᐳᓪᓕ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᒧᑦ cover their costs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Moving on. Mr. Qirngnuq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᔪHᐃᓗᑕ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ.

Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the meeting, ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᑕᓖᒃ. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᑦᓯ ᑕᒪᐅᖓ Minister and your officials, as well as those ᑲᑎᒪᔭᖅᑐᖃᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᕼᐃ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᒋᔭᐃᓪᓗ. who have come to make presentations on this ᑖᑉᑯᐊᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᑲᑎᒪᔭᖅᑐᖃᑕᐅᕼᐃᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪ issue. ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᒪᔭᖅᑐᖅᕼᐃᒪᔪᑦ.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, with respect to their opening comments, I would like to make ᕼᐃᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᒃ ᐃᒃᕼᐃᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ ᐅᑯᐊ ᐅᒃᑯᐃᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ a short comment on it, as the majority of us ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᓇᐃᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᕈᒪ’ᓗᖓ, ᑕᒪᑉᑕ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪ representatives fight for our lands or rather of ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᒋᔭᑦᑕ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᖢᑕ our communities, irrespective of whether it is ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕋᑉᑕ, ᓇᓕᐊᒃ ᐃᕼᐅᒪ’ᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒧᖓ on certain lands or not. Our focus is the local ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᕋᑉᑕ. ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᐱᓇᕼᐅᐊᖅᑕᑉᑎ’ᓄᑦ priorities, and we all have goals we are trying ᐊᒃᓱᕉᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒐᑉᑕ, ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᐅᒐᓗᐊᕈᑉᑕ, ᒐᕙᒪᐅᒐᓗᐊᕈᑉᑕ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᕈᑦᑕ, ᑕᒪᑦᑕ to attain, regardless of whether we are ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒐᑉᑕ ᑕᒡᕙᓂ. involved in mining, government, or regular

MLAs, as we all have mandates to work towards.

For us indigenous peoples, especially us Inuit, ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐅᕙᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᑐᑎᒍᑦ ᐃᓅᓪᓗᑕ we spent many years fighting hard for our ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᒋᓯᒪᒐᑉᑎᒍᑦ ᓄᓇᒃᑯᑦ. ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᐅᑐᓐᓇᖅ ᒥᒃᓵ area, how it would be set up and thinking of ᐃᕼᐅᒪᐱᓗᑎᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᕙᑦᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᑦ our options for the territory as discussions ᐱᒋᐊᕐᖓᑦ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓂᖓᓂ. ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ took many years since the inception of these ᓇᓕᐊᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᖢᐊᖅᑐᒃᑯᑦ, ᐃᖢᐊᖅᑐᒃᕼᐊᒃᑯᑦ negotiations. Due to this purpose, we look for ᐃᖅᑲᑲᐅᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᐸᖅᑯᑦ ᖃᓄᕐᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ the best options that are conducive for the ᓇᓗᓇᕐᒪᑦ ᓇᓕᐊᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᕌᕐᓂᐊᕆᐊᑉᓴᖓᓂ. goals of our constituents, and what priorities will be focused on and how to deal with them, as currently it is hard to determine the exact direction it is trending towards.

Let me firstly turn to a different topic here, as ᑭᕼᐃᐊᓂᑦ ᕼᐃᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥ ᐊᓯᐊᓄᓐᖓᐅᓗᖓ I wish to ask this question with your ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᕐᕕᒻᒨᖓᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ, permission, Mr. Chairman. It is related to the ᖃᓄᐃᒋᓐᖏᒃᑯᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ questions submitted to our government, as ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᕈᒪᓪᓗᖓ ᑕᒡᕙᓂ ᕖᕝᕗᐊᕆ 22-ᒥ written in the correspondence of February 22 ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᕕᓂᖅ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᐅᑉ, addressed to our Chairman. The listed concern ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᕆᔭᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᑉᐱᕌ ᕼᐃᑕᒪᒋᔮᓃᒃᑐᖅ numbered 5 on page 4 speaks to this issue that ᑕᐃᒻᓇ ᐃᕼᐅᒪᓐᓇᕈᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᓈᕼᐅᑖ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᓂ. was reviewed in Committee of the Whole on ᐆᒥᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᖃᖅᖢᓂ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖑᑎᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᐅᔪᕕᓂᖅ

February 22, 2021, as it identifies the amounts ᕖᕝᕗᕈᐊᕆ 22-ᖑᑎᓪᓗᒍ, 2021-ᒥ. owed. The amounts owed are by mining ᓄᓗᓇᐃᖅᕼᐃᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑕᐃᑉᕼᐅᒪᑉ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑐᔪᒃᕼᐊᐅᑉ companies to our government, as it states in ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ ᐊᑮᑐᖃᖅᑑᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᑦ ᑖᑉᑯᐊ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ English which I don’t know how to translate ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑐᑦ ᐃᓄᑦᑐᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᓇᒃᑯᑦ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑐᕐᓗ into Inuktitut, so I must state it in English, ᑭᕼᐃᐊᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃ (mineral mine) ᐃᓗᐊᓂ (interpretation ends) Mary River $9,999,345.70 ᑖᒻᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕙᕋ. ᐅᑉᓗᒥᓕᑭᐊᖅ (interpretation) mine owing $11,999,245.70. I ᑖᑉᓱᒪᐅᑉ ᓇᓪᓕᐅᒪᓂᐊ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᒥᒐᓕᖅᑎᒋᓕᖅᐸ have a question on that amount owed. What is ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅ? ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ ᐊᐱᕆᕗᖓ ᒐᕙᒪᑦ the current amount of the funds owed by this ᐃᓚᑉᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. mining company and what is the status of this amount payable by the company? That is my question towards our government managers, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. It is ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑖᓐᓇ 12 ᒥᓕᐊᓐᑖᓚᒧᑦ just under $12 million. Minister. ᑎᑭᓯᒪᓐᖏᒐᔮᓚᐅᕐᓂᕋᒥ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for his ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, question. Currently only Baffinland Iron ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᒥᓂᔅᑐᑉ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒥᖓᓂ. Mines owes taxes for the Mary River project ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐹᐱᓪᓛᒃᑯᑐᐊᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᓖᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᓄᓘᔮᑦ $11,199,345.70. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, and the amount is $11,999,345.70. Thank you, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Qirngnuq.

Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, ᕿᕐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. ᑖᒻᓇ ᓈᓴᐅᑦ Mr. Chairman. Has that number not changed ᕼᐅᓐᓂᖅᕼᐃᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒧᑦ ᕼᐅᓐᓂᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓛᖅ? to date? Mr. Chairman, that’s my question. ᐃᒃᕼᐃᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ ᐊᐱᕆᕗᖓ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ. Minister.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ Chairman. I thank the Member for his ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖓᓄᑦ. question. The assessment is done on a yearly ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ. ᐄ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ basis, so that number will change every year. ᓈᓴᐅᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Qirngnuq.

Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. Mr. Chairman. I’ll move on to something else. ᐊᕼᐃᐊᓄᖓᕐᓗᖓᑉᑕᐅᖅ.

For clarity, I’ll have to say this in English, I ᑐᑭᕼᐃᓐᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᐊᕋᒪ ᐅᓇ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑑᕐᓗᒍ ᑭᕼᐃᐊᓂ believe. (interpretation ends) In its news ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᕆᒋᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑰᕐᓂᐊᕋᑉᑯ. release of November 10, 2020, Nunavut (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓄᕕᐱᕆ 10-ᒥ ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Tunngavik Incorporated stated that “The GN ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ is asking Inuit Organizations to collect the ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᐊᑦᑎᖁᔨᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ taxes on their behalf and cancel the leases of ᓄᐊᓴᐃᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ mining companies when they do not pay the ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ tax, potentially forcing hundreds of Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒥᓱᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ workers into unemployment.” What is the ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᑦ ᖃᓄᕐᓕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ Government of Nunavut’s response to these ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᐸᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑕᐅᔪᒧᑦ? concerns? (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the mining company pays ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, taxes to the Government of Nunavut and the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕌᖓᑕ mining companies say that it’s going to hurt ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓗ ᐅᖃᕐᓗᑎᑦ the mining companies themselves and ᐋᓐᓂᕈᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ including Inuit employment or the workers, it ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓘᕋᓱᓐᖏᑦᑐᖅ is not what this bill or the taxes do. All ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓕᒫᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᔪᖅ mining companies currently have to pay taxes ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᓕᒫᑦ ᓄᓇᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪ on lands. As I stated before, what we’re trying ᐅᖃᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒐᕕᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᓇᓱᑦᑐᒍᑦ to streamline is that the Inuit organizations ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ should tax the mining companies on lands that ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ. are on Inuit-owned lands and then when they ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ receive those taxes, the Government of ᑎᒍᓯᒐᔭᖅᐸᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑕᐅᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Nunavut would receive those taxes from the ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ. Inuit organizations.

What we’re trying to do is to ensure that there’s a one-way process. I’ll give an ᐃᒪᐃᓘᕋᓱᑦᑐᒍᓪᓕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᖅᑭᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ example. If I owned an apartment building ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒨᖓᔪᒥᒃ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓕ and I was paying taxes to the City of Iqaluit, I ᐃᒡᓗᖁᑎᖃᕈᒪ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᕆᔭᐅᒥᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᑦ would not go to my renters and say “Here’s an ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓗᖓᓗ ᐃᖅᑲᓗᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᖓᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊᓕ amount I have to pay taxes on, here’s an ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐃᓪᓗᖁᑎᓂᑦ ᐅᐸᒍᑎᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᕝᕙ amount that I want you to pay so that I can ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᓖᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᖁᓕᖅᐸᒋᑦ ᑖᑦᓱᒥᖓ pay my taxes to the city.” As an owner of the ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᒃᑲ ᓄᓇᓕᐸᐅᔭᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ apartment building, I would include that ᐃᒡᓗᕐᔪᐊᒥ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᐅᒍᒪ amount in the rent that the individual pays. ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓯᒪᑲᐅᑎᒋᒐᔭᕋᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ There is a process on how companies or ᑖᔅᓱᒪ ᐊᖏᕐᕋᖃᖅᑑᔫᑉ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᐅᔪᖅ businesses receive their taxes and it’s to ᐱᔅᓯᓂᓇᖑᔪᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔾᔫᒥᔪᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ streamline so that the Government of Nunavut ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓃᑦᑐᓂᑦ doesn’t have to use third parties to receive our

taxes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᖏᒻᒪᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Qirngnuq.

Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That clarified it for me. Later ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. ᑖᒻᓇ on when we get another chance to ask ᑐᑭᕼᐃᓐᓇᖅᕼᐃᕚᓪᓕᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᐊᑦᓯᐊᕈ ᐊᕼᐃᐊᓂ questions on it, I’ll ask further questions. This ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᕼᐊᖃᓕᕐᒥᒍᑉᑕ ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒫᖅᑯᖓ ᑖᑉᓱᒥᐅ is just a general comment. Thank you, Mr. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᐳᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᑕᐅᑕᓖᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Angnakak. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to everybody here today on Zoom ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. and in person. This is quite interesting. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᑐᓐᖓᓱᑦᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦ ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕙᓃᑦᑐᓪᓗ ᑐᓴᕈᒥᓇᖅᑑᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ. I guess my first question is to the Minister. Nunavut Tunngavik did a news release on ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖃᐃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ ᒥᔅᑕᒧᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓴᐅᑎᑎᒍᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑎᑦᑎᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓅᕖᕝᕙ November 10, 2020 and they stated that “The 10, 2020-ᒥ. ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᒡᒎ GN dismissed the ‘public’ nature of Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᖅᑲᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ Organizations and IOLs,” and they say that ᐱᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᖏᓐᓄ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᓪᓗ the government “refused to follow the ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒍᒪᓚᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕᒎᖅ precedent set in the NWT for Inuvialuit lands, ᐋᖅᑭᓱᖅᑕᐅᒌᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ contradicting the increasing recognition by the ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑕᖓᓂ Government of Canada, as shown by the ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᖏᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ recent example of the Inuit-Crown Partnership ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᑯᔅᓴᐅᑎᑕᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Committee (ICPC).” I’m wondering: what is ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓪᓗ ᐱᓕᕆᖃᑎᒌᓐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕌᓛᖏᓐᓄᑦ. the Government of Nunavut’s response to ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓱᒪᒐ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᓪᓕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ those concerns? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖃᓄᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our agreement is like no other. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒥᒃ The Nunavut Agreement establishes Inuit- ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᕗᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᒋᔭᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ owned lands and they are not subject to ᓇᒥᓕᒫᖅ. ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎ ᓴᖅᑭᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᑦ taxation. Lands within municipal boundaries ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕐᕕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ. with improvements or that lie within a ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᕼᐊᒻᒪᓚᐃᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᑉᐸᑕ planned or approved division, lands outside ᐸᕐᓇᑕᐅᑉᐸᑕᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᕼᐊᒻᒪᓚᐃᑦ ᓯᓚᑖᓃᑦᑐᐃᑦ municipalities on which improvements can be ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ. ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 22 ᐊᑖᒍᑦ made, and under Article 22, because we’re a ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᐅᓪᓗᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ unique territory, we have a unique agreement, ᐊᔾᔨᐅᖏᑦᑐᒥᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖃᕋᑦᑕ.

so we don’t try to follow territorial or ᒪᓕᒐᓱᐊᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑐᒍᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑕ provincial tax laws. Under Article 22 it states ᑖᒃᓯᒧᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᓐᓂ. ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 22 ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ what the Government of Nunavut can do. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓ ᓱᒍᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Angnakak. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ.

Ms. Angnakak: Mr. Chairman, I would like ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐃᔅᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ, ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ to ask the president of NTI a question. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖓ ᐊᐱᕆᒍᒪᔭᕋ.

Okay. In a joint submission to the Standing Committee on Legislation that was dated ᑲᑐᔾᔨᓗᓯ ᓴᖅᑭᔅᓯᓪᓗᓯ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᕆᔨᓄᑦ December 9, 2020 from NTI and the three ᑏᓰᑉᐱᕆ 9, 2020-ᒥ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᓐᓂ RIOs, an argument was put forward that Bill ᑎᑎᖅᑲᐅᓯᐊᕆᔪᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐱᖓᓱᓂᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ 55, in its treatment of the tax regime on Inuit- ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ owned lands, is not consistent with the 55 ᑖᒃᓯᓕᕆᔾᔪᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ treatment given to Inuvialuit lands in the ᒪᓕᑦᑎᐊᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑕᒥᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᓐᓄᑦ NWT. As we know, there are two separate ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥ. ᖃᐅᔨᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᑕᐃᒪ agreements, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement ᒪᕐᕉᒻᒪᑎᒃ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑏᒃ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ and the Nunavut Agreement, and they are not ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓ ᐊᒻᒪᓗᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒻᒥᒃ worded exactly the same. ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑎᒃ.

The Inuvialuit Agreement, under section ᐃᓄᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓ ᐊᑖᒍᑦ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 7 7(47), states “No federal, territorial, (47) ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ, ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ provincial or municipal charge, levy or tax of ᐊᕕᑦᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᕼᐊᒻᒪᓚᐃᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ any kind whatsoever shall be payable on ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᒃ Inuvialuit lands or based on the value or ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖓ assessed value of Inuvialuit lands and, without ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᕕᐊᖃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ. ᐊᑭᖏᑦ limiting the generality of the foregoing, no ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᓱᓕᒫᒧᑦ capital, wealth, realty, school, water or ᑐᕌᖓᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑭᑐᔪᖅᑐᕈᑏᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐊᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ business tax shall be payable on Inuvialuit ᐅᑎᖅᑐᔅᓴᐃᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕖᑦ ᐃᒥᐅᑉ ᑖᒃᓯᖏᑦ lands or based on the value or assessed value ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓅᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ of Inuvialuit lands.” ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖓᓃᑉᐸᑕ. ᐊᑭᖏᑦ ᒪᓕᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᒐᔭᖅᑑᒐᓗᐊᑦ. While the Nunavut Agreement Article 22 states in very similar words, almost the same ᓄᓇᕘᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 22 thing as section 7(47) above, within Article ᐊᔾᔨᐸᓗᖓᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖃᕐᒥᔪᖅ. ᐊᔾᔨᐸᓗᖓᓂᒃ 22, that statement is subject to exceptions and ᓴᖅᑭᔅᓯᒐᓱᑦᑐᓂ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 7 ᐅᖂᑕᓐᖑᐊᖅ 47-ᒥ. those exceptions are Inuit-owned lands both ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 22-ᒥ, ᑕᐃᓐᓈ ᓴᓂᕌᕉᕐᕕᔅᓴᐅᔪᕉᖅ, within and without municipalities. They are ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᓂᕌᕉᕈᓐᓇᖅᑯᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ, subject to real property taxation. ᕼᐊᒻᓚᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᐃ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ. ᕼᐊᒻᓚᐃᓪᓕ ᐃᓗᐊᓃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ If we leave aside for the moment the question ᐱᖁᑎᒋᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ. of what constitutes real property taxation, just leave that aside, I’m wondering if it is not the ᓴᓂᕐᕙᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᑦᑎᒍ, ᑭᓱᑦ ᓄᓇᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᐅᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓐᖏᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᒋᑦ. ᐃᓱᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᒪ,

case that the different wording in the two ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᓂᖃᕐᖓᑎᒃ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑏᒃ agreements explains why the NWT PATA ᒪᕐᕉᒃ. ᑕᐃᒪᖑᑯᐊᖃᐃ ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊᕐᒥᐅᑕᐃᑦ and the proposed Bill 55 treat Inuvialuit and ᐸᐃᑕᒃᑰᕙᓪᓚᐃᔪᓄᑯᐊ, ᐊᒻᒪ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55-ᖑᒐᓱᑦᑐᖅ, the Inuit-owned lands differently. Thank you, ᐃᓄᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑎᑕᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᒫᓂ ᐃᓄᓐᓂᒃ. Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᔅᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑰᑦᑎᖅ. Kotierk.

