EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
What we want to know about is that the fuel tanks that contain the fuel for houses hold 250 gallons.
Right now before November 1, if a private homeowner were to fill all 250 gallons, which is about 1000 litres, right now it is 9 hundred 28 dollars and 96 cents.
When the fuel price goes up it will cost 1 thousand 1 hundred and 9 dollars and 20 cents per month.
Now the private homeowners, especially the private homeowners who obtained their private homes through the homeownership program, when the fuel price goes up it will cost 1 thousand 1 hundred and 9 dollars and 20 cents per month.
The Minister of Finance told us yesterday that there was a surplus of 53 million dollars from last year’s budget and a deficit of 30 million is anticipated.
Now, even with the 30 million dollars paid off we are still looking at about roughly around 35 million dollars.
He is aware that the fuel prices fluctuate world-wide.
In the United States there will be an oil reserve established.
Those who rely on this oil reserve will be refuelling from it and after the refuel supply is finished, the oil prices will drop. Why not go into the red to help private homeowners, private business owners, hunters, vehicle owners, because we all know that during the winter more fuel is consumed.
Could you set aside at least 5 million dollars, would you not even consider 5 million dollars for the stabilization fund.
Which one of you will be responding.
When the fuel price went up, I wrote to all the mayors and all of the communities to inform them that as of November 1, the fuel price would increase because the world price is going up.
For those of us who consume fuel for heating or for vehicles, or for other purposes, we looked for ways to make it as easy as possible.
It is a really difficult task.
You are thinking about people who live in housing units and own private homes in this world.
We wanted to make sure the fuel increase would not have a drastic effect on private businesses or private homeowners.
If we are going to stabilize the fuel price and subsidize those who need subsidies, we have to stabilize the fuel price.
We need a stabilization fund to help hunters and private homeowners.
The funds that were set aside by the Department of Education were geared to help the elderly.
Now if we could add to that perhaps we can do our part in helping our people and to collaborate with NTI.
I have spoken with the President of NTI about the fuel price increase and I told him that we have to help hunters.
I told him that I will be discussing this with NTI as to what we will be doing in terms of the stabilization fund.
Now 13.9 million dollars has been approved after reviewing all the funds available.
I hope it is clear that the government does not only deal with fuel or petroleum products.
Many people have other needs besides fuel.
There are many people out there, Transportation is one, the Department of Sustainable Development is another one.
All the Cabinet Members have approved this and our Finance Minister and the Petroleum Products Division.
I just want an answer to this question.
Perhaps when it is clearer I will get the response that I am looking for.
I want to ask the minister, she stated before that nobody can predict when the fuel prices will go up or down.
Because of that it is the beyond our control.
This 5 million dollars that will be set aside for the stabilization fund, the price of fuel will go up by 8.9 cents a litre, after this, it states that the fuel price will remain the same for the next two years.
What is happening here.
Is the fuel price going to drop.
Or even if the oil price goes up in the world this 5 million dollar stabilization fund, is this being prematurely set up for like two years from now.
Has this already been approved.
The five million has been approved as a stabilization fund for the next two years, even if the fuel price goes up.
The stabilization fund, is used to keep the fuel price stable, because you never know when the price of fuel is going to go up or down and the limit here is five million dollars.
If we were to add more to this five million then we would be able to stabilize fuel price because fuel prices are currently under scrutiny, and according to the Act, the stabilization fund is limited to five million, and I don’t think we will be using up this fund in the next two years.
Is that more clear.
It doesn’t specify that the world oil prices will go up but, the minister is letting the people believe that oil prices will not go up, and this kind of information thinking about the five million dollars, it might actually create more problems.
That was why I asked this question, has the cabinet approved a plan that even if it goes over five million, that it will remain at 98.9 cents a litre.
Has the cabinet agreed on something already that ordinary members have not seen.
Mr. Green can add on to the comment.
I read and from what we understood five million dollars is our limit, and we’re pretty confident that we won’t go over that five million, so I’ll let Mr. Green answer.
Mr. Green: First of all, the 13.9 cents a litre increase was based on, there’s two major reasons why we decided to proceed with the 13.9 increase.
It was primarily the fact that since we bought our fuel in July, the cost of fuel on the world market has increased an average of 10 cents a litre, from what we bought in July.
So what we decided, part of the strategy was if we can stabilize retail prices over two years and based on what we see happening in the world market, if the world price of crude remained at its current level, we would be in a position to maintain this price level for at least two years at the current level as of today.
In terms of the financial aspect of the approval, there was no approval, there's no guarantee, that the prices will not rise, not increase in 12 months.
