EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Question 190 – 2(2): Consider Stabilizing Power Bills
There are quite a number of Nunavutmiut who are not pleased with the 15 percent hike in the energy bills.
I think it is nearly a 50 percent hike in Whale Cove.
Also, looking at Grise Fiord, they have very high energy costs.
In Whale Cove, they pay approximately 40 percent more than in Rankin Inlet.
So, there’s a whole variety in the costs.
Could the minister help these communities, or can you give Qulliq Energy Corporation money so they could break even?
Why is it that you can’t do that for the people of Nunavut so that there’s more stability in the costs of energy?
First of all, all of the responses that we have received, whether it be through the CBC, through callbacks, commentaries by the business community, by residents, by most of the MLAs, by contacts through the Qulliq Energy Corporation office, have been very favourable in the announcement that has been made.
Second of all, the information given by the member is incorrect, and I want to point out that for the first 700 kilowatt-hours, and give the actual rate here, with the first 700, and that’s why we have the subsidy in place. For example, in the case of Whale Cove, that the member just mentioned, the old rate was $106.54 up to the 700 kilowatt-hours, and now with the new rate in place, it will be $128.80.
Because we are subsidizing everyone across Nunavut up to the first 700 kilowatt-hours, every bill from Cambridge Bay to Sanikiluaq, to Grise Fiord, inclusive, is $128.80, based on that new rate under the 700 kilowatt-hours. Up to 1000 kilowatt-hours with the winter subsidy. Again, because that subsidy is put in place up to 1000 kilowatt-hours, the actual rate is $184, not the increase that the member has said.
That is why the members across the House, we put the 1000 kilowatt-hour subsidy in so it wouldn’t cause hardship, especially in High Arctic communities, because without the 1000 subsidy, the member would be correct that the increases would have been 40, 50, 60 percent.
So, we are responding to that by way of a subsidy.
I appreciate the minister’s attempt to try and butter up the increased rate.
Our increase is 15 percent overall; I am not talking about a subsidy.
I am talking about overall, they are increasing 15 percent across the board for power consumers.
Is it a fact that Iqaluit power rates are about 50 percent lower than a place like Whale Cove?
That’s why we subsidize, so for everyone, up to the first 700 kilowatt-hours, I don’t make this stuff up, up to the first 700 kilowatt-hours the rate is the same. Up to the first 1000 kilowatt-hours in the highest months, the rate is the same, and the rate, the 15 percent increase across the board, comes out to be 3.18 cents for every residential customer.
In the majority of constituent cases, in our communities, because the majority of our customers and our constituents are in social housing units, that rate has not increased.
That’s still 6 cents per kilowatt-hour across the board.
The commercial rate has increased to 16.9 percent across the board.
I take it as fact that Whale Cove is paying close to 50 percent more than Iqaluit power rates.
That’s a fact, and the minister must come clean with it.
Will he table the breakdown, community by community, of the increased rates effective whenever the power rates came up, if not now.
Hon. Ed Picco: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can explain it this way very concisely.
The rate structure that we have in place right now came out of 1998 hearings, and at that time there were three proposals that came forward.
One was the postage stamp rate proposal, one was a harmonized rate proposal, and one was the community-based rates.
The Northwest Territories Public Utilities Board elected to go with the community based rates because at that time different communities had different concerns.
I know, as a member of the other House, we held public hearings. For example, they wanted to put Coral Harbour, Repulse Bay, and I believe it was Cape Dorset into one zone.
What would have happened is the larger two communities in that zone would have been subsidizing the smaller communities.
That was the case across the Northwest Territories, because we were part of the Northwest Territories.
So they decided the only fair way of doing it was to go with community based rates.
So, whatever the costs in your community are to have electrical generation, that’s the amount you pay.
At the same time, based on the Yellowknife rate, the Public Utilities Board in NWT said no one should pay any more for the service, the first seven hundred kilowatt-hours, more than what Yellowknife is paying.
That’s why everyone was subsidized down to the 15.52 rate, which was in Yellowknife.
What we’ve done, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in seven years, we’ve increased the rate, based on what the Utility Rate Review Council recommendations were.
That recommendation was a 3 cent increase across the board for residential customers, no increase to social housing customers, which make up the bulk of our constituents, and a 16.9 percent increase to the commercial customer base.
At the same time, the URRC recognized that the revenue requirements of the corporation will not be met and they have ask the QEC to come back with substantiation on the capitalization rider within 90 days, and they will do that.