Ms. Kotierk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Thank you for ᑰᑦᑎᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) the question, Member Angnakak. In ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏ ᐊᐱᕆᒐᕕᑦ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. understanding the issue, I think we have to ᑐᑭᓯᓪᓗᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᔭᖅ. ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᒍᑦ understand the separate nature of land from ᐃᓛᒃᑰᖓᒻᒪᑏᒃ, ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᓛᒃᑰᖓᒻᒪᑕ. improvement. While the Inuvialuit Final ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᓄᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦ. Agreement may slightly be broader in ᐃᓄᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ, ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅᓯᐅᑎ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓ exemption for Inuvialuit lands than from the ᓴᓂᒧᑐᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅ, ᓴᓂᕌᕉᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ Nunavut Agreement for Inuit-owned lands, ᒪᓕᒐᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕘᓪᓕ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓᑕ and thank you for reading section 47, the ᐊᔾᔨᒋᑦᑎᐊᖏᒻᒥᒻᒪᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, 47 ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ Inuvialuit Final Agreement is equally silent ᐅᖃᓕᒫᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᐅᒃ, ᐃᓄᕕᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓ on who should be responsible for property tax ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᖏᒻᒥᔪᖅ ᑭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᒋᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᓄᑦ. for improvements. For mining improvements, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᖏᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔾᔮᓲᑦ, ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᓯᔪᐃᑦ the universal practice and the law of general ᓇᒻᒥᓂᓖᑦ, ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᓲᖑᕗᑦ application typically provide that the owner of ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᒥᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. the improvements, in this case mining companies, are responsible for the property taxes for the improvements.

I think one of the areas of the interpretive dispute that we have as Inuit organizations ᐃᓚᖓᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᔪᖅ, ᐃᓛᒃ ᑐᑭᖓᓂ with the Government of Nunavut is the way in ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖃᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ which Inuit organizations or Inuit-owned ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ lands are being treated differently than Crown ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᔭᐅᖏᑦᑐᑎᑐᑦ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑕ ᑯᐃᓐ lands and there is no regard to the public ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑎᑐᑦ, ᑯᐃᓐ ᓄᓇᖑᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ. ᐃᓄᓕᒫᓄᑦ nature of Inuit-owned lands which, as you ᐱᒋᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᔫᔮᖏᒻᒪᑕ, stated in the joint submission of the regional ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᐅᑎᓕᓐᓄᑦ ᐱᒋᔭᐅᑎᑕᓐᖑᐊᒍᔫᔮᕐᖓᑕ. Inuit associations and Nunavut Tunngavik ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑏᓴᕝᕙ 9, 2020-ᒥ Incorporated dated December 9, 2020, on ᑎᑎᕋᔪᔭᖓᓂ ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖓ 5, ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ, page 5, we make references to examples that ᐆᑦᑑᑎᖃᖅᑐᑕ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᖅᑎᑦᑎᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ clearly illustrate that Inuit organizations are ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᐅᑎᓕᑦᑎᑐᑦ, ᑎᒥᑎᑐᑦ being treated as public entities and as such, ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒻᒪᑖ. ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᐱᒋᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ we would argue that as public entities, they ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᕆᐊᓕᐅᒐᓗᐊᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᓕᕆᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. should be treated as public entities through this amendment process of Bill 55.

I would further point out that on page 6 of the ᐊᒻᒪ ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓂᕐᒥᓗᖓ, ᒪᑉᐱᒐᖓᓂ 6-ᖓᓂ,

joint submission that we made, there is ᑲᑐᔾᔨᓪᓗᑕ ᑎᑎᕋᔪᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ, ᓄᓇᕗᖅᓯ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎ reference to the Nunavut Agreement, 17.1.1, ᑕᐃᓯᒪᒐᑦᑎᒍ 17.1.1, which clearly talks about Inuit-owned lands ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ and how Inuit-owned lands shall be to provide ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ, ᐃᓄᖕᓂᑦ Inuit with rights in land, that promotes ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᕕᐅᓂᐊᕐᖓᑕ, ᒪᑭᒪᐅᑎᓄᓪᓗ, economic self-sufficiency of Inuit through ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕐᕕᔅᓴᓄᓪᓗ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᓯᕕᐅᕙᓪᓕᐊᓂᐊᕐᓗᑎᒃ, time, in a manner consistent with Inuit social ᒪᓕᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᒍᒪᔭᖏᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᖁᔭᖏᓪᓗ. and cultural needs and aspirations. I think, as ᐅᓪᓗᒥᐅᔪᖅ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᑎᓪᓗᒍ, the bill is currently being put forward, it ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᓗᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᖅ creates an unnecessary burden that will be ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖏᒻᒪᕇᒃᑑᒐᓗᐊᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᕘᑦ contrary to the intent of the Nunavut ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑎᖓᑦᑕ ᓴᖅᑭᕋᓱᐊᖅᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Agreement and undermine the purpose of the ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑕᓗ Inuit land ownership for Inuit organizations. ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Angnakak. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you. Thank you for your response. Up until now, I guess, my ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᑕᐅᖅ ᑭᐅᒐᕕᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᖃᐃ ᐅᓪᓗᒥᒨᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᖃᑎᒐ colleague Mr. Qirngnuq was talking about the ᕿᓐᖑᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑲᐅᒻᒪᑦ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᑭᓐᖑᖅ, ᑖᒃᓯᓂᑦ taxes that were owed by the Mary River ᐊᑭᓕᔅᓴᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, mining company and it was the government ᓄᓘᔮᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓂᓛᒃ that has been collecting or trying to collect ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᑎᒐᓱᐊᕐᖓᑕ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓂᖓ $12 these taxes. We’re up to roughly almost $12 ᒥᓕᐊᕈᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᐊᓘᓕᖅᑐᐃᓂᒃᑯᐊ. ᓱᒻᒪᓄᑯᐊ million. Why did it take so long for this to be ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓘᖅᓯᒪᕙᑦ, ᐊᑯᓂᐊᓗᒃ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᒐᓱᐊᖅᓯᒪᕙᑦ. addressed? I’m just curious why that debt was ᖃᐅᔨᒍᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ. ᓱᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑭᓕᔅᓴᖅ allowed to increase and increase every year. ᐸᐅᖓᐸᓪᓕᐊᑐᐊᓗᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᑎᐅᓐᓂᕐᖓᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᔅᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ. Minister Ehaloak.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. Through you, I’ll ask Mr. Ahlfors ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅᒧᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᖁᔭᕋᓗᐊᕋ to answer the Member’s question. Thank you, ᖃᓄᐃᔅᓴᓐᖏᒃᑯᕕᑦ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Ahlfors, just keep in ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ, mind for the interpretation. Go ahead. ᐳᐃᒍᖅᑕᐃᓕᒋᑦ ᑐᓵᔨᒃᑰᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒥᒐᕕᑦ. ᐊᑏ.

Mr. Ahlfors: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. thank the Member for the question. The issue ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᕆᒻᒪᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ is that every time that an assessment has been ᐃᓱᒫᓗᒋᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑐᖃᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ

made with respect to those lands for the past ᖃᑦᑎᕌᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂ ᐊᓂᒍᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ several years, since about 2014-15, they have 2014-2015-ᒥᓂᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔭᕆᐊᑐᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ been challenged by the Qikiqtani Inuit ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᓗ Association before the Territorial Board of ᐊᓯᔾᔩᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑏᑦ Revision and after that, the assessment ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓄᖓ tribunal, and several of those years are still ᓱᒃᑯᐃᓕᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ before the assessment tribunal for a decision. ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᕋᓗᐊᖅᑐᑎᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ While that’s happening, the Government of ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓕ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᓂᑦ ᒪᓕᑦᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ Nunavut is very limited in its enforcement ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᓗᐊᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᕙᓂ. ᑖᓐᓇ powers because those challenges are still ᑕᕝᕙ ᐃᓚᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᐊᓗᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓯᒪᕗᑦ. pending before the tribunal. That is the reason ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑭᓖᒋᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᓕᕐᒥᔪᓯ that those numbers have accumulated because ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᐃᓇᓪᓚᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, every time that they receive a notice of ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. assessment, they challenge it and take it up the line. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Ms. Angnakak, I’ll give ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ, you one more question and then we’re going ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐊᒃᑲᓂᕐᓗᑎᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᑎᓐᓂᐊᓕᕋᒃᑭᑦ to take a break. Ms. Angnakak. ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you very much. There ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒻᒪᕆᐊᓗᒃ. are different reasons for the parties ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᕐᖓᑕᐃᓛᒃ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓛᒃᑯᑦ disagreeing with what this bill should look ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᓐᖏᔾᔪᑎᔅᓴᖃᕐᓂᕐᖓᑕ like or shouldn’t look like, and one of the ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᕈᓘᔮᓗᓐᓂᒃ. ᐅᓇᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ words that seem to be coming all the time is ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᒍᑕᐅᒍᓐᓇᕋᓂ. “improvements,” improvements in respect to ᐅᓇᓗ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᐅᓕᖅᑭᑦᑖᖏᓐᓇᕐᖓᑦ machinery and equipment. I know that clause ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ, 3 of Bill 55 amends section 2 of the Property ᐃᒫᖃᐃ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᒥᖅᑲᐃ ᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐃᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ. Assessment and Taxation Act by changing the ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 3, ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55-ᒥ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᔪᑦ wording of the current definition of ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 2-ᒥ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ “improvement.” I’m wondering: what is the ᐊᓯᔾᔨᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖓ. ᑖᓐᓇ rationale for this change? Thank you, Mr. ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖅ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖅᑕᐅᖑᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ. ᓱᒻᒪᑦ Chairman. ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᕙ ᑕᐃᒎᓯᖓ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, I’ll ask Mr. Seeley to ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᒥᔅᑕ answer the Member’s question. Thank you. ᓰᓕᒧᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᖁᔭᕋᓗᐊᕋ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Seeley, on clause 3. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅᑕ ᓰᓕ, ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 3 ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ. Mr. Seeley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᓰᓕ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

I thank the Member for the question. The ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᐱᕆᒻᒪᑦ. matter of improvements on the lands is pretty ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ fundamental to the entire bill, so I thank you ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒐᕕᐅᒃ. for the question.

Without the improvements, the land is the ᓄᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑎᓐᓇᒍ ᓄᓇ ᓄᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒻᒪᑦ land. Improvements can range from, and I ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑏᑦ ᒪᑯᐊᖑᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ think some descriptions were given earlier on ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑐᕈᑕᐅᖅᑲᐅᔪᖅ ᖃᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ the nature of some improvements, things like ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑦ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑦ bridges, things like roads, culverts, and even ᐃᑳᕈᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑦ ᐊᖅᑯᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑦ berms to restrict drainage and things like that. ᑰᕝᕕᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑕᓗ ᐊᖅᑯᑏᑦ ᐊᑖᒍᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ It can also include buildings or built structures ᖃᓄᐃᑦᑐᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᒃ ᑰᕝᕕᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑉᐸᑕ ᐊᑐᕆᐊ on the land, so not unlike any type of land, the ᑭᓪᓕᖓᒍᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᔾᔭ ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᖅᓯᓂᐅᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ. improvements or anything that increases the ᓄᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓄᓇᒥ total assessed value of that property. ᓱᕐᕋᑦᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᑐᑦ.

The purpose of refining the language around improvements is very much about improving ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖏᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒐᓱᔪᒻᒪᑕ the clarity to all parties subject to the ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᑎ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᓪᓚᕆᔪᔪᑦ legislation, to reduce the level of uncertainty ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᓂᖅᓴᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᓕᒫᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ and confusion and/or any kind of complaints ᓇᓗᓕᕈᑎᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐱᔭᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᒍᒪᔪᒐᑦᑎᒍ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᓐᖏᔾᔪᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᖏᑦ. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᐅᑉ on the assessed value and how those ᖃᑦᑎᕌᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᒥᔅᓵᓄᑦ, improvements are actually assessed by the ᑭᓱᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐱᐅᓯᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ assessing agency. The improvements can be ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐆᑦᑑᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᒃᑲ ᑕᐃᒪ anything, depending on the sector and the ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᔾᔮᓲᑦ ᑭᒃᑯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓄᑦ nature of each property, but in this case I ᓄᓇᓕᒻᒥ. think I have given you some examples of the nature of mining improvements, which seem to be the topic of the day.

I hope that answers the question. Thank you, ᑭᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᕋᖃᐃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᐅᔪᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Seeley. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᓰᓕ. As mentioned, we will now take a 15-minute ᐅᖃᕋᑖᕋᒪ ᑕᐃᒪ ᒫᓐᓇ 15 ᒥᓂᑦᓯᒥᒃ break and we will be back after the break to ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕋᑦᑕ ᐅᑎᕐᓂᐊᕐᒥᔪᒍᑦ continue questioning. (interpretation) Thank ᐊᐱᖅᓱᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. you.

>>Committee recessed at 15:29 and resumed >>ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖓᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ 15:29ᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ at 15:52 ᐱᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᑐᑎᒃ 15:52ᒥ

Chairman (interpretation): The hearing will now reconvene. Before we went on break, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖅ ᐱᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᐊᓕᕐᒥᖕᒪᑦ. Members were asking questions and that will ᓄᖅᑲᖓᒋᐊᖅᑳᖅᑎᓐᓇᑕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᓯᒃᓴᓖᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᑦᑕᖅᑑᓪᓗᐊᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ,

continue. Mr. Rumbolt. ᑲᔪᓯᓂᐊᕐᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕋᒻᐳᑦ.

Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ᕋᒻᐳᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ quote from the president of NTI’s opening ᐅᓐᓄᓴᒃᑯᑦ. ᐅᓇ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ comments before I ask a question to ᒪᑐᐃᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᒥᖃᐃ ᓄᓘᔮᖕᓄᑦ Baffinland. On page 2, items 11 and 12, the ᐊᐱᕆᓚᐅᕐᒥᓚᖓ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ 11, 12 ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 2ᒥ president said that “The Government of ᐅᖃᕐᒪᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ Nunavut now proposes to transfer the ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓇᓕᖅᑲᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ property tax burden” on to Inuit organizations, ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓅᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᓕᕐᒪᑕᒎᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪ 12ᒥ and then 12 says that “The Government of ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᓂᒃᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ Nunavut had a choice: they could have chosen ᐅᔭᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓅᖏᖔᕐᓗᑎᒃ. mining companies instead of Inuit ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓲᑎᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᑦ, ᐹᕙᓐᓛᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ organizations. It would have been a policy ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᖓ, ᑖᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ option that is easily acceptable to all parties, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑲᐅᒋᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᐅᖃᐃ, including the mining industry.” My question ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. to Baffinland is whether or not they agree with the statement that the president of NTI put in her opening comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᖃᕆᑕᐅᔭᑎᒍᑦ Through Zoom, if you are available, Mr. ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᓐᓂᕈᕕᑦ ᒥᔅᑕ ᒧᐊ. Moore.

Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt, for the question. I ᒧᐊ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᒥᔅᑕ would sort of respond to this in a roundabout ᕋᒻᐳᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒐᖕᓂ. ᑭᐅᓪᓚᕆᖏᓪᓗᖓᖃᐃ way by saying that I wouldn’t look at a ᖃᓄᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᖃᑕᐅᖏᒻᒪᑦ hypothetical situation in the bill or rather, ᓇᓕᐊᖕᓄᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑦ. something that’s not in the bill and that the Government of Nunavut not deciding to proceed one way or the other.

