EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Why are we in a rush to go ahead with the bill because usually the government wants to make sure whether those will be effective or not.
Maybe do two to five houses in Nunavut.
The Pond Inlet Arena was tested in the 1970s and now they finally know it’s not adequate after 30 years.
For that reason, we don’t seem to have enough information whether this will be positive or not. So I will not be supporting this.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) To the principle of the bill. (interpretation) Member for Iqaluit East, Mr. Picco.
Very quickly, to the principle of the bill, there has been a lot of misinformation being said here today. There has been.
For example, to the principle of the bill, I don’t have a garage, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say very quickly that LED lights are out there right now. When we’re talking about banning the incandescent light bulb, we’re talking about technology that’s 100 years old. We’re not in a rush to do that.
This bill, when it receives second reading, if it receives second reading, goes to the standing committee.
The standing committee will take that like every piece of legislation and go out and do public hearings and hear from all Nunavummiut.
That’s the prerogative that provides the check and balance for the legislation.
If there are items that aren’t available right now, they will become available during the committee hearings. The committee then has the opportunity to report the bill back and then we vote on the bill. That provides the opportunity.
Right now, we’ve only gotten to the point of doing the second reading of the bill.
So there’s a lot of information to come forward. There has been some concern raised about cold weather.
There are compact fluorescent light bulbs, or CFLs, that work in the cold. That technology has already been tested and used in Alaska; it has been used in Greenland; it has been used in many other places, so some of the fear mongering that has been said is not correct.
The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, very quickly, is that after, and if the bill receives the second reading, then we will be able to have a proper debate and we’ll the opportunity to talk to all Nunavummiut, then the standing committee will be able to report back and say yes, this is a good bill, or no, it’s not a good bill, or maybe you should change your timeline.
That’s the principle of the bill. That’s the democratic process that we’re allowed to do in this House to give people an opportunity to speak.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Picco. (interpretation ends) To the principle of the bill.
I would like to support the principle of the bill.
Those light bulbs are more efficient and they don’t use as much fuel.
We can’t control the price of fuel but we can certainly control the amount of oil we use.
If use less fuel, it would be cheaper.
That’s why I support the principle because we spend a lot of money on that.
That’s one of the things that businesses find; the fuel is very expensive.
So I support the bill. It was already mentioned on how it can also assist.
There are different things that are being used and they can work just as well in cold weather.
So I will support this and I will be very happy if my colleagues can look to the future.
Very briefly to the principle of the bill; the fluorescent lights are about 13 watts and they give enough light, but once it’s cold, because it doesn’t go on right away, it doesn’t give off that much light, and then it uses more power.
It doesn’t seem to be equal because it takes a long time for it to turn on. When that is the case, does it use more power?
Do fluorescent lights use more power when you first turn the switch on?
What I would like to see is how much power or voltage it uses when it’s first turned on in cold weather.
I would be ashamed as an MLA if we went the wrong route and without adequate studies on how efficient those light bulbs are.
They forecast 13 volts but they have to use a lot of power to turn it on because there are different strengths and sometimes they even get hot.
I would like it to be referred to the committee, but at this time we should do more studies so that we can give it more consideration after that.
I’m going to be supporting this bill, I think more out of intrigue than anything else.
The principle of the bill at second reading is usually the opportunity that the sponsoring minister has seized the opportunity to use up to the 20 minutes that their allowed to explain to all members and listening public why this is a good bill.
That didn’t happen. So I’m curious to that.
I also would like to put a finger on, as far as the principle bill, the process that the minister talked about, the democratic process, is not the principle of bills in the democratic process that we should know.
The result of the conflicting information that we’re hearing, I chair that standing committee and I’ll make sure that we’re very thorough in doing our jobs to make sure that everything does get looked at. I think if there is an opportunity for us, as leaders, to look at ways to try and do the one thing that is having the biggest effect on our territory, and that’s global warming, to reduce that.
We have an obligation to look at it.
From that point, I’m surprised that we didn’t hear those kinds of comments coming from the minister today.
I guess we’ll have to do our homework ourselves and look at it, and I look very much forward to do that.
If we have an opportunity, and we can, reduce greenhouse gasses, we can reduce power consumption, we can reduce fuel, we can reduce the cost the individuals paying their power bills. I think we have an obligation to do that and I will be doing that, and I will be supporting this bill.
If those things are there, which we will find out after the process is followed; I’ll make my decision up then.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation ends) To the principle of the bill. (interpretation) Question has been called.
The bill has had its second reading and will be referred to standing committee.
