Tobacco tax, budget passed as legislature winter sitting closes
Commissioner Eva Aariak assents 10 bills into law
Commissioner Eva Aariak presides over an assent ceremony to close the Nunavut legislature’s winter sitting on March 11. (Photo by Jeff Pelletier)
Nunavummiut can expect to spend more on cigarettes.
An amended Tobacco Tax Act was one of 10 bills to receive assent at the Nunavut legislature Tuesday as MLAs drew to a close a nearly three-week winter sitting.
Cigarettes will be taxed 40 cents per stick, up from 30 cents. Smoked tobacco — which is consumed through smoking — will be taxed at 53.3 cents per gram up, from 40 cents; and non-smoked tobacco (which is consumed by other means, such as chewing) will be taxed at 45 cents per gram, up from 30 cents.
Before the amendments were approved, the GN had forecast the Tobacco Tax would generate $24.3 million in revenue for 2025-26. The new tax rates will generate an additional $7.6 million annually, Kusugak said.
“While tax increases are not a complete solution, they are an effective tool in reducing tobacco consumption, especially among youth,” Kusugak said in Tuesday’s committee of the whole meeting.
The new rates take effect Wednesday, according to a news release the GN published minutes after the bill received assent from Commissioner Eva Aariak.
The bill to implement the GN’s $2.3 billion operations and maintenance budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which starts April 1, received assent. The passing of that budget followed two weeks of department-by-department scrutiny from MLAs in the committee of the whole.
The GN’s total spending plan forecasts a $124-million deficit after, as Kusugak described, the government’s record of generally maintaining surpluses.
“This is the last budget of this government and I think it sets it up pretty nicely for the next government,” Kusugak in an interview. Nunavummiut will elect a new territorial government on Oct. 27.
“We’ve worked really hard over the years to build up a surplus to a point where, if there is a need like now to build more houses and homes and do more for Nunavummiut, that we can use that surplus.”
In addition to the budget, MLAs approved two supplementary spending bills.
One confirms an additional $100.2 million in operations spending for the current 2024-25 year. The other reallocates $280.7 of unspent capital funds from the current fiscal year to the next.
Two other tax-related bills were approved Tuesday.
An amendment to the Income Tax Act allows parents to continue claiming the Nunavut Child Benefit for up to six months after the death of a child.
A new Fuel Tax Act makes no changes to tax rates, but makes what Kusugak described as “administrative” changes to its previous iteration.
On the education side, the Post-Secondary Student Support Act is a “new approach to student support,” said Education Minister Pamela Gross.
That legislation modernizes the way Nunavut post-secondary students can seek university and college funding, as well and non-money supports such as tutoring, from the Department of Education.
The actual funding of that legislation would be approved as supplementary spending in a future legislature sitting, said Arviat South MLA Joe Savikataaq, who chairs the standing committee on legislation, in his comments to the committee of the whole.
Three other bills were passed. Those relate to MLA retirement allowances, updates to the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation Act, and legislation to move with the GN’s planned reorganization of two new departments on April 1.
MLAs are set to return to Iqaluit in April for a weeklong standing committee. After that, the spring sitting begins in May, and the pre-dissolution sitting is in September before the Oct. 27 election.
Honestly it should be far more. Think of the additional pressure smokers put on the health system which is funded by Canadian taxpayer money.
Now consider the smoking rate in Nunavut which is closer to 80%, and that a significant portion of the population are living off gov’t assistance and not paying their fair share of taxes due to such horrible employment rates. That means everyone else is footing the bill for health costs.
You also have a significant amount of smoking around children, and while pregnant in NU despite clear education that shows it leads to health complications.
Now, obviously there’s some nuance to this. If prices keep going up, kids wont get food because people will prioritize addiction over their own children, that’s pretty evident already. But honestly, how many self help and education programs can you do. Everyone and their dog knows smoking is horrendous for you, people around you. Everyone knows how bad it smells for people around them, but still NU has not caught up to the rest of Canada and continues to have sky high smoking rates.