I think what I can say is that if Baffinland ᐃᒪᐃᓕᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓᖃᐃ ᓄᓘᔮᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᐊ owes property taxes as per the Property Tax ᐹᕙᓐᓛᓐ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓴᖃᕐᓂᖅᐸᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓄᑦ Assessment Act, it would pay those taxes. As ᒪᓕᒡᓗᒍ ᐱᖁᑎᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ was stated numerous times already, the ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᖅ ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐊᕐᓇᑕ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒐᑦᑕ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ current taxes on Mary River are in dispute and ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑎᒎᕈᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ should the tribunal render its decision, we ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᖅᓰᓪᓗᑎᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓ would of course remedy and follow the ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᒃᐸᒃᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐊᖓ decision of the tribunal. Thank you, Mr. ᒪᓕᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑕᕗᑦ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Rumbolt. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕋᒻᐳᑦ.

Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᕋᒻᐳᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ thank him for the response. My next question ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᖢᑎᑦ ᑭᐅᒐᕕᑦ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ is going to be for the Government of Nunavut. ᓵᖔᓕᕐᓗᖓ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒫᓐᓇᕈᓘᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ In a recent letter to the Committee from ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ ᕕᑉᕗᐊᕆ 11ᒥ February 11, and the letter was from the ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖏᓐᓂᖔᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ Minister of Finance, and in that letter he ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔨ stated that Bill 55 also adds an option where ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᓇᓖᕌᕐᕕᒃᓴᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ the assessed owner, like the designated Inuit ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ organization, can ask the Government of ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᓂᒃ Nunavut to send a notice of assessment ᑐᓂᓯᑲᐅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᑦ directly to the mine to streamline payment. ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᖏᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55, ᓱᑯᑦᑎᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ Can the minister confirm whether this is in ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Bill 55 and, if so, where in Bill 55? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) I’ll just clarify ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᕋᒻᐴᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐄ, that that letter was sent to a Committee ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒃᑲᓂᕐᓗᒍ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᒧᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ Member and that Committee Member kindly ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᐊᖕᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖅ provided it or shared it with the Committee. ᐊᔾᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓄᑦ ᑐᓂᐅᖅᑲᐃᒡᓗᓂ. ᒥᔅ Minister Ehaloak. ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. Through you, I’ll ask Mr. Ahlfors ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᓗᒋᑦ ᒥᔅᑐ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ to answer the Member’s question. Thank you, ᑭᐅᖁᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ. Ahlfors.

Mr. Ahlfors: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, that is on page 8 of the bill, about the middle ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, of the page, subclause 8(2) states “The ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 8-ᒦᑦᑐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓂᒃ, ᐊᑯᓐᓂᐸᓗᐊᓂ following is added after subsection 27(2)” and ᓈᓴᐅᑎᕈᓯᐊ 8(2). 27(2) ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ, there it says, “An assessed owner,” so that ᓲᕐᓗ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᖅ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᑎᒍᑦ would be the landowner, “may request, in ᐊᐱᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᕕᓂᖏᑦᑕ writing, that the Director or the senior ᑐᕌᕈᑖᓂᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓇᔭᕐᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᑯᖓ, ᐅᑯᐊ administrative officer, as the case may be, ᓇᑦᓯᐅᑎᓚᐅᒃᑮᓚᓗᒋᑦ. ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖕᓂᒃ send a copy of a notice of assessment to ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑦᑎᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᒧᑦ, another person at a specified address.” That’s ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑐᒧᓪᓗ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. a request that they can make and then the notice would also be sent to that other person, but it would be sent to the landowner but would also be sent to the other person, so there would be two notices. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᓐᓇᐅᖅᑲᑎᒡᓗᒍ, (interpretation ends) Maybe just on that topic, ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒋᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᖁᓪᓗᒍ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᓇᓖᕌᕈᑎᖃᕐᕕᒃ, just to clarify, this option where the notice of ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖓᔪᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓄᑦ, assessment would be sent directly to the mine ᐊᐅᓪᓚᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᓂᒃ ᓇᓕᖅᑲᖓᑦ to streamline payment, even with this option ᒪᓕᒐᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖕᒨᖓᔪᖅ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ in place, the legal responsibility for the ᑎᒥᖁᑖᓄᑦ, ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᓄᓇᒥᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᕐᒪᑦ. assessed tax payable would lie with the ᑕᐃᑰᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᐃ? ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᓵᑕᒃᓴᑐᐊᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. designated Inuit organization. I just would ᒥᓂᔅᑐ. like to get that clarified. Minister.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, to be transparent so that the ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Government of Nunavut chose that should the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓗᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ, mining company dispute the taxes that are to ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓂᑦ ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᖅᐸᑦ, be paid with the Inuit organization, they have ᓈᒻᒪᒋᓐᖏᑉᐸᒍᓪᓗ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐊᑭᓖᒐᔭᖅᐳᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ a copy of that assessment so that they know ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᓯᒪᖕᒥᒻᒪᑕ. that those taxes and the taxes that they are ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᒐᔭᕐᓗᐊᖅᑕᖏᑦ, ᐄ, ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᔪᖅ. supposed to pay are accurate. Thank you, Mr. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ (interpretation ends) Thank you for clarifying ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᖕᓂ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) that. (interpretation) Our Committee ᑲᑎᒪᔨᐅᖃᑎᕗᑦ, (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅᑐ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ ᐊᖕᒪᓗ colleagues, (interpretation ends) Mr. Qamaniq ᒥᔅᑐ ᐲᑐᓴᓐ, ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᕈᔅᓯ and Mr. Pedersen, if you have questions, just ᖃᐅᔨᒃᑲᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᖓ, ᐊᒡᒐᓐᖑᐊᑯᓗᐃᑦ let me know; raise your hand or your Zoom ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᐊᒡᒐᓪᓚᑦᑖᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᓗᒍ. hand. There we go. Mr. Qamaniq, go ahead. ᒥᔅᑐ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

Mr. Qamaniq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. (interpretation) Welcome to the invited (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒡᓕᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ guests. ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ.

(interpretation ends) My question will be (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ going to the Government of Nunavut. Under ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᕐᔪᐊᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᒍᑦ the Property Assessment and Taxation Act, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖓᑦ ᖃᔅᓯᓂᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ the Minister of Finance is responsible for ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓯᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔨᐅᖕᒪᑦ, ᕼᐃᓛᒃ setting mill rates. How are the mill rates ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐅᕙ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. determined? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ. Minister Ehaloak.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, I’ll ask Assistant ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Deputy Minister Dan Carlson to answer the ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᓗᒍ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅᑉ ᑐᖏᓕᐊᑕ Member’s question, as the mill rates are ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑎᐊ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᑳᓪᓴᓐ ᑭᐅᑎᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ, ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ

established by the Department of Finance. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓱᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᑳᓪᓴᓐ. Carlson.

Mr. Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question. Each year the ᑳᓪᓴᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ):ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Minister of Finance does something called a ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᖅᖢᒍ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᖓᖕᓂ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ mill rate establishment order. It’s essentially a ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᖓᑦ, ᑎᓕᐅᕈᑎᓂᒃ, small piece of regulation that sets out the mill ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᖅ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓪᓗᓂ ᖃᑦᓯᓂᒃ rates for the year. The question is: how do we ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑕᒪᑐᒪᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ. determine what that is?

What our team does, our small tax team at the ᑖᒃᓯᓕᕆᔩᑦ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᕕᐊᓃᑦᑐᑦ Department of Finance, is we look at the ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ. assessed properties, we look at the different ᓇᓗᓇᐃᒃᑯᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ classes, we look at the different values of ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒃᖢᑎᒃᑯ those properties, and then we run a few ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓪᓗᐊᖏᓐᓂᒃ scenarios, we try out different mill rates, and ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓯᓐᖑᐊᕐᓗᑕ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᑯᓄᖓ, ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ we make some suggestions. What we will say ᐃᒡᓗᓕᖕᓄᑦ, ᐃᒪᓐᓇᑎᒋ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᒍᑦᑕ, ᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ. is if we raise mill rates for residential by this little bit, then these are the impacts on property owners in this way.

We run a number of different models behind ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓱᐃᓐᖑᐊᓚᐅᖅᖢᑕ, ᐊᑕᐅᓯᐅᖏᑦᑐᓂᑦ the scenes and then from there we make a ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒐᑦᑕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᒥᓂᔅᑕᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ recommendation to the Minister of Finance ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᑐᓂᖦᖤᖅᐸᑎᒍᑦ, and the Financial Management Board. If they ᐱᐅᒋᔭᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᕗᖅ. ᐊᑲᐅᒋᓐᖏᒃᑯᓂᐅᒃ agree with us, then they approve and the mill ᐊᓯᖔᖓᓂᒃ ᐆᒃᑐᓕᓲᖑᔪᒍᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. rates become regulation and, if they don’t agree with us, they send us back and we try again or we try a different suggestion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Going ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᐃᓕᖕᓄᑦ ᐅᑎᕐᓗᑕ ᒥᔅᑕ, ᖃᒪᓂᖅ. back to you, Mr. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the answer. Are there any ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. changes to the current mill rates being ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᓵᕋᖕᓂ. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓂᒃ, considered, Mr. Chairman? Thank you. ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅᓯᒪᕕᓰ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ. Minister.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. As Mr. Carlson has stated, the mill ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᑳᓪᓴᓐ ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᑦ, ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ rates are reviewed on a yearly basis. Thank ᖃᔅᓯᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓖᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ you, Mr. Chairman. ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᒃᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The question was: are ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᐹ any changes to current mill rates being ᑕᒪᑐᒪᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᒃᓴᐃᑦ? ᒥᓂᔅᑐ. considered? Minister.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᔅᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Qamaniq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

Mr. Qamaniq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In November 2020 the department issued a ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. request for proposals for the provisions of ᓅᕙᐃᒻᕙ 2020-ᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑎᓂᒃ property assessment services. The request for ᑕᖅᑲᐅᖓᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᓴᓂᒃ, proposals closed on December 11, 2020. The ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᔨᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕇᑦ ᒥᒃᓵᓅᖓᔪᓂᒃ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᑐᓚᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᓂ ᑏᓴᕝᕙ 11, 2021-ᒥ. government’s current contract with the ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒃ ᑯᐊᐳᕇᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᖓᑦ ᐃᓱᓕᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ Qikiqtaaluk Corporation expired on March ᒫᑦᓯ 31, 2021. ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᓴᖅ 31, 2021. What was the outcome of the ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓕᖅᐸ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. request for proposals process? Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ. Minister.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Chairman. Through you, I’ll ask Deputy ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦ, ᒥᓂᔅᑕᐅ ᑐᖏᓕᐊ ᒥᔅᑐ Minister Mr. Seeley to answer the Member’s ᓰᓕ ᑭᐅᑎᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. question. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᓰᓕ. Seeley.

Mr. Seeley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for the question. The ᓰᓕ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᖕᒪᓗ assessment services for the GN are ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒐᖕᓂ. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ administered through a contract and have ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕈᑏᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᑦ been for many years. That contract is ᑳᓐᑐᕌᖅᑎᒎᖅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒐᓵᓗᖕᓄᑦ procured through a public RFP that the ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᖅ, ᑳᓐᑐᕌᒃᓴᐃᑦ Member quoted. I don’t have the actual ᑕᖅᑲᐅᖓᑦᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᑭᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᒧᑦ results for that particular RFP or the status of ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᓯᔪᖅᑕᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᖔᑦ, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᖓ ᓱᓕ ᒫᓐᓇ,

it, but it is typically issued on a five-year term ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᖅ to the most appropriate bidder or the eventual ᐊᑯᓂᐅᑎᒋᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᖅ. ᐄ, ᖃᐅᑉᐸᖃᐃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ successful proponent. We can certainly get ᓇᓗᓇᐃᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓕᔅᓯᓄᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, that information back to the Committee as ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. early as tomorrow, if that’s acceptable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Thank you and that ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐄ, would be acceptable. Thanks. (interpretation) ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ Mr. Qamaniq, do you still have questions? ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᖅᐱᑦ ᓱᓕ? Mr. Qamaniq.

Mr. Qamaniq: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is to the Chamber of ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐄ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Mines, I suppose, and the chamber indicates ᑖᓐᓇ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒐᒃᑯ, ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ on page 12 of its submission, “Mines are even 12, ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓂᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑏᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ, charged property taxes for buildings they need ᒪᑯᓄᖓ ᐃᒍᑦᑎᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓄᑦ, ᒪᑯᐊᓗ ᐃᒡᓗᑦ to remove and reclaim, but they must also pay ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᕕᐅᕙᒃᖢᑎᒃ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᔪᓐᓇᖅᐲᑦ, reclamation security on those same ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᐱᐅᖏᒻᒪᖔᑦ ᐱᐅᒋᖏᒻᒪᖔᓘᓐᓃᑦ? buildings.” Can the chambers clarify why the ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. chamber considers this to be unreasonable?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᑖᐱᓐ. Dobbin.

Mr. Dobbin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our submission, yes, we did say that upon ᑖᐱᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, reclamation, mines are even charged for ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᔪᒍᑦ ᓴᓗᒻᒪᖅᓴᐃᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ, property taxes on buildings, so we were ᒪᑯᐊ ᐃᒡᓗᕐᔪᐊᑦ ᐃᒍᖅᑎᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᒡᓘᓐᓃᑦ saying that there is essentially double-dipping, ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕋᑦᑕ, ᓲᕐᓗ ᒪᕐᕈᐊᖅᑎᖅᖢᒍ but if my colleague, the president of the ᑖᓐᓇᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᕕᒋᒡᓗᒍ. ᐃᒻᒪᖄ, chamber, if Ken Armstrong is available, ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᑭᐅᑎᑦᑐᓐᓇᔪᒪᔭᕋ. maybe he can clarify that question further.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᓚᕖᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᔅᑐ (interpretation ends) We will go to you ᐊᒻᓯᑐᕌᖕ. through Zoom, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐊᒻᓯᑐᕌᖕ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐄ, Yes, thanks for the question. I will try my ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒋᒡᓗᒍ, ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᐅᖕᒪᑦ. best.

I think the concept is just to make Members ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖁᒡᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ sort of aware and mindful of some of the

additional costs that the mining operations ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑕᐅᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ have. Not only are mining operators required ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ. ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖕᓂ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᓯᔨᐅᔪᑦ to fund the actual construction of the ᐃᒡᖢᓕᐅᖦᖤᖅᐳᑦ, ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖁᑎᒋᖦᖤᖅᐸᖏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ improvements, which is obviously typical, ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒥᔪᑦ ᓴᓗᒪᖅᓴᐃᓕᕈᑎᒃ, ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ they also are required to post reclamation ᐃᓕᐅᒃᑲᓂᒃ ᓴᕝᕙᐃᓗᑎᒃ, ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ bonds or amounts of money up front in order ᑕᒪᕐᒥᑦᑎᐊᖅ ᐲᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᕋᓗᐊᒪᖔᖏᓐᓄᑦ to ensure that those improvements will be ᓇᓪᓕᐅᒃᑯᒫᑦ.ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐅᒍᑦ, ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᔪᑦ, properly reclaimed and removed in line with ᐅᑯᑎᒎᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒃᑯᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓᔅᓴᐃᓐᓇᖅ their land use permissions, and then on top of ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᑕ. that, also being taxed on the property tax ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑏᑦ. through this bill and this legislation for the use of those same buildings.

It’s just an additional expense that we’re just trying to make sure that the Members are ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔮᕆᔭᐅᖁᔭᕋ ᑖᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᓄᑎᒋ aware of when we look at the costs of mining ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓄᑦ operators in the territory. Thank you, Mr. ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Qamaniq. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ.

Mr. Qamaniq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᖃᒪᓂᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. thank that person for answering my question. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᖑᑲᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐ My last question for now is the chamber ᒫᓐᓇᒧᑦ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ, ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ indicates that the territorial government ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑦᑎᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᕕᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ “Provide a property tax rebate to mines for the ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᕼᐊᒻᓚᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕐᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ. ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ municipal/community services they must ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᐸᖏᑦ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᑎᖅᑎᑕᐅᕝᕕᒃ provide themselves.” Can they describe how ᖃᖓ, ᖃᓄᖅ ᐊᐅᓚᓂᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦ this rebate is envisioned to operate? Thank ᑕᑯᓐᓇᓐᖑᐊᖅᐱᓯᐅᒃ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᑖᐱᓐ. Dobbin.