Second Reading of Bills. (interpretation ends) Item 19.
Bills 10, Bill 11, and Tabled Document 49 – 2(4) with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
Before we proceed to Committee of the Whole we will take a 20-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:34 and Committee resumed at 16:00
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 10 and supporting documents, followed by Bill 11 and its supporting documents. If time permits, we will commence our discussion on Tabled Document 49 – 2(4).
Are we in agreement that we continue with Bill 10, and if time allows, we will discuss Bill 11 and Tabled Document 49 – 2(4)?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Simailak, do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table?
For the record, minister, please introduce your officials. Minister Simailak.
On my left is Mr. Ma, and on my right is Roy Green.
Welcome Mr. Green and Mr. Ma.
(interpretation ends) Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have ten minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
If I may, following Friday’s session with the discussions with one or two regular members, I believe we have now got the document, the Capital Supplementary Appropriations document in a format that’s acceptable to everybody. If possible, I would like those handed out now.
You can hand them to everybody on the floor.
Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2007-2008.
We’re on page H-9 and H-10.
I think they all have them now, so go ahead, Mr. Minister.
Hon. David Simailak: Okay. Just for the members’ information, the new documents for Community and Government Services are now on page 10 and 11 in the new documents I have just handed out.
Page 10 lists the capital projects, or expenditures, or commitments that are in place now for 2006-07 expenditures, and these are the ones that CGS would like to carryover into 2007-08.
On page 11, the top portion lists those CGS capital monies that CGS would like to carry forward into the fiscal year 2007-08, and this list of projects are those that have not started, or where no contractual commitments exists, or where no funds have been expensed in fiscal year 2006-07.
So I believe this is what the members were asking for and I believe this will now satisfy that request.
I would like to take a second to thank the minister and his officials. I’m sorry if you had to work on the weekend to present, I would think, the proper format.
I’m sure I’ll feel better approving it like this.
The old format that was there implied that all of them were actually capital carryovers, where we found out that some of them weren’t.
So I think that would have been something I would have requested Ms. Fraser to look at during her next audit, but if it goes in like this, I don’t think she’ll have any problem with it either.
I don’t have any problems with it now, and I thank the minister and the officials that put it together in this format. I appreciate it.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation) I don’t think there are any questions.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question. A few days ago, before you brought these documents to us regarding CGS, Mr. Rafter said that the finance management, $786,000... that the qualifying indicators were that I was a little shocked. Maybe the minister, Minister of Finance, could answer me when he was talking about the qualifier, and he said these are good projects.
As members of the Legislative Assembly, we think that there are good projects, and if anybody would not be qualified to get into those projects, why are they in that... they’re not carried over, but they’re new funding; they’re new in the budget.
It is my understanding that in previous years of the Government of Nunavut, when this was before the House in the Committee of the Whole, there were always projects in there where money had not been spent, or no contract had been signed, and they were never identified in the supplementary appropriation documents.
As part of our Strengthening Financial Management Project, this is the first year where we have tried to identify those projects, again, where no project has started, or where no contractual commitments exist, or where no funds have been expensed in that previous fiscal year.
That’s what we’ve tried to do in these documents.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I just want clarification because that was when Mr. Rafter, along with the minister appeared, he said to the committee that... mainly, the fact that no other explanation, other than the fact that the CGS bringing us the new projects, it’s the sole reason, the only reason why that they’re good projects.
Is this the new criteria each time the supplementary estimate is submitted that you can put in the additional expenses to be covered; mainly that fact that they may not be their priority but these are just good projects? Is that the new criteria being used by departments?
To Mr. Ma, please.
I will attempt to answer the member’s question.
As the minister stated in his comments on Friday, when he tried to clarify the process that we’re following, in the FAM, the Financial Administration Manual, when a capital project does not have a financial obligation against it, or if we haven’t spent money against that project, it needs to be brought back to the Financial Management Board and re-approved again, as a new project, even though that project was previously approved by this House. It needs to be brought back to FMB, and the terminology that is used is “new project” but it is an existing project.
In terms of the member’s question with respect to the criteria that’s used, there is no change in criteria. Obviously, when it goes to FMB, the previous criteria that were used to approve that project, would, of course, still stand.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ma. Mr. Curley.
For the record, I appreciate the response because I think it’s important that we clarify that because last Friday it was not clear exactly what he meant by it. Time didn’t allow for me to ask that question but I appreciate your clarification. (interpretation) Thank you. That was it.
We’re at page 9 and 10.
Mr. Ma just reminded me.