The uncertainty in the world markets, no one can really predict what the price of fuel will be even two months down the road.
But if they stay in, based on the market conditions, they stay at the current level, then we should be able to live within the legislated limits of the stabilization fund, which is five million.
If next year the prices increase beyond that then we would have to re-evaluate our position and review our options at that time.
But right now the decision was made to try to stabilize the prices for at least the next two years, as opposed to having an increase this year and then going forward again next year.
But if the prices on the world market do decrease, then we may be in a position next year to reduce the retail rates.
So they have made the expectations of the consumers to determine that in the next two years there will be no increases.
I think my initial question, my very first question was about the conclusion that the government has come to by bringing the fuel prices up to 98.9 cents, when everything goes up in terms of fuel and power, everything else has a ricochet effect.
For example we have a rent subsidy for people on income support, like for example we charge them 32 dollars a month.
Whereas the real rent, the economic rate is a lot higher than that.
We have no problem with that kind of subsidy.
We also have a proposal, apparently I heard it on the radio, that hunter support, in terms of gas may be made in partnership with the NTI, and maybe the old age pensioners can be assisted in that area.
But there are a lot of other citizens, Nunavummiut who will be affected directly whether they have high income or low income.
That is the increase of groceries, the services, airlines, anything else that will require fuel, whether it's heating fuel or gasoline.
If you, my initial question was, have you determined in subsidizing the fuel to keep it stable at 80 cents or 81 cents, considered that you will, the government will be saving more than just subsidizing everything else that the government service does.
Has this been considered.
I share the same concerns as the member, but you know I can only speak for the mandate of petroleum products and the mandate of petroleum products is that we have to recover our operating costs from the retail sales, within the five million dollar subsidization fund.
Any other subsidies or anything else outside that program is outside of the mandate of petroleum products.
I'm not sure which department would be evaluating this, all I am saying is that, in terms of petroleum products, that our mandate is to recover the operating costs from the retail sales.
If we can’t recover our operating costs, we can re-look to the five million dollar limit. If we exceed it, then there would have to be special approval from the minister to increase the five million stabilization fund, which is outside our mandate.
Chairperson (interpretation): Ms. Thompson, would you like to add to that.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. What Mr. Arvaluk stated, we do not have a plan to assist them and members will have to be involved in this kind of thing.
For example, under education, the elder’s program, they are starting to consider that and I cannot predict what the outcome will be. We are just supporting the Department of Education program and we are not even sure how it will be done at this stage but it is understandable. For those people who struggle to keep afloat.
I do not know what effect that will have on them so it is premature at this time. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
At least the minister told me that I was right.
No consideration was given to potential overall costs ricocheting by the increase of fuel.
For example, the groceries, trucked services, power.
Although the minister said that they will eat that up for now but for how long we do not know.
The small businesses in the communities are struggling to survive right now with the small construction companies etc.
The hunters who most of the time cannot afford the fuel cost any way.
The new homeowners who are paying average of 1 thousand per month on mortgage, and over 1 thousand on fuel now to fill the 250 gallons.
Some of them have 500 gallons.
So the government has not thought about subsidizing, not increasing the fuel prices drastically may feed them more in the long run.
Because I understand that she said that we are only the Department of Petroleum Products, we are not the whole government.
But as a minister did she not consult with her cabinet colleagues and say we will have to subsidize even more because there is a danger of an overall increase in goods and services in Nunavut that will ultimately, the consumer who is the buyer will pay.
The company will raise the prices.
Ninety eight point nine cents a litre is no problem.
Just put up the prices by eighteen point nine cents.
As a consumer, who sometimes is not working, or working part-time, those are the victims of this increase.
My question is very, very simple Mr. Chairman.
Before November 1, or shortly after, can the government revisit the price increase in case, well not in case because we already know that it will have more impact than they have perceived.
Hon. Manitok Thompson: I will just switch to English because when I was talking in Inuktitut, I think I can quote Mr. Arvaluk when he was the Minister of Education.
We were in Rankin when he said there are other priorities of the government.
We need new schools, we need new gymnasiums, we need new health centres, we need houses, that’s what I was referring to when I said this government is not just a Petroleum Products Department.
There are different departments in the government that have priorities.
It wasn’t that I didn’t consult with anybody, it was a Cabinet decision, that we raise the fuel prices.
There are different priorities in the government, there are different departments we have to look at, when we considered this, I did consult with the other Members of Cabinet and that was the decision of the Cabinet.
That’s what I was trying to say that the government for the people is more than just gas.
Next on the list, I still have a couple.
Mr. Chairman, going back to this whole stabilization fund.
Let me just ask the minister to indicate when it came into being, when did the stabilization fund start.