Mr. Dobbin: I guess my colleague, Mr. ᑖᐱᓐ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖃᐃ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᓄᑦ, President of the Chamber, Ken Armstrong, ᑭᐊᓐ ᐋᒻᓯᑐᕌᖕ ᑭᐅᓇᓱᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᖅ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ can attempt to answer that question for the ᐊᐱᖅᑯᒻᒥᒃ. Committee Member.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓅᓐᓂᐊᖅᐳᒍᑦ (interpretation ends) We will go to you ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᒥᔅᑐ ᐋᒻᓯᑐᕌᖕ. through Zoom, Mr. Armstrong.

Mr. Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, this would be just in terms of ideas on, ᐊᒻᓯᑐᕌᖕ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

again, how to acknowledge some of the ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ, higher costs that our mining operators have in ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᕗᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ the territory. ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᑎᓂᒃ ᐱᑕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᐳᖅ.

I think it would require making an estimate of the overall amount that is being taxed and ᒥᒃᓴᐅᓴᒃᓯᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᕋᔭᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ, again, the government is stating that these ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑕᐅᑐᐃᓐᓇᕆᐊᓕᖕᒥᒃ, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᓱᓕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ taxes are used to provide services and in ᒐᕙᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᔨᑦᓯᕋᕈᑕᐅᕙᖕᒪᑕᒎᖅ, ᓲᕐᓗ particular, I think, we are thinking services ᑭᓈᓗᑦᑕᖕᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐆᒻᒪᖅᑯᑎᓄᓪᓗ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ like sewage and power and so on that ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑕᐅᖕᒥᓗᑎᒃ, typically a property taxpayer benefits from in ᓄᓇᓕᖕᒥᖕᓂᒃ. ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕐᓕ a community where they’re living, and in this ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ. case the mines have to provide those services for themselves.

It would be a matter of coming up with some estimate of what would be a fair estimate of the overall tax bill that normally would go ᒥᒃᓴᐅᓴᒃᓯᓯᒪᓗᑎᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᖏᑦ towards those services that the mine is ᖃᔅᓯᐅᒐᔭᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ. ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᓪᓕ providing for itself and looking for a rebate or ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ reduction of those amounts. That’s an idea for ᐃᓚᖓᐅᑎᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᒃᑲᐃᒋᒐᔭᖅᑰᔨᔭᕗᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. the Members’ consideration. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᖃᒪᓂᖅ Qamaniq, I believe you are done. Well, you ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓂᕋᓚᐅᕋᕕᐅᒃ, ᒪ’ᓇ. ᑲᔪᓯᓗᑕ. ᒥᔅ said that was your last question. Thank you. ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. Moving on. Ms. Angnakak.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. have a question for NTI. My question is, in its ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᓴᖃᖅᑐᖓ. news release, again, on November 10, 2020 ᑐᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᓅᕙᐃᒻᕙ 10, 2020-ᒥ, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated stated that ᐅᖃᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖏᒎᖅ ᑕᒻᒪᑉᒪᑕ “The Government of Nunavut (GN) is ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᓂᖓᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᑲᔫᑕᐅᔪᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ, misguided in its understanding on the benefits ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᐊᖏᕈᑕᐅᒋᐊᓐᖓᖅᑐᕕᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ of mineral development, particularly ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒍᓯᕕᒋᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔭᖓᓂᒃ grandfathered land leases on IOLs where Inuit ᓂᖏᖅᑕᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᓇᑕᐅᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂ inherited the royalty regime from the ᑲᒪᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᔅᓯ ᒥᓕᐊᕌᓗᖕᓂᒃ Government of Canada but would be made ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ. responsible for millions of dollars in mining taxes.”

I would like to know: what specific clauses in ᖃᐅᔨᔪᒪᔪᖓ, ᑕᕝᕙᓂᓕ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55-ᒥ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ Bill 55 does Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᖅᑕᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ object to and how does Nunavut Tunngavik ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔭᖓᓄᑦ Incorporated recommend these concerns be ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓱᒫᓗᑕᐅᔪᑦ.

addressed? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᔅ (interpretation ends) Through Zoom, Ms. ᑰᑦᑎᖅ. Kotierk.

Ms. Kotierk (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Thank you for the ᑰᑦᑎᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ question, Member Angnakak. I’m going to ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. provide a general comment and then I’m ᐅᖃᑐᐃᓐᓇᓚᐅᕐᓗᖓ ᒥᔅ ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖅ going to ask Kilikvak Kabloona to provide ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ ᑕᑯᔪᒪᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂᒃ details about the specific provisions we would ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕆᐊᓕᒃ. like to see amended.

First, I think I would like to acknowledge that governments have the right to govern. I would ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐅᖃᕈᒪᔪᖓ ᒐᕙᒪᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖃᕐᒪᑕ say that also in addition to that, governments ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᓐᓇᕆᓪᓗᓂ ᖄᒃᑲᓐᓂᐊᒍᑦ have the obligation to uphold Inuit rights. I ᒐᕙᒪᐅᔪᑦ ᐱᔭᒃᓴᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖏᓐᓂᒃ think that the importance in identifying is that, ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓂᒃ. ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᖅᑰᕐᒪᑦ ᓇᓕᓇᐃᕆᐊᕐᓗᒍ is that we have no dispute over whether or not ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᖅᑐᖅ, ᖃᓄᐃᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᔭᐃᔭᕈᑕᐅᔪᑦ property tax should be collected by the ᓄᐊᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑕ. governments.

What we do have concern and grave concern ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᖃᕐᔪᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ is the liability that would be placed on Inuit ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᒐᔭᖅᑐᑦ organizations as a designated Inuit ᑎᒥᐅᒋᔭᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ organization, as the landowner of Inuit-owned ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ lands and the way in which Inuit ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᐱᔭᐅᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ organizations are being treated differently ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᓯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑎᒥᐅᔪᓄᑦ than other public entities, despite through ᐅᓇᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᕕᒃᑎᒍᑦ courts and despite through assessments ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᒻᒪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ through the Canadian Tax Act, for instance, ᑎᒥᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ Inuit organizations are recognized as public ᑎᒥᐅᑎᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᑎᑐᑦ. entities.

Ultimately the concern that we have is that if Inuit organizations are liable for the property taxes, and I would say that it doesn’t really ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᓗᐊᖅᑕᕗᓪᓕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ matter to the mining companies. I recognize ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᐱᖁᑎᒻᒪᕇᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ mining companies that are present today ᖃᓄᐃᓪᓗᐊᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᒃ ᒫᓐᓇ would prefer that there are no property taxes, ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᖅᑎᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ that’s for them to argue, but it makes no ᐊᐃᕙᔾᔪᑎᑦ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑭᓇᒧᑦ ᑐᕌᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᐸᑦ difference who they actually remit their ᖃᓄᖅ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᓐᖏᑕᒻᒪᕆᒋᖕᒪᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ property taxes to, but it makes a big difference ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒃᐸᑕ ᐹᐱᓪᓛᒃᑯᓐᓂ if Inuit organizations are liable because, in the ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ case for Baffinland, Nunavut Tunngavik

Incorporated still has not received royalties ᑎᒥᖓ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ and don’t expect to receive royalties until ᓂᖏᖅᑕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓇᑕᓗ ᓂᕆᐅᔾᔮᓇᑎᒡᓗ 2030- 2030 because it is a grandfathered property. ᖑᕋᓱᐊᕐᓂᖓᓐᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐊᑐᖅᐸᒌᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᑐᕐᓂᖏᑦ.

Having said that, through Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements, regional Inuit ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᖅᑕᐅᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᓪᓗ associations are able to access benefits. As ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪ Members will know, there are about 21 ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ 21 ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑑᖕᒪᑕ ᐃᓗᓕᖓ 23 different areas under Article 26, Schedule 1, ᐅᐃᒍᖓ ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᕕᒃᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ areas that regional Inuit associations can ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐋᔩᖃᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ negotiate to get benefits to mitigate the ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᓂᖏᑦ impacts of resource development. Our ᐊᒃᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᑲᔪᕈᑏᑦ concern is that if there is a liability, Inuit ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᓂᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᖃᖅᐸᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ organizations will have to make choices about ᓂᓖᕌᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᒪᓐᓇ whether or not they’re able to provide benefits ᐃᑲᔪᕈᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ. to Inuit.

In the Qikiqtaaluk region, for instance, one of the benefits through this is the daycare ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᖕᒥ ᓲᕐᓗ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᖓᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ subsidies, and we do not want to be in a ᐸᐃᕆᕕᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᓘᕈᒪᖕᒪᑕ position where we have to make decisions ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᒋᐊᖃᕈᒪᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᑲᔫᑎᖃᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒻᒪᕆᐅᓚᐅᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᖕᓄᑦ about things that continue to have a very ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᖏᒻᒪᑕ, ᓂᕈᐊᖅᑎᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕᑦᑕᐅᖅ positive impact on Inuit who are not only the ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ. constituents of Inuit organizations but also the constituents of this public government.

I just wanted to make that broad and I will ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓚᐅᑲᒍᒪᕙᕋ ᓱᕈᑎᒃᓴᖏᒃᑯᕕᑦ ask, if you don’t mind, Mr. Chairman, that ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓗᓕᑯᓘᔭᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ Kilikvak Kabloona speak to the specificities ᑕᑯᔪᒪᔭᒐᖅᑕᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᐅᑕᐅᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. of the provisions we would like to see amended. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖅ. Kabloona.

Ms. Kabloona (interpretation): Good day. (interpretation ends) Thank you for the ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖅ: ᐅᓪᓗᒃᑯᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ question. We would be looking at the bill ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᑯᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᓂᖅᓴᕆᓐᖏᑕᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ more favourably with some changes to the ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᒪᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᔪᒪᒐᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ particular wording. We would like to see that ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ designated Inuit organizations be exempt of ᐊᑭᓕᐊᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖕᒪᑕ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ being recorded as the assessed owner of an ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᔪᕕᓂᕐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ improvement when that improvement is not ᖄᖓᓂ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ owned by the designated Inuit organization ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦᑕᓗ and it is on Inuit-owned land, and new ᖄᖓᓃᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᑖᓐᓇ language confirming that this applies

retroactively since the creation of Nunavut. ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐱᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᑯᖓ ᐅᑎᕆᐊᖅᓯᒪᓂᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ. As President Kotierk mentioned, the issue is that on grandfathered land leases, Inuit ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᑰᑦᑎᖅ ᐅᖃᕋᑖᕐᒪᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑕᐅᔅᓱᒧᖓ organizations will not receive royalties until ᐅᑎᕆᐊᕈᑦᑕ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ capital costs have been paid. Bill 55 asks us to ᓂᖏᖅᑕᓕᕐᔮᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑭᑐᔪᖅᑐᕈᑎᓄᑦ take the liability of property tax when we are ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55 receiving potentially no revenue. The ᑐᒃᓯᕋᕐᒪᑦ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᓂᖁᔨᒻᒪᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ government then proposes that we build that ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᒥᒃ ᐃᓯᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᔪᖃᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒍ. into our leases and that we refer the costs to the mining company. Of course the government could do it themselves with contractual obligations. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓪᓕ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᓄᑦ The challenge behind that is that the ᑐᓂᖔᓕᕐᒥᓗᑎᒍ ᐊᑭᖏᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕐᓕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ government asked us to require that it is built ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓘᕈᓐᓇᕋᓗᐊᕐᒥᖕᒪᑕ ᑳᓐᑐᓛᒃᑯᑦ into our leases. That information was ᐱᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑕᖏᑎᒍᑦ ᑕᕝᕘᓇ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᕐᓇᕐᓂᖃᕐᓂᖅ provided to the Standing Committee. The ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᕙᑦᑎᓐᓂ ᑎᓕᓯᒋᐊᕐᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ government then suggested that we cancel the ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᔾᔪᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖔᖁᔨᓪᓗᑎᒃ land leases for operating mines if those taxes ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ were not paid, and we are not interested in ᐅᖃᓕᕆᕗᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᒥᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᕈᑎᖏᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᑦᑎᑦᑎᐊᕐᒪᕆᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᕙᒃᑐᓂᒃ putting hundreds of Inuit out of work to ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓖᓐᖏᒃᑯᑦᑕ ᖃᔅᓯ ᕼᐊᓐᓇᓛᓗᖕᓂᒃ achieve that outcome when there are many ᐃᓄᖕᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᒪᓐᖏᓐᓇᑦᑕ. other opportunities for collecting that the ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓘᕋᓱᖕᓂᐊᕈᑦᑕ ᐊᒥᓲᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ government has access to. ᓄᐊᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᕋᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ, ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᔪᑦ ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖁᔭᕗᑦ. I’ll repeat those wording changes. We would look more favourably upon the bill if it ᐱᐅᒋᓂᖅᓴᕆᒐᔭᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ provided that designated Inuit organizations ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᒃ are exempt from being recorded as the ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᐅᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᔪᕕᓃᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ assessed owner of an improvement when the ᓴᓇᔭᐅᔪᕕᓂᖅ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓂ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᑎᓐᓇᒍ improvement is not owned by the designated ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓃᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ. ᐊᒻᒪᓗ Inuit organization and is on Inuit-owned land, ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᖓ ᑖᓐᓇᓗ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ and then confirm that this change applies ᐱᓐᖑᖅᑎᑕᐅᓚᐅᕐᓂᖓᓐᓄᑦ retroactively since the creation of Nunavut. ᐅᑎᕆᐊᖅᑎᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᔅ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) Kabloona. (interpretation ends) Back to you, ᐅᑎᕐᕕᒋᓗᒍ ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. Ms. Angnakak.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. thank NTI for their response. My next ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᐅᔾᔪᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ. question along the same lines is for Baffinland ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋ ᑕᒪᑐᒧᖓᑦᑕᐃᓐᓇᖅᑕᐅᖅ Iron Mines. ᐹᕕᓐᓛᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓕᕐᒥᓗᒍ.

The most recently published annual reports ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑦ ᓄᑖᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ under the federal Extractive Sector ᐅᔭᕋᐅᔭᕋᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᒡᓃᒍᒃᑯᑦ Transparency Measures Act, it’s a big, long ᐊᑭᓖᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ 6.8-ᒥᓕᐊᖑᓗᐊᕌᕐᔪᒃᑐᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ title to me, indicate that Agnico Eagle Mines ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ 2019-2020 ᐊᕐᕌᒍᐊᓂ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ paid a total of a little over $6.8 million in ᓴᓇᔭᐅᒐᖅ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓖᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ taxes to the Government of Nunavut during ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᕐᕌᒎᒃ ᒪᕐᕉᖕᓂᒃ. the 2019 and 2020 calendar years, and so by contrast, Baffinland Iron Mines paid no taxes to the Government of Nunavut during either of these calendar years.

In a recent set of financial statements, Baffinland indicated that it has taken the ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᑦ ᖃᓄᐃᓕᖓᓂᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ position that since it or its subsidiaries only ᐹᕕᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓚᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᖕᒪᑦ, lease lands, it’s not subject to any municipal ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑎᑕᖏᓐᓂᒡᓕ or territorial land taxes. What I would like to ᑕᖅᑲᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᕼᐊᒻᒪᓚᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ know is: what is Baffinland’s rationale for ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓄᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓄᓇᕘᒥ ᖃᓄᕐᖑᓇ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᖃᖅᑐᖅ taking this position? Thank you, Mr. ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᑯᒃᑲᓂᕐᓗᒋᑦ (interpretation ends) Again, I’m looking at our ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑰᖅᑕᕗᑦ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᒧᐊ. Zoom screen. Mr. Moore.

Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the question. Unfortunately I’m ᒧᐊ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ not sure what document or reference material ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖕᓄᑦ. ᐊᐃᑦᑖᖑᒐᓗᐊᖅ ᓇᓕᐊᖕᓂᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅ the Member is referring to, so I can’t answer ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ. ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᔭᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ the question unless I have the document in ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᓐᓇᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖅ ᑕᑯᓐᓈᖏᓪᓗᒍ. question.

I would say, however, that Baffinland did pay taxes to the Government of Nunavut in the ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐅᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᖓ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ last ESTMA reporting year. We paid our ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ ᐊᑭᓖᓚᐅᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒫᓂ payroll taxes on behalf of our employees, as ᐊᕐᕌᕉᕋᑖᖅᑐᒥ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ well as our fuel tax. As indicated in my ᐅᖅᓱᐊᓗᖕᒧᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᒪᑐᐃᕈᑎᓐᓂᒃ $15 opening statement, it totalled close to $15 ᒥᓕᐊᑲᓴᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓂ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. million last year. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The document that Ms. Angnakak was referring to was the federal ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᖅ ᒥᔅ Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᐅᑉ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕋᑖᖅᑕᖓ ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ annual report and so she was referring to that ᐅᔭᕋᐃᔭᐃᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑎᒧᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖓ. document with regard to Agnico Eagle. There ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕋᑖᖅᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒪᓂ ᐸᐃᑉᐹᒥ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᓂᖓ was an indication from Baffinland in a recent ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ ᐹᐱᓪᓛᒃᑯᑦ

set of financial statements that she also ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑎᒍᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑦᑎᕋᑖᓚᐅᕐᒥᒻᒪᑕ referred to. Ms. Angnakak, do you want to ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᕋᑖᕐᒥᔭᖓ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. ᑲᔪᓯᔪᒪᕖᑦ? continue?