At the same time, they’ve allowed the corporation to have the fuel rider.
Again, right now, we don’t know what that would be because we don’t know what the cost of fuel will be, and therefore and thus, it is not in place.
I can table the residential territorial customer rates based on the 700 kilowatt hours and the 1000 kilowatt hours subsidy as the member has asked for.
For the member to start saying that Whale Cove is paying X number of percentages more than Iqaluit, Grise Fjord is paying more than Whale Cove and Gjoa Haven is paying more than Clyde River; it goes across the board.
Those rates were put in place in 1998 and that’s what we’re basing it all on.
So, Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to propose a single rate proposal for all of Nunavut, which was just rejected by all Nunavutmiut and rejected by the URRC, then they could do that.
I appreciate the pontification of the minister who tried to explain exactly what had been decided.
The power rates still are not resolved.
There are still anomalies in Nunavut.
The only solution that we find aside from improving the subsidy, which is deserved by the people of Nunavut is this, that the power corporation is given and continues to be given in excess of over $40 million over two years for no condition what so ever, just to break even with their financial mess.
So, my point is this, will the minister ask for a continuing review so that all that funding that QEC is receiving can be put into harmonizing the rates throughout Nunavut.
The amount, if approved to date, was a $14 million transfer to the power corporation.
As the member knows, and I think everyone in the House has recognized and acknowledged, 80 percent of all the revenue generated by the power corporation comes directly from the government. So, if we had increased the rates in 1999, the year 2003, that money would have been paid by the government.
What has occurred is that we did not know what the revenue requirement was.
We didn’t have the financial statements.
That’s been pointed out by the Auditor General of Canada.
To date, $14 million has been given to the power corporation; $11 million of that would have been paid by us anyway.
That means the customer base did not pay the $3 million.
Of the $22 million that’s been asked for, again, 80 percent of that means $18 million, that’s another $4 million dollars that the customer base has not had to pay for because it was a political decision not to increase the rate and not to put the fuel stabilization rider in place until we determine what the revenue requirement is.
That has been done now by the URRC.
They’ve come forward with their recommendations and we’ve accepted them.
Mr. Speaker, that is the point that we’re moving on with.
I would agree with the member to follow up on his suggestion, which I think is a good one: to make sure that there is a comprehensive audit done on the corporation.
That will occur again and has occurred last year and the year before last and will occur next year, from the Auditor General of Canada, because the Auditor General by course and by duty, does a comprehensive audit.
Question 191 – 2(2): Pimaksalirivik Service Contract Negotiations
I would like to follow up on my question I had for the minister of health yesterday.
I’m interested in information on the contract with Pimaksalirivik Corporation in Chesterfield.
When exactly does the minister expect these negotiations to be concluded.
As soon as the negotiations are over, and as soon as I find out, I will let the member know.
Speaker (interpretation): First supplementary, Mr. Netser.
Why has it been taking two years to get a contract or negotiate that?
I will look into the member’s question and I will take it as notice.
Speaker (interpretation): Second supplementary, Mr. Netser.
Yes, I appreciate the minister’s response.
Can the minister also look into, so we don’t have to ask… . (interpretation end) Will the minister commit to instructing her officials to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible.
Question 192 – 2(2): Update on Search and Rescue Locator
My question is directed to the Minister of Community and Government Services, Mr. Kilabuk.
I asked this question during the session in May and I would like to ask the minister again.
In the springtime there are a lot of people who are out hunting and get lost out on the land and who have to be searched for by the search and rescue. I have been trying to deal with this for about a year.
I would like to ask the minister about this because he informed me that he would get back to me about the search and rescue equipment locator.
I just want to ask the minister what has been done to date so far on this issue.
When the member asked the question, I informed him that I would get some more information, but it turns out there are two different issues that were being researched about the locator for the search and rescue.
I will let the member know about the question he asked during May’s session.
What they’re trying to do now is they’re doing research on that locator to see which one works better for the search and rescue.
Speaker (interpretation): First supplementary, Mr. Alagalak.
Yes, we have been trying to resolve this for a year.
Perhaps if I could ask you, are you talking about the satellite system?
I think the satellite system has been researched already, but I’m talking about the ones that the hunters can carry themselves.
Like I said, there are two different things that we are talking about that have been researched.
The locator that the member is talking about is the satellite system. Apparently it was more durable in the north, but they have to do some modifications.
What we are talking about are those locator systems that the person carries on himself.