Hon. Manitok Thompson: I think just remembering what we said in the last session in Rankin.
The stabilization fund was created in 1972.
Mr. Chairman, 1972, that’s a long, long time ago and I’m sure if you take a look at the cost of living from 1972 until now, you’ll see that it increased substantially.
I was wondering if there was any thought about indexing the funds, so that it would keep up with the cost of living, so it would come out.
To me it seems like its an understandable piece of legislation, but just like all legislation, at times it does outdate itself, and sometimes numbers that are used, when they are initiated are no longer relevant.
You know 5 million dollars in 1972, is probably like one million dollars or half a million dollars today.
So I was just wondering was that at all looked at, by the department and the government.
Chairperson (interpretation):Thank you. Mr. Tootoo. Ms. Thompson.
When we were at Rankin at the last session, this was the same question and to that we had said that we would do a review of the whole petroleum products.
That I believe is in the review, maybe Mr. Green can elaborate more on that but the review has been done, it’s now with the senior officials and being analyzed.
I’ll just ask Mr. Green to answer that one.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Green, do you wish to add to that.
Even with this recent price increase we did look at the option of the changing or amending the stabilization fund but there were a lot of factors that we had to consider at that time.
The stabilization agreement and how we manage the fuel prices in the future.
The fuel price issue formed a part of some of the evaluation process that was brought into the financial management review report that was sent to us on September 1.
So at this point in time I am not sure how much of the review process has been dealt with at the Financial Management Board.
So that is one of the recommendations that is going to be dealt with in that particular report.
Mr. Chairman in light of, I am sure to no one's surprise that this issue is here before us today and hits every single resident in Nunavut.
I am just wondering why on an issue like this that does have a far reaching affect on all Nunavummiut, why it has taken so long to deal with it and why.
I would guess that it should have been treated as a priority issue to be dealt with by Cabinet.
I am just wondering if the minister can indicate the timeframe when we will expect to see something come out of this review.
I am going to ask to Mr. Mrazek to tell you what the process has been or where the process is in that area.
It is not that it is not a priority of the government.
It is one of the priorities.
We did not put it aside, it is something we took very seriously.
Because of the technical nature of this department, it has to be done very carefully and it is a very important document to the department and to the government.
I will ask Mr. Mrazek to give us an update on where the review is.
Deputy Minister.
You and other members also remember that the report has been requested to provide a complete total operational review of the Petroleum Products.
The report has been completed at the beginning of September.
A report has been given to Financial Management Board and I believe it is on the next agenda.
Also, after that the report will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
It is a comprehensive report dealing with the complete operations aspect including financing and the many options for delivery of the fuel.
The question of the stabilization fund is there also.
But I can not really tell you what will happen because the report has to be reviewed first before anything can be recommended to be adopted.
As far as the amount of the stabilization fund, it is set up as everybody knows for 5 million dollars and is a liability of the government.
It is like a debt.
When you go purchase something on a credit card and you have to pay for it.
So we have to be very careful and that is the function of the stabilization fund, one of the options, one of the functions of the stabilization fund.
That is all I would like to say.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I can remember so many, February was a long time ago and I asked a lot of questions since then.
But Mr. Mrazek just stated that the stabilization fund appears on the books as a liability. Does it actually cost the government in actual dollars or is it just a number that is a liability because it is in the books.
It does not really cost us anything. If we do not have to spend that money.
What is the big deal of changing it.
Mr. Green: Just confirming what Mr. Mrazek said, the stabilization fund is a liability.
It is just like a bank account.
If you write checks in excess of the money in your account it would show up as an overdraft which in effect is a loan.
The stabilization fund is the same purpose.
If anytime we go and if there is a deficit position it is actually borrowed dollars.
I guess even in that line it is still, it does not have a negative cash flow effect on any of the government’s budget.
If our budget is 600 million dollars, it is not 605 million dollars because 5 million dollars of our budget is not taken away as a result of the stabilization fund.
Again, it is no real cost or no impact on the departmental budgets and the money that we spend on programs and services.
So I wonder why, or what is the big deal about changing it.
If you look at the stabilization fund, it does factor into the funds.
If you see our financial statements, the amount that we owe to the government if there is any deficit amount, the stabilization fund is a debit so that 5 million dollars is included as part of the government debt in the financial statement.
Mr. Tootoo: I understand that Mr. Chairman, but it does not have impact on the departmental budgets.
The money that we have to spend on our programs and services it does not have an impact on that.
Am I correct.
The 5 million dollars that goes in part, it is like a loan that Petroleum Products use to off set.
What happens when the stabilization fund is in a deficit it means we are selling a product at a loss.