It is something for the record when I make it clear because I was having a very difficult time trying to understand it last Friday, as well. I appreciate Mr. Ma and others for taking the time to sit down with me after to try and make sure that we all understood the same thing.
As Mr. Ma indicated it’s more of a technical term for “new project,” that all these projects that are listed here under this area have been projects that had been approved in the House in the past but for whatever reason didn’t get started in any way shape or form.
So the process that Mr. Ma indicated requires it to go back for re-approval as a new project.
That’s where the confusion was: if it was a new project, or an old project.
For the record, am I correct in saying that the process that all of these projects that fit in this category were handed out were projects that were previously approved by the Assembly, and just for technical reasons they have been called “new projects”?
To Mr. Ma to clarify it some more, please.
I believe on Friday, in the minister’s comments, or it might even be my comments, I don’t recall for sure, but as part of our strengthening Financial Management Initiative, we’re all working on re-writing some of the sound directive. Obviously, this one would have some priority.
The member just made a really good point, which we at the department, it just didn’t get emphasized on Friday, but the fact that capital projects that didn’t have expenditures against them, or we didn’t commit money to at the New Year, and now have to go back to Financial Management Board is actually a good financial practice.
So we didn’t really emphasize that but I think that it’s actually a control point in terms of the government bringing back projects like that.
So thanks for reminding me of that, Mr. Member.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ma. Mr. Mapsalak.
I just want to get some clarification in the corrected version; I think we’re on page 10 or the old version.
We’re on page 10, and 11, and 12 of the pages that were handed out today.
We’re on page 10, 11, and 12, and Bill 10, page 9 and 10.
I just want to get a clarification on page 9 and 10. For the old page 9 and 10 are no longer in use, are we using the new pages that are handed out?
I welcome the ministers’ officials back to the witness table.
I’m curious about this one project that’s listed: the Iqaluit Brown Building Roof Repair. I was looking at the substantiation sheet and a couple things that came to mind.
Is that W.G. Brown Building, is that a leased building, or is that Government of Nunavut building?
That is Government of Nunavut owned, not leased.
That clarifies in my mind what you’re seeking here.
The other things that occurred to me, Mr. Ma mentioned good financial practices.
There are a number of substantiation sheets in here with notations, that the original substantiation sheets cannot be located.
On that particular project it says it dates back to 2000. There’s another one here for Cambridge Bay, “... would replace the water supply line and the original substantiation sheet cannot be located.” Another one here, “... sewage solid waste improvements in Whale Cove original substantiation sheet cannot be located.”
I’m wondering why those original substantiation sheets can not be located.
Is that not something that the government should have when they go forward with projects?
We don’t know why they are missing; these substantiation sheets are what came in from the departments as they’re written.
I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not he thinks its good financial practice for departments to be submitting projects for carryovers where they can’t provide the original substantiation sheet.
That’s why it’s highlighted on those particular pages, and in fact, all the pages as carryover justification.
Can the minister indicate whether he thinks it’s the Department of Community and Government Services who lost the substantiation sheets, or would it be the sponsoring departments that would have lost the substantiation sheets?
The substantiation sheets are written up by the sponsoring departments. We would have to go back to the sponsoring department for further clarification on that.
I think that it’s important that before you’re in a future lease, when we are going through this exercise again, that we do have all the substantiation sheets because they provide a lot of valuable history.
Like this one project for example, it mentions this project originated back to the year 2000.
Many of the Members of the Legislative Assembly weren’t here in 2000, so it would be very helpful information if we had the history, the original project history substantiation for reference to help us understand the project.
I wonder if the minister could commit to ensure that in the future, all the original substantiation sheets will be provided to the standing committee when they come forward for supplementary appropriations.
As part of strengthening financial management, we will continue to work with all departments regarding that.
We are on page 10 of the handout.
Not previously authorized. $15,189,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Not previously authorized. $15,189,000.
Chairman: Petroleum Products.
Not previously authorized. $3,018,000.
Total Petroleum Products Division.
Chairman: Thank you. Total Department. $18,207,000.
Chairman: Page 13 of the new handout.
Department of Economic Development and Tourism.
Not previously authorized. $3,382,000.
Total Department. $3,382,000.
Go back to page 2 of Bill 10.
Capital Appropriation. $88,215,000.
Chairman: To the bill. Bill 10. This bill should be in your white binder.
Chairman: Go to page 2 of the bill.
Vote 2. Capital.
Total Capital. $88,215,000.
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriation. $88,215,000.
Chairman: Are you agreed to bill 10 as a whole?