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᑕᖅ. Just to go on from that question, I would like ᑲᔪᓯᑐᐃᓐᓇᕐᓗᖓᖃᐃ ᑕᕝᕗᖓ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᓐᓂᒃ. to ask, if I may, Baffinland Iron Mines ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᒐᒃᑭᑦ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᖓ, ᖃᓄᖅ representatives. I would like to ask: what is ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᖃᐅᕐᒪᑕ ᐱᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓ Baffinland’s position respecting the payment ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑏᑦ ᕿᑭᖅᑕᓂ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ of property taxes by the Qikiqtani Inuit ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Association? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᑎᕐᕕᒋᓗᒍ (interpretation ends) We’re going back to ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᒧᐊ. Zoom. Mr. Moore.

Mr. Moore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, just going back to the previous question, ᒧᐊ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ sorry, I’m looking at Baffinland’s ESTMA ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑕᐅᔪᖅ ᑕᑯᓐᓈᕋᑖᕋᒃᑯ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ report which was submitted in March 2021 for ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᕆᓚᐅᖅᑕᖓ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᒫᔾᔨ the 2022 reporting year and it does list the 2021—2022 ᐅᓂᒃᑳᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖓ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓯᒪᔭᕗᑦ. ᑖᓐᓇ taxes we did pay, so I will leave that one ᕿᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᓚᐅᑲᒡᓗᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᑕᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓂᖅᑲᑦ there. If there is a further question, I can ᐅᑎᕐᕕᒋᔪᓐᓇᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᑕᕗᑦ. ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ certainly take that back and review that with ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᔨᐅᖃᑎᓐᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᒃᓴᖃᕐᕕᐅᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᑎᑦ my finance colleagues to provide any ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓂᑦ ᑕᕝᕙᓐᖓᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᑉ additional information from those ESTMA ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᔭᖏᓐᓄᑦ. reports that the Member or Committee would seek. It’s certainly not an issue at all.

In relation to the other question, I think, Mr. ᐅᑯᓄᖓᓕ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᓕ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ Chairman, with due respect to the Member’s ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᑉ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᕋᑖᖅᑕᖓ ᑖᓐᓇ question, that that falls very much in line with ᓇᓕᒨᑎᔪᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓄᑦ what the current dispute at the tribunal ᐅᓐᓂᕐᓗᖅᓴᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᕙᓂ ᒪᑐᐃᕈᑎᓂᒃ assessment that I spoke about in my opening ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᒪ ᑕᐃᒪ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ remarks is about, is that specific issue and as ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑲᔭᖅᑲᐅᓂᖓᓐᓂᒃ ᐹᕕᓐᓛᒃᑯᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᓄᑦ such, I don’t think it would be appropriate for ᐱᓕᕆᐊᖑᔪᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓯᒪᓱᑭᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓱᓕ Baffinland to comment on something that is ᐋᖅᑭᔅᓯᓚᐅᖅᑎᓐᓇᒋᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. currently before the tribunal, while the tribunal is trying to make its determination and a final decision. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ. Angnakak.

Ms. Angnakak: Thank you. I would like to ᐊᕐᓇᒃᑲᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒪᐃᓐ ask Agnico Eagle Mines a question, please. ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᓕᕐᒥᒐᒃᑭᑦ.

Agnico Eagle Mines indicates, on page 4 of ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒥ ᒪᒃᐱᒐᖅ 4-ᖓᓐᓂ ᑐᓂᔭᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ its submission provided to the Committee, ᐊᑖᒍᑦ ᓱᓪᓗᓕᓕᐅᕐᓂᕐᒥᑦ ᐃᒥᕐᒧᑦ ᑯᕕᓯᔾᔪᑎᒃᓴᒥᒃ that “In relation to underground ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓱᑲᓐᓇᖅᑐᒨᖓᔪᑦ ᐃᒪᐅᑉ improvements, piping and pumping for ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓃᑦᑐᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕈᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᑕ underground water, evacuation, ducting and ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᐅᑏᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ ᑐᑭᓯᐅᒪᒐᑦᑕ venting, electrical components, and lunch and ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᕈᑎᒃᑲᓐᓂᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑕ ᑕᑯᖔᖅᑐᒋᑦ ᓲᕐᓗ safety shacks located in underground mines, ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ these items are currently considered taxable ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᑲᐅᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᓐᖏᑎᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ equipment. However, our understanding is ᖄᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ. ᖃᓄᓪᓚᑦᑖᖅ ᐊᓯᔾᔩᖁᔨᖁᕕᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ that they constitute additional extraordinary ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍ costs compared to, let’s say, open-pit ᐊᑐᓕᖁᔨᕗᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒧᖓ ᐋᖅᑭᒍᑕᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᒥᒃ? operations that do not require such facilities or ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. equipment.” I’m wondering: what specific changes to the Property Assessment and Taxation Act does Agnico Eagle recommend to address this issue? Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Agnico Eagle, Mr. Plante. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ.

Mr. Plante: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ᐸᓛᓐᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ would like to refer the question to Mr. Baltov. ᒥᔅᑐ ᐊᓯᓐᓄᖔᖅ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᖁᔭᕋ. ᐊᑎᖓ ᑐᓴᓐᖏᓐᓇᒃᑯᑦ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᐹᓪᑖᕝ. Baltov.

Mr. Baltov: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all ᐹᓪᑖᕝ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ delegates and all guests. ᖃᐃᖁᔭᐅᓯᒪᔪᓕᒫᑦ.

Regarding this question, as you maybe know, the mining of an ore body can incorporate ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᐅᒐᓱᓪᓗᒍ. ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖃᕈᓘᔭᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ various techniques and equipment depending ᒪᕐᕉᒃ, ᒪᕐᕉᓲᖑᒻᒪᑎᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕖᒃ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᖄᖓᓂ on the ore properties and surrounding waste ᐲᔭᐃᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓅᖅᑐᑎᑦ ᓄᓇᒧ rock. The two most common types of ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᐃᑦ. excavation are surface mining and subsurface; in other words, underground mining.

Surface mining is done by removing surface overburden, some vegetation there and ᖄᖓᓂ ᐲᔭᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᐱᕈᖅᑐᓂᒃ bedrock, to reach ore deposits. This type of ᐲᔭᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑕᐅᓄᖓ ᐊᑖᓅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᑦ surface mining includes open-pit mining, ᖃᓗᕋᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᖅᑭᔮᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᐊᓗᓐᓂᒃ quarrying, strip mining, and others. ᒪᑐᐃᖓᔪᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ, ᐅᔭᕋᑦᑕᕐᕕᑎᑐᑦ Equipment typically used are bulldozers and ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᓂᒃ. ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖏᑦ ᓴᓕᒎᑏᑦ, ᖃᓗᕋᐅᑎᓖᑦ shovels to remove the overburden, followed ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔾᔮᓲᖑᔪᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐳᑑᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᑦ by drills and explosives to break the ore into ᖄᑦᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᒥᑭᔫᑕᕈᖅᑎᑕᐅᒐᓱᑦᑐᑎᒃ manageable pieces for transportation. Loading ᓯᖁᓪᓗᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᓴᕕᕋᔭᔅᓴᐃᑦ. ᐊᒻᒪ

and hauling machinery located on the surface ᐅᓯᑲᑦᑕᑕᐅᑦᑕᓕᖅᑯᑦ ᐊᖏᔫᑎᐊᓘᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᓪᓗ are often very large to maximize productivity ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐅᓯᑲᑦᑕᖅᑎᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓄᑦ. ᑕᐃᒪ and to take advantage of the less confining ᐱᕕᑐᔪᒦᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᖏᔫᑎᐊᓗᓐᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑎᖃᓲᑦ. environment.

On the contrary, the subsurface mining consists of excavating tunnels or shafts into ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓗ ᐊᓯᖔᖏᑦ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓲᑦ the earth’s surface to reach ore deposits. This ᐊᒻᒪᔪᒃᑰᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᐊᔾᔨᒋᖏᒻᒪᒋᑦ. ᐃᓗᐊᓂ type of subsurface mining includes drift ᒪᓕᐅᔮᕐᔪᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᖃᓗᕋᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓪᓗᑎᒃ mining, slope mining, longwall mining, and ᐃᑎᖅᓴᓕᐅᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᓱᓪᓗᓕᑯᑖᕌᓘᔭᖅᑐᒥᒃ others. I’ll admit it’s for either mining include ᓴᕕᕋᔭᑦᑕᖃᕐᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᒪᓕᐅᔮᕐᔪᑦᑐᑎᒃ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᒍᑦ. borehole mining, drift, and other methods. ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒃ ᐳᑑᕆᖃᑦᑕᓲᒻᒥᔪᐃᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᖄᖓᓗ Equipment typically involved includes ᐋᖅᑭᑎᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᓂ ᑲᑕᒐᕐᓂᐅᓴᓂᐊᖏᒻᒪᑦ. underground drills, ceiling vaulters, underground loaders, etcetera.

The first step to size the reduction begins in the mining stage with the use of drilling, ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᑦᑎᐊᖓ ᐱᒋᐊᒃᑳᓲᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂᒃ blasting, and evacuation to generate materials ᐳᑑᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᖄᖅᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑎᒃ that are easily transportable. We have at this ᐲᔭᕋᕐᓂᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᖅᑳᖅᑐᑎᒃ. ᐃᓚᖏᑦ point in the Arctic that some of the equipment ᑕᐅᑦᑐᖏᓂᓛᒃ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓪᓗ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᐃᓪᓗ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓲᕈᓘᔭᐃᑦ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᑦ ᐅᓯᑲᖅᑕᐅᑏᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ is not taxable, such as mobile equipment, for ᖃᓗᕋᐅᑎᓖᓪᓗ ᓄᓇᓯᐅᑏᑦ ᑕᒪᔾᔭ ᐃᓚᒋᔭᐅᓲᖑᒻᒥᔪᑦ example, loaders, trucks, and another example ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᐃᓪᓗ ᒪᓕᔅᓱᐊᕈᑏᑦ could be portable equipment, such as ᓱᑯᑦᑎᐊᓅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᒐᓗᐊᕐᒪᖔᑕ ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔾᔪᑏᑦ computers, telecommunication devices, ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒥᔪᑦ. tracking systems, and others.

What we think in this category when we raise this question, here we’re talking about ᐅᓇ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᓗᒍ, ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᕋᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ underground water, including the watering, ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂ ᐃᒥᕐᒥᒃ. ᐃᒪᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᔭᕆᐊᖃᓲᖑᖕᒥᖕᒪᑦ the air intake and outtake, also the lighting ᐃᑎᖅᓴᓕᐊᖑᔪᒥ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᓂᖅᓵᑐᑦᑎᐊᕐᓇᖅᑐᒥ and electricity installations. For example, ᐃᓗᐊᓄᑦ ᓱᐴᖅᕕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᐆᒃᑑᑎᒋᓗᒍ there are underground electrical services, ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓃᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ there are power cables, there is secondary ᖃᐅᒪᖃᕆᐊᖃᕆᓪᓗᑎᒡᓗ ventilation, there are communication systems, ᓄᑭᓪᓚᐅᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᑦᑕᐅᖅ and there are portable electric compressors, ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ pumping stations, and other equipment that ᓱᐴᕈᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᕆᓪᓗᑎᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᓄᕌᕈᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᖓᑕ we would like to see if it’s any possibility to ᑕᐅᓇᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᕋᐃᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᓯᔅᖏᑦ be treated differently because now you can ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᕆᐊᓕᖏᑦ ᐊᖏᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ see that they are taxable equipment. What’s ᖄᖓᒍᒃᑲᓐᓂ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᓇᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᖅ the reasoning for this? First of all, this is the ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᒪᑐᐃᖓᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᒃᑯᓪᓕ ᖄᖓᓂ kind of extra cost compared to the open-pit ᐲᔭᐃᔪᐊᓗᐃᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᖅᑐᖏᓐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. mining that I mentioned previously.

Concerning specifically the electrical components, the piping and pumping for ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᑭᓪᓚᐅᒻᒨᖅᑐᕈᓘᔭᐃᑦ ᑕᖅᑲᒪᓂ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᒻᒪ ᐃᒻᒪᓐᓂᐅᓴᓲᖑᓪᓗᑎᒃ

underground water evacuation, ducting and ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓃᑦᑐᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᓲᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ venting, and lunch and safety shacks, as ᐃᓪᓗᕋᓛᖃᐅᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᒃ ᑲᑕᒐᕐᓂᐅᓴᓂᐊᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ mentioned previously, it’s our contention that ᓂᕆᔭᖅᑐᕕᓐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑲᑕᒐᖅᑐᐊᓘᓕᕐᓂᖃᑦ they constitute additional extraordinary costs ᕿᒫᕕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕆᓪᓗᓂ ᑕᐅᓇᓂ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᓕ compared to open-pit operations. They do not ᓴᖅᑭᔮᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᒥᒃ ᖃᓗᕋᖅᑐᑦ ᖄᖓᓂᒃ ᐲᔭᐃᔪᐃᑦ require such facilities or equipment. The ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᓂᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᐱᖃᕆᐅᖃᖅᐸᖏᒻᒪᑕᓕ, rationale for excluding these assets from ᐱᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑐᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᓲᑦ assessed value is identical to the rationale for ᖃᑦᑎᕌᕐᓂᕐᒪᖔᑕ. ᓄᓇᐅᑉ preferring in not including underground ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓃᑦᑐᖅᓯᐅᑎᖃᕆᐊᖃᖏᑦᑐᐃᓪᓕ, ᑕᐅᓇᓂᓗ development of shafts or tunnels in their ᕿᒫᕕᖃᕆᐊᖃᕋᑎᓪᓗ ᑲᑕᒐᖅᑐᐊᓘᓖᕐᓂᖃᑦ supporting framing in the assessed value. ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑎᐊᕐᖓᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᒪᕐᕉᒃ ᐅᔭᓐᓂᐊᕐᓃᑦ Digging a shaft and tunnel are equivalent of ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓᓂ ᖄᖓᓂᒃ ᐲᔭᐃᔪᖅ ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ digging an open pit, first to reach the ore ᐃᑎᖅᓴᓕᐅᖅᑐᓂ ᖃᒧᖔᓘᖅᑐᑦ. levels, then to extract the ore, but what I can recognize is that underground work cannot be performed without providing adequate supporting framing, which is not necessary, obviously, in the open-pit extraction operation.

In the same token, it’s not possible to carry ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᑖᓂ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖃᑦᑎᐊᓪᓚᕆᓪᓗᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐱᓕᕆᐊᕆᔭᔅᓴᐅᒻᒪᑦ out the underground work without removing ᓱᓪᓗᑯᑖᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᐊᓗᓐᓄᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑐᓄᑦ. ᖄᖓ the contaminated atmosphere and supplying ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ fresh air, pumping out water to prevent ᐊᓂᖅᓵᑐᕐᕕᔅᓴᐅᑦᑎᐊᖏᓐᓇᖅᑎᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂ flooding of shafts, galleries, and traps, and ᐃᒻᒪᓂᐅᓴᔪᐊᓗᑐᐃᓐᓇᐅᕙᒻᒪᑕᓗ also provide power for electric-driven ᐃᒪᐃᔭᖅᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪ equipment and lighting. None of these ᖃᐅᒪᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖏᓐᓇᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ ᑕᐅᓐᓇ obstacles to underground work exist in open- ᐃᑭᐊᖓ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓕ ᖄᖓᓂᒃ ᐲᔭᐃᔪᒃᑯᑦ pit operation and therefore should be ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᖅᐸᖏᒻᒪᕆᒻᒪᑕ ᑕᐃᒫᓪᓗ considered as an extraordinary cost of ᖄᖓᒍᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ ᐊᑭᑐᔾᔪᑎᐊᓗᖏᑦ ᐃᓕᓴᕆᔭᐅᓯᒪᒋᐊᓖᑦ underground ore extracting. That’s the first ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᓗᓂ point. ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅᓵᓘᓂᖓ.

The second point is very often this kind of equipment and improvement, in other words, is mobile. It’s not fixed. The water pipes, the pipes for the watering, for example, they are ᓱᓪᓗᓕᖏᓪᓗ ᑕᒪᔾᔭ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒋᐊᖃᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ, mobile equipment which is usually not ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓲᓪᓗ, ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓲᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ taxable. My other point of view is that often ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᒻᒥᖕᒪᑕ ᓱᓇᑦᑯᑖᖏᑦ ᓱᓪᓕᓗᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ this kind of equipment has a temporary ᐃᖏᕐᕋᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᕿᑲᖅᑐᐃᑦ character, for example, temporary electrical ᐊᔾᔨᒌᒃᑎᑕᐅᖏᒻᒥᖕᒪᑕ ᐊᑕᑲᐃᓐᓇᑐᐃᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᑎᓪᓗ installation, temporary lighting in some ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᒍᓐᓇᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᓄᑭᓪᓚᐅᓯᑲᐃᓐᓇᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ galleries, and they change often very ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᐅᓂᖓᓂᒃ ᐲᔭᖅᑕᐅᔪᒫᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᑎᒃ. frequently where they’re placed. In Quebec ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᑕᕈᓘᔭᕕᐅᑎᓲᑦ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖏᑦ ᑕᐅᓇᓂ particularly and I think in the north of Canada, ᖃᐅᒪᖏᓪᓗ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᑕᖅᑕᐅᒋᐊᖃᓲᑦ. ᑯᐸᐃᒃᒥ the underground equipment is normally not ᓇᒥᓕᒫᐸᓗᖃᐃ ᑲᓇᑕᒥ

taxed. This point is simply raised to see if ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑕᐅᓲᖑᖏᑦᑐᐃᑦ ᐃᑎᖅᓴᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ there are any possibilities to ask you to treat ᓱᓪᓗᑯᑖᒑᓘᔮᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅᓵᓘᒻᒪᑕ. these improvements in a different way, ᑕᐃᒪ ᐃᓱᒪᒋᔭᐅᖁᔭᕋᓗᐊᕗᑦ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᒐᐃᖕᒪᑕ applying different ratios, or excluding them ᑖᒃᓯᖏᑦ ᐊᖏᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ from the taxable improvements. Thank you. ᐊᖏᓪᓕᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖁᖏᑕᕋᓗᐊᕗᓪᓕ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒃ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖅᑖᒃᑲᓐᓂᕋᐃᑉᐸᑕ Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᖃᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅᓵᓘᓂᖓ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒍ. Baltov. (interpretation ends) I would like to ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. give the department a chance to respond, Minister, in terms of your response to Agnico ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐹᓪᑖᕝ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Eagle’s concern on this issue. Minister ᐱᓕᕆᕕᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᓐᓂᑦ ᑭᐅᕕᖃᖅᑎᑦᑐᒪᒻᒥᒐᒃᑯ, Ehaloak. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ, ᐊᒡᓂᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᖃᓄᖅ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᔅᓴᖃᕐᒪᖔᔅᓯ. ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ. Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, I’ll ask Mr. Seeley, ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Deputy Minister, to respond. Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓰᓕᒧᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ Chairman. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᕋᓗᐊᕋ. ᐅᕙᖓ ᑐᖏᓕᖓᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Seeley. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᓰᓕ.

Mr. Seeley: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, ᓰᓕ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒥᓂᔅᑕ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᕐᓗ. Mr. Chairman. I won’t respond beyond the ᐱᖁᔭᔅᓴᖅ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑎᔅᓴᖅᑕᖃᕇᖅᑐᖅ. ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ fact that the bill as presented does make a ᖃᓄᖅ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᔪᑦ number of refinements in the description of ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕕᓐᓂ. what improvements constitute “improvements” beyond the existing legislation.

I think that the representative from Agnico ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᐊᓘᕋᑖᖅᑐᖅ Eagle did a great job of describing the ᐊᑭᑐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓂᕆᓲᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᓱᓪᓗᑯᑖᓕᐅᕐᓗᓂ additional operational costs that an ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᓂᕐᒥ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑐᑭᖏᑦ underground operation would face. I think ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᑦᑎᐊᖅᓯᒪᔪᐃᑦ ᓱᓇᒃᑯᑖᑦ ᐃᖏᕐᕋᓲᑦ that the extended definitions that have been ᐃᖏᕐᕋᒍᓐᓇᖏᑦᑐᐃᓪᓗ ᑭᓲᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ provided on machinery and clarifications on ᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᖅᑐᐃᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᕝᕗᖓ. ᐃ ᑖᓐᓇ mobile versus portable equipment and some ᐱᐅᓂᖅᓴᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᑐᖃᕐᒥᒃ of the different categories that can be included ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕋᔭᕐᒪᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᑦᑎᐊᑉᐸᖏᑦᑐᓂᒃ. within an assessment are a significant step ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᓐᓂᖔᖅᑐᖅ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᖃᕋᑖᕐᖓᑦ. forward over existing legislation and I think will provide clarity in many of the areas that the representative from Agnico Eagle described.

I’m not sure if there are any additional areas ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖏᑦᑐᖓ ᐃᓚᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦᑎᒍᑦ that we do need to add based on some of the ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊᖏᓛᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᕆᑦᑎᐊᕋᑖᕐᖓᒋᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ descriptors that were provided previously. ᐄᒍᒃᑯᓐᓂᓐᖔᖅᑑᑉ.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I’ll move on here. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓅᒋᐊᕐᓗᑕ. ᒥᔅᑕ Akoak. ᐋᖁᐊᖅ.

Mr. Akoak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐋᖁᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Welcome to the guests and visitors. ᑐᓐᖓᓱᒋᔅᓯ ᐅᖃᕆᐊᖅᑐᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐳᓛᖅᑐᑦ.

My question is for Agnico Eagle Mines. The ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒐ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᓐᓄᑦ, 2019 2019 annual report under the federal ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑎᖓᓄᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᒥᓂᖏᑦ Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act ᒐᕙᒪᑐᖃᒃᑯᑦ ᑭᓱᓂᒃ ᐲᔭᐃᔪᖃᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ indicates that Agnico Eagle Mines paid ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂᒃ ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᒥᓂᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ $2,180,000 in taxes to the Government of $2,180,000ᓂᒎᖅ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓐᓂᕐᖓᑕ Nunavut during the calendar year. The 2020 $2,180,000ᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ annual report indicates that the company paid ᐅᓪᓗᖅᓯᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᖓᓂ. 2020 ᐊᕐᕌᒐᑕᒫᖅᓯᐅᑦ $4,710,000 in taxes to the Government of ᐅᓂᒃᑳᓕᐊᒥᓂᖓ ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ Nunavut during the calendar year; also, ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᐅᑎᓖᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓐᓂᕐᖓᑕᒎᖅ $4,710,000ᓂᒃ TMAC Resources, which Agnico Eagle ᑖᒃᓯᓂᒃ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᑲᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥᒃ recently acquired, paid $940,000. Can you 2019ᒥ. ᑏᒫᒃ ᐊᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᓐᓄᑦ confirm that these taxes were property taxes ᓂᐅᕕᐊᖑᕋᑖᓚᐅᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐊᑭᓖᓐᓂᕐᒥᔪᐃᑦ $940,000ᓂᒃ. ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᒍᓐᓇᖅᑮᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ imposed under the authority of the territorial ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕈᑎᒥᓂᖅᓯ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕐᓂᕐᒪᖔᔅᓯᐅᒃ Property Assessment and Taxation Act? ᑕᕝᕙᖓᑦ ᐊᑖᒍᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᕐᔪᐊᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᒍᑎᖏᓐᓄᓪᓗ ᐱᖁᔭᖅᑎᒎᖓᓐᓂᕆᕙᑦ?

ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Akoak. (interpretation ends) To Zoom, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) Plante. ᖃᕋᓴᐅᔭᒃᑯᑦ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ.

Mr. Plante: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ᐸᓛᓐᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. refer the question to Mr. Pat McNamara. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᑦᑕᐅᖅ ᐊᐱᕆᒻᒪᑦ. ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᖁᕙᓪᓚᐃᔭᖓ. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. McNamara. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᒫᒃᓇᒪᕋ.

Mr. McNamara: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᒫᒃᓇᒪᕋ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Am I on video or… ? Sorry. ᑕᑯᒃᓴᐅᕗᖓ?

The topic of taxes is not my actual area, as ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓕᕆᔨᓪᓚᕆᐅᖏᒻᒥᒐᒪ I’m into the income tax and the royalties. ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔮᖔᓄᓪᓕ ᑖᒃᓯᓕᕆᔨᐅᒐᓗᐊᖅᑐᖓ, However, it is my understanding that these ᑐᑭᓯᓯᒪᔪᖓ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕈᑎᒥᓂᐅᒐᔭᖅᑐᐃᑦ would fall under the Property Taxation Act. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ. ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᔭᕈᑎᒥᓃᑦ. ᑎᑎᖃᒃᑯᑦ They are property taxes, so I would assume ᑭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᐱᓇᓱᐊᕈᓯᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ. that that’s what they fall under, but we can get back to you on that with a written response within a week.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. (interpretation ends) Thank you. The ᖁᔭᓕᒐᔭᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᑦᑐᓐᓇᕈᔅᓯ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ. Committee would accept that and appreciate that. Mr. Akoak.

Mr. Akoak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A ᐋᖁᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᐊᒡᓃᑯ question to Agnico Eagle Mines, as Agnico ᐄᒍᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᒃᑲᓐᓂᕐᓗᖓ. ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᑦ ᑕᐃᒪ Eagle Mines indicates on page 3 of its ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᒃᐱᒐᖓ 3 ᑐᓂᓯᒪᔭᖏᓐᓂᒃ submission that “Property tax invoices are ᑎᑎᖃᓂᒃ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᑖᓰᔭᐃᔭᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ sent annually by the Government of Nunavut ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓂᒃ directly to Agnico Eagle. Invoice payments ᑐᓂᔭᐅᕙᒻᒪᑕ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᓐᓄᑦ. ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᖁᔭᐅᔪᐃᑦ are issued by Agnico Eagle to the ᑐᓂᔭᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᐃᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᓐᓄᑦ Government of Nunavut and this is a process ᓄᓇᕘᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᓄᑦ. ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ. that we follow diligently and one with which ᐊᑲᐅᒋᓪᓗᑎᒍᓗ. we are comfortable.”

Can you clarify if Agnico Eagle has had any ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᓯᑦᑎᐊᕈᓐᓇᕿᑦ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᑦ disputes with the Government of Nunavut in ᓈᒻᒪᓴᖅᓯᒪᖏᒻᒪᖔᑕ ᓄᓇᕘᑉ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᓐᓂᒃ respect to the assessment of taxes owing ᖃᑦᑎᕌᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᕝᕘᓇ under the territorial Property Assessment and ᐊᑖᒍᑦ ᐱᖁᑏᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦᑕ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓂᖏᑕᓗ Taxation Act? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐱᖁᔭᖓᑕ ᐊᑖᒍᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ. Plante.

Mr. Plante: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not to ᐸᓛᓐᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. my knowledge, but I could refer it to Mr. Alex ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒃᑯ ᐋᒃᑲ. ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᐊᓯᖔᕋ Baltov, if he has a more accurate answer. ᑭᐅᑦᑎᐊᕐᓂᖅᓴᐅᔪ70ᓇᖅᑰᖅᑐᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅᑕ Baltov. ᐹᓪᑖᕝ.

Mr. Baltov: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Exactly, to my knowledge, there is no ᐹᓪᑖᕝ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. problem at all with all the process of taxation ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒃᑯᑦ ᐊᑲᐅᓐᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᖃᖏᑦᑎᐊᖅᑐᒍᑦ. ᖃᓄᖅ on the Meadowbank, Amaruq, Meliadine, and ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᓄᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒪᖔᖏᑦ now Agnico Eagle added TMAC since this ᒥᓕᐊᑏᓐ ᒥᐊᑐᐹᖕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᑦ ᑏᒫᒃᑯᓪᓗ. year, so the invoices and how all the process ᑕᒪᑐᒪᓂ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒥ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑎᓄᑦ of treating the CapEx (capital expenditures), ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᖅᑖᕆᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐱᕙᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᓯᖏᓪᓗ analyzing the information, giving out ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᑐᓴᐅᒪᔾᔪᑎᕈᓘᔭᐃᑦ information to the assessors, then giving all ᒪᓕᒃᖢᒋᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑎᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᖅᑐᑦ the support to all the explanation and notes for ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑭᓱᓄᑦ ᐊᑐᕐᒪᖔᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊᓕᒫᑦ better understanding. All this is going very ᕿᒥᕐᕈᓇᖃᑦᑕᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᐃᑦ smoothly and once the invoices issued are ᓇᓕᖅᑲᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑕᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ 30ᓄᑦ ᐅᓪᓗᓄᑦ paid very briefly, I think, in a 30-day period ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓲᖑᒐᑦᑕ ᓇᐅᒃ ᐊᑲᐅᖏᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᖏᑕᕗᑦ. and no contestation or other issues to know, in ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᐃᑦ ᓇᓕᖅᑲᖏᑦ ᖃᐃᑕᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ,

my opinion, to my knowledge. Thank you, ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔭᒃᑯᓪᓕ, ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ. Akoak.

Mr. Akoak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This ᐋᖁᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ will be my final question. Agnico Eagle ᑭᖑᓪᓕᖅᐹᕆᓕᕐᓗᒍ ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᑯᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᖕᓂᐊᕐᕕᖏᑦ Mines indicates on page 3 of its submission ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 3ᒦᑦᑐᑦ ᑐᓐᓂᖅᑯᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ that “The issue of the payment of property ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑕ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑏᑦ taxes is not included in the leasing ᐊᑭᓕᐅᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᖏᑦᑐᑦ arrangements for our different properties.” ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᑎᖏᑦᑕ ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ Can you clarify why this is the case? Thank ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᖕᓄᑦ. ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᒃᑭᐊᖅ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ you, Mr. Chairman. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᕙ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Plante, would you ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ like to respond? ᑭᐅᔪᒪᕖᑦ?

Mr. Plante: I will refer again to Mr. Baltov. ᐸᓛᓐᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᑐᓐᓂᖅᑯᑎᒋᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᔭᕋ ᐊᓯᓐᓄᑦ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐹᓪᑖᕝᒧᑦ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐹᓪᑖᕝ. Baltov.

Mr. Baltov: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m ᐹᓪᑖᕝ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᓇᓗᔪᖓ not sure. I’m so sorry. I’m not sure I get the ᒪᒥᐊᓇᓪᓛᓗᒃ ᑖᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᖅᑲᐅᔭᐃᑦ sense of the question. Could I ask you just to ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓂ ᑐᑭᓯᑦᑎᐊᓵᖏᓐᓇᒪ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. repeat the question, please? Thanks so much, and excuse me again.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐅᓇ ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 3 (interpretation ends) It’s regarding page 3 of ᑐᓐᓂᖅᑯᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᓯᓐᓂ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᓕᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ your submission, page 3 of your submission, ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᑕᓯᓐᓃᑦᑐᖅ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᖁᐊᖅ and Mr. Akoak had asked… . Well, it ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᖅᑲᐅᒻᒪᑦ ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 3-ᒥ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ indicates on page 3 that “The issue of the ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐅᑏᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᕈᑎᓄᑦ payment of property taxes is not included in ᐃᓚᓕᐅᔾᔭᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ ᐊᔾᔨᒌᓐᖏᑦᑐᓄᑦ the leasing arrangements for our different ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᓐᓄᑦ. ᑕᕝᕗᖓ ᐃᓕᓪᓗᒍ properties.” The question was: can you clarify ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒍᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᖅ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ why this is the case? Mr. Baltov. ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᒪᒻᒪᖔᖅ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒥᔅ ᐹᓪᑖᕝ.