Smoking while pregnant is sickening, and far too many women have no problem doing it in Nunavut.
Well let’s see… About 74% of Nunavummiut aged 12 and older smoke. That’s about 30,000 people. Those 30,000 people are generating $31.9 million per year in taxes, a little more than $1,000 per year. Over the course of a lifetime (50 years), a smoker will pay an additional $50,000 in taxes… to Nunavut.
But they will also pay an additional $35,000 in excise taxes to the federal government during that time.
They will also receive about $172,000 less in Canada Pension Plan benefits, as they will die, on average, 10 years earlier. They will also receive about $90,000 less in Old Age Security.
So we’re at a net $347,000 “surplus” (let’s call it) so far, for a smoker.
Can you identify these “additional pressure smokers put on the health system which is funded by Canadian taxpayer money” that isn’t covered by that?
Obesity costs the Canadian taxpayer more money than smoking does, and I don’t see you contributing to those costs when you buy a bag of chips.
You guys can downvote all you want, because it doesn’t affect you. But the reality is that smokers pay more than their fair share. A study posted on CBC says that smoking costs $16.2B per year. There are approximately 3.8 million smokers in Canada. That’s $4,263 per smoker per year.
The example I illustrated shows that over a 50 year span, smokers contribute or save $6,940 per year per smoker. I didn’t even include GST charged on cigarettes, only excise taxes.
That doesn’t even account for the fact that the studies account for the cost of smoking-related deaths, without considering ongoing medical expenses and costs of dying from non-smoking related diseases for non-smokers.
There’s also a huge disparity in the treatment of people with addictions. People with a smoking addiction? “Screw you, you should pay more, more, more”. Government funded smoking cessation aids? None.
People with a crack addiction who have contributed nothing to government funds through their black market purchases? “Oh you poor thing, let’s send you to a facility-based addictions treatment centre at a cost of $800/day”.
Nicotine has been proven to be harder to quit than cocaine or heroin (Penn Medicine), yet people who have never been affected look down their noses at smokers like smoking is not really an addiction like other drugs.
Smokers are the only drug addicts that actually pay their share. Quit making them pay more for your benefit, too.
And they should pay more than any fair share. You’re trying to quantify human life, the amount of second hand smoke that kids inhale in NU, the amount of pregnant smoking mothers, the amount of people that do take care of themselves forced to breath in the countless smokers surrounding every commercial building in NU.
The price will only correct once it forces everyone to stop. Justification saying they pay their fair share because they die early has no consideration for everyone else impacted.
Smokers are easily some of the most self-centered, selfish humans I can think of. Just total disregard for their surroundings and your post of don’t make me pay more clearly demonstrates that.
You didn’t demonstrate anything against my points, you’re only on a pompous self-centered rant. People should not smoke in spaces with children or smoke while pregnant. I agree. There are laws that are supposed to get people to stay at least 30 feet from commercial buildings when smoking. I agree. So if I follow those guidelines, am I still selfish?
If we are to tax everything into oblivion that causes harm, perhaps we should also raise taxes on alcohol. Just keep going until nobody can afford it, right? It costs taxpayers more than nicotine. And the recently legalized weed, let’s tax that until nobody can afford it. Let’s tax sugar. Let’s make pop and candy unaffordable, as obesity costs the Canadian taxpayer more than tobacco and alcohol combined. How selfish of overweight people. I don’t want their medical bills to burden me. Don’t forget about the carbon tax, carbon pollution is now costing the taxpayer more than smoking, too. The carbon tax should keep going up until gasoline is unaffordable. Your diesel fumes bother my sensitivity, selfish driver. Keep your truck at least 30 feet from any commercial entrance or take your bike to work.
Prohibition of alcohol in Canada didn’t work, and there’s always a bunch of pro-boozers on every comment section of the beer and wine store, telling prohibitioners to leave them alone and let them enjoy their freedoms. Yet they don’t extend the same feelings towards tobacco.
Prohibition of cigarettes in Canada by high taxation is not working. The lovely policymakers that love to increase sin taxes haven’t listened to the warnings. Illegal tobacco sales now make up over a quarter of all tobacco sales in Canada, and is rising quickly.