Chairman: Are you agreed that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 10 can immediately be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
Now, we have Bill 11 to deal with.
Bill 11, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2007-2008.
Go to page 4. Bill 11.
I do not think the projects are in here. Can the minister outline what that money for this fiscal year is for? $6,400,000 is not previously authorized and to provide funds of $1 million.
Can the minister give us an example as to where the money is going?
For the Residual Heat Projects, there’s $5,400,000. For the Homeowner Energy Efficiency Incentive Program, there’s $700,000. Incandescent Light Bulbs, there’s $200,000, and the Energy Efficient Public Information Campaign, there’s $100,000.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Is the $5 million for residual heat? Is that going to be used this fiscal year?
Together, there’s $6,400,000.
The amount of $700,000 will be directed to non-government houses, and the $5 million goes to government staff houses for the Eco Trust Fund.
I wonder why the Cabinet or the minister gives a small amount to homeowners and a lot more to the government because we have consumers here in Nunavut. There is nothing in here for Inuit in terms of energy efficient programs but the government staff houses get most of the funding, probably for leasing the buildings as well for $5 million.
I wonder why the homeowners have been left out a lot more. If there is, can you tell us how much is going to be directed to the homeowners out there for that program?
Chairman: Thank you, Minster Curley.
To Minister Picco, please.
Just very quickly on a couple of things. Mr. Curley has raised a couple issues under the Eco Trust Fund. The Eco Trust Fund, as the members know, is monies that have been announced in the federal budget and is pending the approval of the federal budget in the House of Commons.
Out of those monies, Mr. Curley has pointed out; it has been a tremendous opportunity for us in the community of Rankin Inlet, the member’s home community, we’ve been able to move forward on Phase I of the Residual Heat Project. We had an opportunity to go over there and move forward and actually officially open that project.
We’re saving a considerable amount of money, and the residual heat is 90 percent of the displaced diesel cost of energy when we look at the heat being displaced.
This Eco Trust Fund, Mr. Chairman, especially in Rankin Inlet, we’d be able to move forward on part two, as the member has indicated, of the Residual Heat Project, and replace the old link to the CGS buildings with addition to the new sewage treatment plant in Rankin, and those things right now are in the planning stage.
On the Nunavut Housing Corporation and the monies that have been made available under the Eco Trust, there are parameters, as the member knows and the House knows, for those types of trust fund moneys when you draw them out from the federal government. They don’t just give you the money and say, “Here, take $5 million and do whatever you want with it.” You actually have to have a list and a status of what can be carried out under those funds and what can be approved.
There are programs under the Nunavut Housing Corporation, again, in conjunction with some of the other monies approved in the House, including the Home and Renovation Program to make your house more energy efficient.
We’re moving with the energy sector to look at the energy audits of units. We’re looking at the design, for example, we have a five-plex we have designed under the Nunavut Housing Corporation that’s 25 percent more efficient than the national energy guidelines, or the energy code guidelines.
So these are just some of the ideas and some of the things that have been going on, and there are monies available through different programs that we’re running, separate from the Eco Trust monies, for homeowners to make their homes more energy saving and for alterations this fall.
Minister Curley.
I’d like to thank the minister for outlining some of the projects that will be funded.
But my point really is that the minister appears to, most of the time… these are very important projects and they have a great impact on Nunavut lives.
But really, the territorial government... or the government has had a lot less burden of proof upon themselves for affording such energy impact stuff and so on.
In many of the projects that are connected with the residual heat are really private sectors with long-term lease arrangements with the government. So in a sense, these are commercial buildings.
So I would like to ask the minister why the commercial sector and the public sector are the priorities, like the public infrastructure, government-owned infrastructure, they’re the priorities of this government, in terms of energy-saving conservation stuff.
Even though the minister says that the Housing Corporation has a number of projects, I just sent the Minister responsible for Housing an application for renovation projects that the homeowner has applied three times now, in three fiscal years. Each time there is a rejection, not qualified.
But these people are long-term residents, so why isn’t there much more public information about the Energy Conservation Initiative that the private homeowners can benefit from.
In terms of even heating systems, they are probably outdated now but we just don’t have any idea, nor can we go shopping for new heating systems in most of the communities.
Could the minister undertake putting in a good project that would benefit a homeowner?
Why is it so hard to do that?
To Minister Akesuk, please.
Chairman Thank you, Minister.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) We are going to be working with the Energy Secretariat to make sure that we get the information out there to the public.
If we should be getting any more federal funds, we will focus on the homeowners and the renovation of their residences. We will make sure that these monies are put to good use.