Mr. Baltov: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could ᐹᓪᑖᕝ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. I ask you to ask your question tomorrow? ᖃᐅᑉᐸᖔᖅ ᑭᐅᔪᓐᓇᖅᐸᕋ ᑖᓐᓇ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᐄ, (interpretation ends) You can defer the

question and we will anticipate an answer to it ᖃᐅᑉᐸᑦ ᑭᐅᔭᐅᒍᑦᑕ ᖃᓄᐃᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, tomorrow. That’s acceptable. Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᐊᓯᐊᓄᑦ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Moving on. Mr. Qirngnuq. ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, ᐃᓕᑕᕆᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕋᒪ. ᐆᒥᖓ ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᖓ, ᑕᒡᕙᓂ Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me again. I ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑐᓴᖅᓯᓕᐊᕆᓯᒪᔮᓂ ᓅᕖᑉᐸ 10, have a question regarding Nunavut 2020 ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑐᒡᓕᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ Tunngavik’s news release of November 10, ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ 55 ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖃᖅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ. ᑖᑉᑯᐊ 2020. The second paragraph refers to Bill 55. ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑐᒐᒃᕼᐊᐅᔪᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑖᑕ “Bill 55 makes Inuit responsible to pay for ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑕᐃᑉᓱᒪ ᖄᖓᑕ ᐊᑎᑦᑎᐊᖓᓃᑦᑐᖃᐃ? ᐅᓇ mining property tax on subsurface Inuit ᖃᓪᓗᓈᑐᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᓐᓂᖅᕼᐃᒪᕐᒪᑕ Owned Lands (IOLs) as far back to April 1, ᐊᐃᐳᓗ 1, 1999-ᒧᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ 1999.” My question for the president of ᐊᑭᓕᖅᑐᒐᒃᕼᐊᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᐅᓐᓂᖅᑐᒐᒃᕼᐊᐅᓂᖓ Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is: what ᐱᔾᔪᑕᐅᓗᓂ. ᑕᒻᒪᓕᑭᐊᑉ ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᕗᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ specific clauses in Bill 55 do you object to ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᒃᕼᐃᔭᐅᑖᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒻᒪᓂᑭᐊᖅ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᖅ and how can the concern that is referred to be 55 ᖃᓄᕐᓗ ᐃᕼᐅᒪᒋᔭᐅᕙ ᖃᓄᕐᓗ addressed? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᓪᓗᖅᕼᐃᒋᐊᖅᐸᓪᓕᕈᓐᓇᖅᑰᖅᐸ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᐅᕼᐃᕆᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᒥᒃᕼᐋᓄᑦ? ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ, Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. Kotierk. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑰᑦᑎᖅ.

Ms. Kotierk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. (interpretation ends) Qujannamiik, ᑰᑦᑎᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Member Qirngnuq. In terms of the (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᐃᐳᓗ retroactivity, I think it’s located in section 1, 1999-ᒥᓄᑦ ᑎᑭᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖁᔨᒻᒪᑕ 48(10), if I’m not mistaken, and we have ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᓐᓄᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᓪᓚᕆᑦᑕᕗᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ grave concerns about this in terms of having ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓴᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᓂᐊᕐᒪᑕ designated Inuit organizations liable since ᐊᐃᐳᓗ 1, 1999-ᒥ ᐱᒋᐊᕐᓗᒍ. April 1 for property taxes.

I think, as legislators considering this bill, I recognize that the Chair has been clear that it’s difficult to think about hypotheticals, but I ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎᒋᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᓂᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓂᖓ think one of the things that Members of the ᐊᖏᖅᑎᓇᓱᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᐃᒪᐃᓐᓇᐃᑦᑑᓚᖃᑦᑕᖏᑦᑑᒐᓗᐊᖅ. Legislative Assembly, Standing Committee ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑏᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᖏᑦ Members, would consider is the impact of the ᐃᓱᒪᖅᓴᖅᓯᐅᕈᑎᖃᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖅ ᖃᓄᖅ ᑕᒪᓐᓇ bill and what that would mean in how people ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᑦᑐᐃᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᖓ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ. behave and, in this circumstance when ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓴᖅᑖᖅᑎᑕᐅᒍᑎᒃ designated Inuit organizations become liable ᐱᖁᑎᓪᓚᕆᓐᓄᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᓄ ᑕᕝᕙ ᑐᑭᖃᖅᐸ for property tax, what will that mean. As ᖃᓄᑎᒋ ᐊᑦᑐᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᐸᑦ? ᖃᓄᕐᓗ Inuit, is it feasible, and I would say it is, that ᐊᑭᓕᔅᓴᖅᑖᖏᑦᑑᔪᓐᓇᕐᒪᖔᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ Inuit organizations would think about how to ᐃᓱᒪᓕᐅᓕᕋᔭᖅᑐᑦ. avoid the liability, which would mean that maybe as Inuit organizations we would be less open to engaging with improvements on lands that Inuit own the subsurface mineral rights

to.

Further, it might be that, for instance, we might encourage resource developers or ᒪᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᖄᖓᓂ ᓇᑉᐸᖅᓯᕕᐅᓲᖑᒻᒪᑕ ᒪᑯᐊᓗ mining companies to think about having their ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐃᑭᐊᖓᓂ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᒥᒐᑦᑕ ᐃᒻᒪᖃ improvements located on Crown land, where ᒪᑯᐊ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᓱᒪᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᑐᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ the Crown has the mineral rights, which ᒪᑭᑦᑕᖏᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑐᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ would mean that the improvements to the ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᖅᖢᑎᒃ infrastructure would be a little bit farther ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑕᐅᑎᖃᕈᓐᓇᖅᑐᓂ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᐊ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᒃᑲ away than the deposits. I’m just bringing ᓯᕗᒧᐊᑉᐸᓪᓕᐊᔾᔪᑎᒋᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᐅᓇᓗ ᑲᔪᓯᑉᐸᑦ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ. those up as things that could be potential considerations moving forward if this bill goes forward.

Having said that, we are still very concerned about the retroactivity and we do not think ᓱᓖᓛᖅ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᕗᑦ ᐊᐃᐳᓗ 1, 1999-ᒥᓂᑦ that it upholds Inuit rights and does not ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᖁᔭᐅᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ. ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ capture the intent and spirit of the Nunavut ᐊᖏᕈᑏᑦ ᑐᑭᖓᓐᓂ ᓱᕋᐃᒻᒪᑦ. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ Agreement, and we would argue that the ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᒍᑦ purpose of Inuit-owned lands was to give ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᕈᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕐᒪᔾᔪᒃ ᐃᓄᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ Inuit a little leg up, that economic ᐊᖅᓵᖅᑕᕕᓂᕐᓄᑦ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᒐᓵᓗᖕᓄᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᓴᒃᑯᐃᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ 18-ᐳᓴᑦᓂᒃ development opportunity for a people that ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᐊᕋᒥ. have been disadvantaged for a long period, ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓇᐃᑉᐸᑦ ᓇᐅᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᑲᔫᓯᐊᒃᑲᓐᓂᕆᐊᓖᑦ and Inuit gave up their aboriginal and treaty ᐃᓄᐃᑦ. rights to be able to determine the 18 percent of the Inuit-owned land and to be able to give up some of this title, there needs to be some benefit afforded to Inuit.

It’s important, as you look at the proposed ᑕᑯᒍᔅᓯᐅᒃ ᐅᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ ᐊᒃᑐᐃᓪᓚᕆᖕᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ legislation, you look at the impact and ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎᐅᑉ ᕿᓐᖒᑉ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᔭᖓ retroactivity, as explained by Member ᑕᒪᑐᒥᖓ ᐱᐅᒃᓴᖏᓪᓚᕆᑦᑐᒍᑦ Qirngnuq, would be something we look upon ᐊᑭᕋᖅᑐᓪᓚᕆᒐᔭᖅᖢᑎᒃᑯ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᖓ favourably and we think it would be going ᑕᒪᓐᓇ ᒪᑭᑕᐅᑎᒋᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᒪᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. against Inuit rights that need to be upheld. Thank you.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Qirngnuq.

Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the same news release, I’ll ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. read what the fifth paragraph states. ᑕᕝᕙᓂᒃᕼᐊᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ (interpretation ends) In its news release of ᑕᓪᓕᒪᒋᔭᐅᓚᐅᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐃᓐᓂᖅᑐᖅᕼᐃᒪᒻᒥᒻᒪᑦ. November 10, 2020, Nunavut Tunngavik (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᓅᕖᑉᐸ 10, 2020 ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ Incorporated stated that “The GN is asking ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᖏᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᒻᒪᑕ

Inuit Organizations to collect the taxes on ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖁᓕᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑲᑐᔾᔨᖃᑎᒌᖏᓐᓂ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ their behalf and cancel the leases of mining ᖁᔭᓈᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᕐᕕᓐᓂᒃ companies when they do not pay the tax, ᐊᒥᓱᓂᒃ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᖅᑏᑦ ᐃᖅᑲᓇᐃᔭᕈᓐᓃᕋᔭᕐᖓᑕ potentially forcing hundreds of Inuit workers ᑕᐃᔅᓱᒥᖓ ᒪᓕᒐᔅᓴᒥᒃ 55 ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ into unemployment.” What specific clauses in ᐊᖏᖅᓯᖏᓪᓚᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᓄᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ Bill 55 does Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated ᖃᓄᖅ ᑲᒪᒋᔭᐅᖁᔭᐅᒐᔭᖅᑲᑦ? (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) object to and how does Nunavut Tunngavik ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. Incorporated recommend these concerns be addressed? (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᑰᑦᑎᖅ. Kotierk.

Ms. Kotierk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Thank you, ᑰᑦᑏᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): Member Qirngnuq. I had earlier asked ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. ᓯᕗᓕᐊᓂ ᒥᔅ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖅ Kilikvak Kabloona to provide specific details ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᓯᖃᖁᖅᑲᐅᒐᒃᑯ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᑦ about the provisions we would like to see ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᖅᑲᐅᔭᖏᑦ ᐅᖃᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᓐᓇᕐᓂᖏᑦ revised, so I will ask her to repeat those ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ? provisions, please, if you don’t mind, Mr.

Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅ ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖅ. Kabloona.

Ms. Kabloona: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᖃᑉᓗᓈᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. NTI would look more favourably upon the bill ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᐅᒃᓴᓂᖅᓴᐅᓇᔭᖅᑐᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ with some changes: the first is provide that ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᒥᒃ ᐊᓯᔾᔨᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᑕᖃᕐᓗᓂ. ᓯᕗᓪᓕᖅᐹᖅ designated Inuit organizations are exempt ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐃᓚᐅᑎᑕᐅᓐᖏᓪᓗᑎᒃ from being recorded as the assessed owner of ᓇᒻᒥᓂᖃᕐᒪᑕ ᓄᓇᒥᑦ ᒪᑭᑦᑎᕕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ an improvement when that improvement is ᒪᑭᑕᐅᔪᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ not owned by the designated Inuit ᐱᒋᔭᐅᓐᖏᑉᐸᑕ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᒋᒐᓗᐊᕐᓗᓂᔾᔪᒃ; organization and it is on Inuit-owned land; the ᐊᐃᑉᐸᖓ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᓄᑖᓂᒃ ᐃᓕᐅᖅᑲᐃᓪᓗᑎᒃ second, add new language confirming that this ᑖᓐᓇ ᑕᐃᒪᓐᖓᓂ ᐊᐃᐳᓗ 1, 1999-ᒥᓂᑦ applies retroactively since the creation of ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᑎᑦᑎᓂᖅ ᐲᖅᑕᐅᒻᒥᓗᒍ. Nunavut. ᐅᓪᓗᒥ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃᑯᑦ Based on the discussions today, we would ᐃᓕᓯᒃᑲᓐᓂᕈᒪᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᖁᓪᓗᒍ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ also add a clarification that unimproved Inuit- ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᒪᑭᑦᑎᕕᐅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ owned land is not taxable. This is consistent ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᖏᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᒪᓕᒃᓯᒪᒻᒪᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ ᓈᓴᐅᑎᓕᒃ with Article 22. We would also list that the 22-ᒥᑦ ᐊᒻᒪ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔪᐃᓐᓈᕆᔩᑦ ᑲᑎᒪᔨᖏᑦ PATA’s appeals bodies have the duty and ᐱᔪᓐᓇᕐᓂᖅᑖᖅᑎᑕᐅᓯᒪᒻᒪᑕ power to hear complaints concerning both ᐅᖃᓗᐱᓗᕐᕕᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᑎᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ assessment and taxation of Inuit-owned land. ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂ ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖓᔪᖅ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᑕᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᕿᓐᖑᖅ. Qirngnuq.

Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Moving on to another subject ᕿᓐᖑᖅ: ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓕᒃ. and this question is for Agnico Eagle, ᐊᕼᐃᐊᓄᓐᖓᐅᓗᖓᑉᑕᐅᖅ ᐅᑯᐊ ᐃᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍ (interpretation ends) on page 9 of its ᐊᐱᕆᔪᒪᓪᓗᒋᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᒪᑉᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 9-ᒥ submission to the Standing Committee, the ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᑕᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓇᓐᖓᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber ᑖᒃᑯᐊᒎᖅ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅᑕᖃᖅᑐᖅ of Mines states that the Meadowbank mine is ᒪᑐᐹᒃ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᖄᖏᕐᓂᑯᓕᐅᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ not profitable. Does Agnico Eagle agree with ᑕᒪᓐᓇᖃᐃ ᐊᒡᓃᑯᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᔭᐅᕙ? this statement? (interpretation) Thank you, (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᓖᒃ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Agnico Eagle Mines, Mr. Plante. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᐊᒡᓃᑯ ᐄᒍᒃᑯᑦ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᓚᓐᑦ.

Mr. Plante: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As some of you may be aware, in the early days of Meadowbank, due to higher cost of ᐸᓛᓐᑦ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. construction and higher operating costs, we ᖃᐅᔨᒪᔪᒃᓴᐅᕗᓯ ᒪᑐᐹᒃ ᓴᓇᔭᐅᑎᓪᓗᒍ ᐊᑭᑐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ ᒪᑐᐃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍᓗ did incur a major write-down for this ᐊᑭᑐᓂᖅᓴᐅᓚᐅᖅᖢᓂ. ᒫᓐᓇ ᑐᑭᓯᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ operation. Now we have earned and we ᖃᓄᒃᑲᓐᓂᖅ ᐱᓂᐊᕐᒪᖔᑦᑕ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᑕᐃᒃᑯᐊ generated profits since then, but not to the ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᕈᑎᒋᓚᐅᖅᑕᕗᑦ ᐅᑎᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᖢᑎᒃ. ᒫᓐᓇ point to recover from that write-down. With ᖄᖏᐅᔾᔨᓯᒪᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ ᖄᖏᕐᓂᑯᓕᐅᖅᐸᓪᓕᐊᓕᖅᑐᒍᑦ. the earnings from the Meadowbank days and ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. the actual Amaruq operation, we’re in a good position to overcome this write-down, but still off on the negative side. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ, ᒥᔅᑕ ᐸᓛᓐᑦ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) Plante. (interpretation ends) We’re just about ᐱᕕᖃᕈᓐᓃᓕᕋᑦᑕ ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ ᐅᓇ out of time for the day. I know Mr. Lightstone ᐊᑎᕐᑯᑐᓐᓃᖃᑕᐅᖕᒪᑦ. ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᑭᐅᖁᒐᒃᑯ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ is next on the list for questions. I would like to ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᖅᑲᐅᔭᖏᑦᑕ ᒥᒃᓵᓄᑦ. give the Minister a chance to respond to the concerns raised by Nunavut Tunngavik.

Minister Ehaloak, we just heard from Nunavut Tunngavik in terms of their suggestions or ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ, ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᓐᓂ ᑐᓴᓵᕋᑦᑕ their concerns with the bill, and on page 6 of ᖃᓄᖅᑑᕈᑎᒃᓴᓕᐅᖅᓯᒪᔪᓂᒃ ᐃᓱᒫᓘᑎᒋᔭᖏᓪᓗ your opening comments you state that treating ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᐅᑉ ᐃᓗᐊᓃᑦᑐᓂᒃ ᒪᒃᐱᖅᑐᒐᖅ 6 privately owned lands across Nunavut the ᒪᑐᐃᖅᓯᔾᔪᑎᖕᓂᒃ ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ, ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ same way as Crown lands is a not reasonable ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᐃᓗᐊᓂ ᑕᐃᒫᑐᐃᓐᓇᖅ ᑯᐃᑉ approach. I would like to give you a chance to ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑕᐅᔪᓐᓇᖏᒻᒪᑕ explain why you have made that statement ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓕᖅᑲᐅᒐᕕᑦ ᐅᓂᒃᑲᐅᓯᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᐱᐅᒃ ᖃᓄᐃᒻᒪᑦ

that this is not a reasonable approach. ᑕᐃᒪᓐᓇ ᐅᖃᖅᑲᐅᖕᒪᖔᖅᐱᑦ? ᒥᓂᔅᑕ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ. Minister Ehaloak.

Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐅᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ Chairman. Through you, I would ask Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐊᖅᑯᑎᒋᓗᑎᑦ ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ ᑭᐅᖁᒐᒃᑯ Ahlfors to answer your question. Thank you, ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖕᓄᑦ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Ahlfors. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑕ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ.