And what about those heroin-addicts? Are they more or less selfish than nicotine addicts?
What do you mean it isn’t working?
When I was born in 1970, over 40% of people smoked. Today it is 16%. How is that not working?
Smokers in Canada, the numbers are nowhere near the Nunavut % 14 vs 80
Stop using whataboutisms to dry to defend not taxing smokers. You think someone who is against smoking isn’t also likely against gluttony, alcoholism and drug use? You can be against multiple things but this article was about smoking. I for one am in favour of sin taxes which would include all of the above.
how about vehicle exhaust? people tend to think “if you can’t see it, it’s not harming you”. vehicle exhaust is a major polluter, yet people are complaining about the carbon tax.
I originally used logic and math, not to defend “not” taxing smokers, but not to tax an addict above what is fair and reasonable. A tobacco tax is fine, but it’s become a cash grab where politicians can raise the tax however much they want and anybody that disagrees is demonized for “promoting” smoking.
If you’re in favour of sin taxes including gluttony, then how much should sugar be taxed? $1/kg? $10/kg? $100/kg? Why not $1000/kg? I think most people would say $1000/kg is way too high. But it would reduce sugar intake, wouldn’t it? This is a discussion that could be had, but if I try to stand up to say the tobacco tax has become too high and is a burden on vulnerable addicts, everybody jumps on their high horse.
If you’d like to refute any of my claims in my original 2 comments, go ahead.
Also, in response to David, you’re confusing correlation and causation. In the 1970s, doctors were smoking in hospitals. I’m pretty sure doctors making $600K/year can still afford a pack. It’s not just the tax, it’s the knowledge as well as restrictions.
I smoked for 32 years. The summer before my 50th birthday, I decided I was tired of my lungs hurting and quit. It felt impossible the first week and awful the second week but by the end of the third week I finally had days where I didn’t think about smoking cigarettes. Three years later I still have an occasional craving or feel a little envious when I see someone else smoking but that’s OK because I feel better. I can walk further, I have more money in my pocket, my blood pressure is lower and my lungs don’t hurt anymore. If you read this far and you’re a smoker, you can also do this! I believe in you! It’s short term pain for long term gain. Your body and your bank account will thank you every day!
Yes smoking is terrible, drinking is terrible, drugs are terrible, junk food is terrible, tax it 100 percent more, there is currently people from the south making their living supplying Nunavut with illegal everything, and taxing cigarettes more will lead to a huge black market, and it has already started, and Smokers this is your MLAs main effort to get you to quit, so tell them how you feel election time throw them all out and no I don’t smoke, drink, or dope it
Rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
You realize, I hope, that one doesn’t ‘have’ to buy whatever is being peddled.
Raise the taxes. Being on welfare, I need a new plasma tv. Raise the taxes.
You realize, I hope, that one doesn’t ‘have’ to buy whatever is being peddled.
Raise the taxes. Being on welfare, I need a new plasma tv for the upcoming play offs.Raise the taxes.🥳🥳
Pick on the alcohalics for a while and leave me smoke in peace
Don’t worry, you are in the majority and will die in the majority
What is the expected price increase for a pack of 25 cigarettes?
I don’t understand why GN doesn’t raise the price significantly more. They could also consider increasing taxes on alcohol since the healthcare costs for treating patients with cancer related to alcohol and tobacco use will likely rise.
I’m not a rocket sciencetist but 10 cents multiple by 25 cigarette, oh I don’t know this is too much math too much work too stressful I need a cigarette now
The real reason. Is not to deter smoking. People are addicted
to alcohol, tobacco, gambling, what ever. So like any one who deals in these products. And has monopoly on sales of them. They can charge what ever they want. Because people that have those addictions will pay the price. The cost of health care is only a ruse. Used by people who are trying to justify price increases. Bottom line is the sellers need the money. Thus the GN and the Feds.
Yes that is the fact, the rich do get richer on average and by enormous measure, the greed of many, most of the rich is without limit and without moral.