It still forms an overall part of the government debt, which is still part of the actual dollars that forms part of the government debt.
If the government had a total of 35 million dollars and the stabilization fund is 5 million dollars, it would mean the surplus is actually 30 million dollars.
So it has to be factored into the overall funding as a government.
Mr. Chairman, if what Mr. Green is saying is correct, the statement made by the Finance Minister in the House yesterday of us having an operating deficit for this year of 30 million dollars, is that stabilization fund at 2 and a half million dollars.
Does that make up part of that deficit, our operating deficit or not.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Green.  Mr. Green: Yes it does.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Green. Mr. Tootoo.
Okay then so our operating deficit, if we want 3.5 million into the stabilization fund it would cut down our operating deficit by that amount.
Is that exactly what you are saying.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Tootoo can clarify his question. Mr. Green did not quite get what Mr. Tootoo was trying to ask.
Can he repeat his question.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to reconfirm that the operating deficit of this government for this year that the Finance Minister stated was roughly 30 million dollars. That if there was not that 3.5 million dollars in the revolving fund, that operating deficit would only be 27.5 million.
I think that clarifies the question Mr. Green.
Mr. Tootoo: I will just ask this question, I got more, but I am sure other members have questions too.
It is on a different topic I guess, Mr. Arvaluk kind of touched on it earlier.
The impact roughly is like a 25% increase in fuel across the board.
We all know that any time costs increase retailers and wholesalers pass that, you know they want to maintain a certain profit margin.
So their prices are going to go up more let’s say 30%, just round it up to maintain the profit margin that they want.
You know that is going to have an impact on everything. Right from individuals on income support, are their payments going to go, all the payments for individuals on income support, are they going to increase 25%.
Are the Government of Nunavut employees going to get a 25% increase as a result of it.
You know right across the board that has a direct impact on the cost of living for all Nunavut residents of more than that 13.9 cents a litre, that 25%.
So it will be passed on to the people of Nunavut.
Again, has that been taken into consideration on this decision and I would really like to know the answer to that because right now people on income support they have a hard time getting by as it is.
I do not know when the last time those types of payments were indexed.
People out there right now are barely getting by as it is.
Some of them are not.
A lot of people, you know the only way they get by is by hunting and fishing and now with this increase it is going to hinder and make that, the last thing people will be able to afford to do that as much with that much less income they are going to have. With the money they are going to have to pay for gas, with the price of gas.
Miss Thompson.
What we had said was the 25% increase was to the PPD when we bought the fuel.
The average increase for a Nunavut wide increase right now is 14%.
All those areas were considered when we did the price increase.
I think we have to realize that all over the world, all over Canada, there have been price increases.
We are not immune to this.
Just to correct that the average increase was 14% not 25%.
I am already on top of the 14% this time, I am adding the increase that we faced last year as well.
Maybe with that increase we faced, that we got hit with last winter, that comes to about 25% I guess.
We are not the only place having to grapple with how to deal with this.
You only have to watch the news and you see in Europe where they are blockading, they are really protesting all over the world about this.
I was watching the Yukon legislature last night and there were motions put forward to the government to increase their subsidies.
I think the percentage that was used was 25%.
So these types of things are dealt with and are pushed to be dealt with by not just pushing it to the consumers, but political leaders all over the world I am sure are looking at ways to try to help the consumer who is saying all over the world we can not afford this.
Our consumers are saying the same thing.
We can’t afford this increase.
As a government we have to try and find a way to lessen it.
I think this amount is way too high and I think people will not be able to afford to pay it.
People who may be working will be going to income support and I am sure, I know for a fact, when I worked at the Housing Corporation, these are outdated numbers here in Iqaluit for example, the shelter cost to maintain a home here three years ago and I am sure it increased since then, was about 664 dollars a month. Now on the programs that we had at the time, people were eligible for housing, homeowners that qualified for the program and it was based on those numbers and the level of assistance that was put out was quite high so a lot of those people like under the old EDAPP program, my guess and it is just a guess, anyone that received more than 50% subsidy or assistance would not be able to afford to maintain their homes as a result of the increases. I am not just saying the fuel bill itself, but it is going to have additional impact on all the other components that go into maintaining your families, food and everything else.
Chairperson (interpretation): I wish to recognize the clock.
We have to end our meeting by 6 o'clock.
So therefore I will ask the Speaker to come into the House.
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Chairman, in recognizing the clock I move that we report progress and continue on this topic tomorrow.
I would like to thank the minister and her officials, Deputy Minister Mrazek and Mr. Green.
Thank you for coming and I hope that you will sleep well tonight.