Mr. Ahlfors: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The current regime for Crown lands in Nunavut, ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᑕᖅ. ᒫᓐᓇ which is not changing with Bill 55, is that the ᐋᖅᑭᒃᓯᖕᒪᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ, Crown does not pay taxes at all under the ᐊᓯᔾᔨᔾᔮᓇᓂᓗ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55-ᒧᑦ. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᑦ Property Assessment and Taxation Act. ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᓲᖑᓐᖏᒻᒪᑕ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐱᖁᑏᑦ However, if the Crown leases the land to ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑦ ᑖᒃᓰᖏᓐᓂᒃ ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ someone else, for example, a company that ᐊᑐᖅᑐᐊᖅᑎᑦᑎᑉᐸᑕ ᐊᓯᒥᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᑦ ᑲᒻᐸᓂᐅᔪᒧᑦ puts some sort of business on there, then that ᐱᓯᓇᔅᓯᖃᕐᓗᑎᒡᓗ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᓄᓇᒥ. ᑕᐃᓐᓇᓗ business has to pay both the tax on the land ᐱᔅᓯᓇᔅᓯᖑᔪᖅ ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᑕᒪᕐᒥᒃ and the tax on the improvements on the land. ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑕᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᓄᓇᐅᑉ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐱᖁᑏᑦ ᓴᓇᔭᖏᑦᑕ ᖄᖓᓂ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕐᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ Basically the Crown is not ever liable for any ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕆᐊᖃᓕᓚᐅᖅᓯᒪᓐᖏᑦᑐᑦ. taxes. This also includes if the Crown builds its own buildings on that land, then the Crown is also not liable.

The result would be, if we treated all private ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᐅᖅᑕᕕᓂᖅ property in Nunavut the same way as Crown ᑖᒃᓰᔭᕆᐊᑐᔾᔮᖏᑦᑐᖅ ᑕᐃᒪ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᓕᒫᑦ lands, means that if you own property in ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑎᒍᑦ ᐱᖁᑎᖃᕈᕕᑦ ᓄᓇᒥᑦ ᐃᒡᓗᓕᐅᕐᕕᒋᓗᒍ Nunavut and you put improvements on it ᑖᒃᓰᔭᓐᖏᑦᑎᐊᒻᒪᕆᓪᓗᑎᒃ ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ yourself, you’re not paying any tax at all ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓲᖑᓂᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑕᐃᒫ ᑕᕝᕙ ᓈᒻᒪᖏᑦᑑᖕᒪᑦ because that’s what the Crown does, and that ᓲᖃᐃᒻᒪ ᑖᓐᓇ ᑖᒃᓰᔭᐃᓂᖅ ᐱᔾᔪᑎᒋᔭᕐᒪᒍ is why this an unreasonable result because the ᐊᑭᓖᑎᑦᑎᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᐅᖕᒪᑦ. ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ whole point of property tax is that it’s paid. ᑖᒃᓰᔭᑎᖅᑎᑕᐅᓐᖏᓚᑦ ᑭᓯᐊᓂ ᓈᒻᒪᒃᑲᔭᓐᖏᒻᒪᓪᓕ The Crown has specific exemption for paying ᐊᑭᓕᖅᓱᐃᑎᓐᖏᒃᑯᑦᑕ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᓕᒫᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᒻᒥ. property taxes, but it would be unreasonable ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖅᐸᓪᓕ ᒐᕙᒪᒃᑯᑦ ᒥᑭᑦᑐᑯᓗᖕᓂᒃ ᑖᒃᓯᓂᑦ to give a similar exemption to every single ᓄᐊᑦᑎᓕᕋᔭᕐᒪᑕ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. landowner in Nunavut because then the government would be collecting very little taxes at that point. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒡᓗ (interpretation ends) Thank you for clarifying ᑐᑭᓯᓇᖅᓯᑎᒃᑲᕕᐅᒃ. ᐊᑕᐅᓯᕐᒥᖅᑲᐃ ᐊᐱᕆᔪᓐᓇᖅᑐᑎᑦ that. Mr. Lightstone, you might have time for ᐃᓱᓕᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᖓᓐᓂᒃ? ᒥᔅᑕ ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ. one question before the end of the day. Mr. Lightstone.

Mr. Lightstone: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᓚᐃᑦᓯᑑᓐ: (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ. ᑖᓐᓇ It’s kind of a complex issue. I’ll try to bring it ᐱᔭᕆᑐᔪᒻᒪᕆᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᒫᓐᓇ, ᓴᖅᑭᓐᓇᓱᖕᓂᐊᖅᑕᕋ up tonight and maybe we can continue on that ᑲᔪᓯᔾᔪᑎᒋᔪᓐᓇᖅᑕᕗᖃᐃ ᑖᓐᓇ ᖃᐅᒃᐸᑦ. line of discussion tomorrow.

The major issue that NTI has brought forward ᐱᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᖅ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᔪᖅ is the fact that under the current proposed ᓴᖅᑭᑕᐅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ, ᒫᓐᓇ ᐋᖅᑭᒋᐊᕈᑕᐅᔪᒥᑦ, amendments included in Bill 55 is the fact ᐱᖃᓯᐅᑎᓗᒍ ᒪᓕᒐᒃᓴᖅ 55, ᑕᒪᓐᓇ that liabilities for any arrears will be placed ᐊᑭᓖᔭᕆᐊᖃᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ on designated Inuit organizations. I agree with ᑎᒥᖏᓐᓄᑦ ᑐᓂᔭᐅᓂᐅᓴᖕᒪᑕ. ᐊᖏᖃᑎᒋᔭᕋ NTI; I would hate to see money come out of ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᑐᓐᖓᕕᒃᑯᑦ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓂᒃ Inuit orgs’ pockets to pay any arrears owing ᑮᓇᐅᔭᐃᑐᐃᓐᓇᖁᒐᔭᓐᖏᒻᒥᒐᒃᑭᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᑐᖃᕐᓄᑦ, from mining companies. ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎᒃᑯᓐᓄᑦ ᐊᑭᓕᒃᓴᕆᔭᐅᔪᓂᒃ. I have a question with regard to the current Property Assessment and Taxation Act ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᖃᕋᒪ, ᒫᓐᓇᐅᔪᖅ ᐱᖁᑎᓄᑦ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ legislation, specific to the section on assessed ᑖᒃᓰᔭᖅᑎᑦᑎᓂᕐᒥᒡᓗ ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕆᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ, owners. Section 19 of the current Act states ᐱᓗᐊᖅᑐᒥᒃ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ that under the title “Parcels,” if you’re looking ᓇᖕᒥᓂᕆᔭᐅᔪᑦ. ᐃᓗᓕᖓ 19, ᒫᓐᓇ ᒪᓕᒐᕆᓕᖅᑕᑦᑕ at that now, “Except as otherwise provided in ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᖕᒪᑦ, ᓄᓇᐃᑦ ᐊᒡᒍᖅᑐᖅᓯᒪᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᑯᓐᓈᕋᒃᑯ this section, a parcel must be recorded in an ᒫᓐᓇ. ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐅᖃᐅᓯᕆᓯᒪᔪᓂ ᑖᓐᓇ: (a) ᓄᓇ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᔪᖅ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ assessment roll in the name of ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ ᓄᓇᒥ (a) the person registered under the Land ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᐅᓂᕋᖅᑕᐅᔪᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᓯᒪᔪᖅ; Titles Act as the owner of the fee ᐅᕝᕙᓘᓐᓃᑦ simple estate; or (b) ᑐᒃᓯᕋᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᑎᒡᓗᒍ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᒥᒃ, (b) at the request of the owner, an agent ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᒥᒃ, designated by the owner who is ᓈᒻᒪᒋᔭᐅᓗᓂ ᓄᓇᒥ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔪᒧᑦ. satisfactory to the Director.”

And then section 20 continues on with ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 20 ᐅᖃᖅᓯᒪᕆᒡᓗᓂ, “Improvements.” ᓴᓇᕝᕕᐅᓂᐅᓂᖓᓄᑦ ᖄᖓᓄᑦ.

My question is: under section 19 of the current Act, would designated Inuit ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᒐᓕ, ᓈᓴᐅᑎᖓ 19-ᒥ ᒫᓐᓇ organizations be able to submit a request that ᒪᓕᒐᖁᑎᒋᔭᑦᑎᓐᓂ. ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ an agent be designated to be recorded under ᓇᓗᓇᐃᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᐹᑦ the assessment roll? Would the mining ᑖᓐᓇ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒋᔭᐅᔪᖅ ᑕᕝᕙᓂ ᐊᑎᓕᐅᖅᑕᐅᔪᓂ companies themselves, upon request of DIOs, ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᓪᓘᓐᓃᑦ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖅ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ be able to be recorded as under their name in ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᓐᓂᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕌᕆᔭᐅᓗᑎᒃ. the assessment roll? Thank you, Mr. ᐊᑎᖃᖅᑎᑕᐅᖔᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᐹᑦ ᑕᕝᕙ ᐱᖁᑏᑦ Chairman. ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓂᖏᑎᒍᑦ? ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. ᒥᔅᑐ ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ. Ahlfors.

Mr. Ahlfors: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐋᓪᕗᐊᔅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

To answer that question, the first thing I’m ᑭᐅᓗᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᔭᖓ, ᓯᕗᓪᓕᒥ ᐅᖃᕐᓂᐊᖅᑐᖓ going to say is to define what an agent is in ᓇᓗᓇᐃᑲᐃᓐᓇᕐᓚᒍ ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔪᖅ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ. law. An agent is someone who acts on behalf ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨ, ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᔾᔨᔪᖅ ᐊᓯᒥᖕᓂᒃ, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ of someone else. When an agent acts on ᐊᓯᒥᖕᓂᒃ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᔾᔨᔪᖅ. ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᑐᑭᓕᐅᑎᓗᒍ, behalf of someone else, they bind that other ᓄᓇᒥ ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᐅᔪᖅ ᑕᐃᓯᔪᒥᓂᐅᒃᐸᑦ person. If, for example, a landowner were to ᑭᓇᒥᑭᐊᖅ, ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᐱᓕᕆᔾᔪᔾᔨᒐᔭᖅᐳᖅ name an agent in this manner, that agent ᓄᓇᖁᑎᖃᖅᑐᒥᒃ. would be acting on behalf of the landowner ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᒪᓕᒐᑦᑎᒍᑦ ᓂᐅᕕᐊᕆᕚ ᓄᓇ. and anything the agent does binds the landowner legally.

Yes, the Inuit orgs could request that the mining company be named as their agent, but ᐄ, ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑐᒃᓯᕋᕈᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᖅ, ᑖᓐᓇ in that situation, anything that the mining ᐅᔭᕋᕐᓂᐊᖅᑎ ᑭᒡᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᒋᔭᐅᓕᕐᓗᓂ, ᑭᓯᐊᓂᓕ company does in that capacity would bind the ᑕᐃᒪᐃᓐᓂᖅᐸᑦ, ᑕᐃᒪᓕ ᐅᔭᕐᓂᐊᖅᑏᑦ ᐱᓕᕆᓗᓂ Inuit organization because of that agency ᑕᐃᒫᒃ ᐸᓯᔭᒃᓴᓐᖑᖅᑎᑦᑎᔪᓐᓇᕋᔭᖅᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ relationship. That’s how an agent works is an ᑎᒥᖁᑎᖏᑦ ᑕᐃᓐᓇ ᑭᔅᒐᖅᑐᐃᔨᐅᖕᒪᑦ ᑖᔅᓱᒥᖓ agent is a representative of the principal who ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑎᒻᒪᕆᐅᔪᒥᒃ ᑎᒃᑯᐊᖅᓯᓚᐅᖅᑐᒥᒃ. is appointing the agent. Thank you, Mr. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. Chairman.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᑖᓐᓇ (interpretation ends) That’s going to conclude ᐃᓱᓕᔾᔪᑎᒋᓂᐊᕋᑦᑎᒍ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᕐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ. our questioning for today. This hearing will ᑲᔪᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᕐᖑᓇ ᖃᐅᒃᐸᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᑦᑎᓐᓂ, continue tomorrow, but before we break for ᒥᓂᔅᑐ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ ᐱᕕᖃᖅᑎᓐᓂᐊᕋᒃᑯ, ᐅᖃᕈᒪᑉᐸᑦ, the evening, I’ll give Minister Ehaloak a ᒥᓂᔅᑐ. chance to comment. Minister. ᐊᖓᔪᖅᑳᖅ ᔩᓂ ᐃᖃᓪᓗᐊᖅ (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ): ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak: Thank you, Mr. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ. ᐅᑎᕐᕕᒋᑲᐃᓐᓇᕈᒪᒐᒃᑯᑦ, ᒪᓕᒐᓕᐅᖅᑎ Chairman. I would like to go back to Member ᕿᓐᖑ ᐊᐱᖅᑯᑎᒋᓯᒪᔭᖓ, ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᖅᑖᕈᒪᔪᓂᒃ Qirngnuq’s question regarding the RFP for ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᓯᐅᕐᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐱᕆᓚᐅᖕᒪᑦ, ᓇᓃᓕᕐᒪᖔᑦ ᑖᓐᓇ the contract for the assessments. He had asked ᑳᓐᑐᕌᖅᑖᖅᑎᑦᑎᓇᓱᒃᑐᖅ.ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᑳᓐᑐᕌᖅᑖᕈᒪᔪᓄᑦ where the process was, and the request for ᑐᒃᓯᕋᐅᑏᑦ ᒪᑐᓚᐅᖅᑐᖅ, ᑳᓐᑐᕌᖅᑖᕋᓱᐊᖅᑐᕐᓗ proposals was closed and the contract was ᑐᓂᔭᐅᕗᑦ ᕕᐅᕝᕗᐊᓕ 4, 2020-ᒥ. ᐊᕐᕌᒍᓄᑦ awarded on February 4, 2021 and it’s a five- ᑕᓪᓕᒪᓄᑦ ᑲᓐᑐᕌᖑᓪᓗᓂ, ᐅᑯᓄᖓ ᕿᑭᖅᑖᓗᒃ year contract and it’s with the Qikiqtaaluk ᑯᐊᐳᕇᓴᒃᑯᑦ ᑳᓐᑐᕋᖃᕐᓂᕋᖅᑐᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᕐᕌᒍᑕᒫᑦ Corporation. They provide annual assessment ᖃᐅᔨᒪᖅᑎᐅᖃᑦᑕᕐᓂᖏᑦ ᑕᒪᒃᑯᓂᖓᓗ services, certify assessment rolls, issuing ᓇᖕᒥᓂᖃᖅᑐᓂᒃ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᖃᐅᔨᓴᖅᑕᐅᓯᒪᔾᔪᑎᖏᑦ, notices of assessment, and which is all public ᑕᖅᑲᒃᑯᓄᖓᓗ ᓯᐊᒻᒪᖅᑎᕆᔨᐅᓪᓗᑎᒃ. ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, information. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑖᖅ.

Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. ᐃᒃᓯᕙᐅᑕᖅ: ᒪ’ᓇ. (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒍᑦ) ᖁᔭᓐᓇᒦᒃ, ᒥᓂᔅᑐ. ᐄ, (interpretation ends) Thank you, Minister. The ᑲᑎᒪᓂᖅ ᑲᔪᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ ᖃᐅᑉᐸᑦ ᐅᓪᓛᒃᑯᑦ, 9-ᒥ meeting will continue tomorrow morning ᐅᓪᓛᒃᑯᑦ. beginning at 9 a.m.

Before we break, the Committee is happy that ᓄᖅᑲᓚᐅᓐᖏᓐᓂᑦᑎᓂ, ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᖁᕕᐊᓱᒃᐳᑦ all of our witnesses have had the chance to ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᑕᖏᖅᓱᑎᒃ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᔭᖅᑐᖅᓯᒪᑦ speak. For tomorrow’s meeting, we would ᐅᖃᓪᓚᒍᓐᓇᖅᓱᑎᒃ. ᖃᐅᑉᐸᓪᓕ, ᑲᑎᒪᓂᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᒧᑦ. like to remind witnesses, wherever possible, ᐃᖅᑲᐃᑎᒋᐊᕐᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᐱᖅᓱᖅᑕᐅᓂᐊᖅᑐᑦ to keep their cameras on in order to make the ᑖᒃᑯᐊ ᐊᔾᔨᐅᓕᐅᕈᑎᖓ ᐃᑯᒪᐃᓐᓇᖁᓪᓗᒋᑦ ᑖᒃᑯᓄᖓ switching smoother for the technical staff, and ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ ᓇᕿᑦᑕᐃᔨᑦᑎᓐᓄᑦ. so that’s for tomorrow morning.

(interpretation) Our meeting will reconvene tomorrow morning at nine o’clock. Enjoy (ᑐᓵᔨᑎᒎᕈᓐᓃᖅᑐᖅ) ᐅᑉᓛᒃᑯᑦ 9-ᒧᐊᖅᐸᑦ your evening and we will see you again ᑲᑎᒪᓐᓂᕆᔭᕗᑦ ᑲᔪᓯᓂᐊᖅᑐᖅ. ᐅᓄᖃᑦᓯᐊᕐᓂᐊᖅᐳᓯ, tomorrow morning. ᐅᑉᓛᑯᑦᑕᐅᖅ.

>>Committee adjourned at 17:00 >>ᑲᑎᒪᔨᕋᓛᑦ ᓄᖅᑲᖅᑐᑦ 17:00ᒧᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