Speaker (interpretation): Your second supplementary, Mr. Alagalak.
Yes, I asked you that question in the May session, but what I said was this locator system has been used by individuals already and they have already done some testing on them.
What we found out is that as long as it’s turned on, it doesn’t matter at what distance the individual is, you could still locate the individual.
What I have done was I asked some search and rescue personnel about that.
Perhaps, the minister could work with the individual who has a locator business, because it’s not very expensive. Maybe I should encourage the minister to work with that individual who has the company and I could speak to the minister about the name of the individual in between sessions.
Yes, I will speak with the member, and I know that it has taken him a long time to try to have that locator put to use.
My staff has already done some research on that locator system and I will let them speak to the member about what their plans are and to talk to the individual with the company.
Speaker (interpretation): Your last supplementary, Mr. Alagalak.
Yes, that would be great if you could get your officials to work with that individual.
We could use that locator system for people that go out on the land.
I think we are ready to use that locator.
Whenever there’s a search and rescue of an individual who is lost, its very expensive, and I just want to ask the minister that question again.
The locator that we are talking about has to involve Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, because Inuit search for people that are lost on the land by using traditional knowledge.
What we want is something in place where we can find people lost on the land.
There are a quite a few people who wanted to have that locator system, and it has been received very well.
I will get my staff to work with the individual.
Question 193 – 2(2): Difference of Power Rates in the Communities
I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy.
Today, we have been talking about the new subsidy of 700 to 1000 kilowatt-hours, and the government is talking about an increase of 15 percent.
For a regular person down the street, like myself, I’m very bad with numbers… For the 700 kilowatt-hours to 1000 kilowatt-hours, is that 15 percent figure in that range?
I’m going to try and answer that because that’s a subsidy question, not so much related to the rates.
I’ll go back to try and explain again how we arrived at the community subsidized rate for Nunavut.
As the energy minister mentioned earlier, every community in Nunavut has different community rates.
Every single community’s power rates are different.
What we did to come up with the subsidy program and the subsidized rate for power is we took every single community and looked at the lowest rate in Nunavut.
The lowest rate in Nunavut is Iqaluit.
So, we took the Iqaluit rate, we applied the increase and divided that by two to come up with a new subsidized rate of 18 cents.
Before we applied the new subsidy, we operated under a Yellowknife rate at 15 cents.
That 15 cents was back in 1997.
Today, Yellowknife operates at over 18 cents as well.
So the Iqaluit rate was divide by two, to come up with the 18 cents.
So, every citizen, every consumer in Nunavut, whether you’re in Sanikiluaq, Arctic Bay, Gjoa Haven, Cambridge Bay, Whale Cove, it doesn’t matter where you are, for the first 700 kilowatt-hours, everybody pays the same rate: 18 cents.
If you go past the 700 kilowatt-hours, which is the subsidy during the summer months, then you pay your community rate for Sanikiluaq, Arviat, Whale Cove, and whatnot.
The majority of our clients, in our statistics, 78 percent, don’t go beyond 700 kilowatt-hours in the summer months.
We also put in a 1000 kilowatt-hours to recognize the fact that in Nunavut, we operate under dark conditions the majority of the year.
We also have very cold temperatures in the North.
So, in the winter, for six months, your subsidy program at 18 cents will then go up to 1000 kilowatt-hours.
That’s an increase in the subsidy program, so you pay the 18 cents up to 1000 kilowatt hours in the winter months.
If you go past that, then you’re going to pay, again, your community rate.
Based on our information and analysis on the benefits of increasing the subsidy program from 700 to 1000, there is a savings range of 8 percent to 43 percent in our clientele, by making that one change.
So, the increase of 3 cents for power rates, there is also a big benefit by increasing the subsidy program by 1000 kilowatt-hours, which is very unique, again, to Nunavut.
Nowhere else, in any jurisdiction, do you have a subsidy program that factors in environment and conditions.
Is the minister telling me that everybody is not paying more?
So, that subsidy from 700 to 1000 kilowatt-hours, nobody is paying more?
Or does it apply that this number is good for everybody in Nunavut?
Also, how does she come up with 1000 kilowatt-hours.
Every consumer in Nunavut will pay three cents more.
We operated under the Northwest Territories subsidy rates until April 1.
We came up with a Nunavut rate, which is what I explained, the 18 cents.
It’s 3 cents more than the old rate, which was 15 cents.
So, everyone in Nunavut, for the first 700 kilowatt-hours or 1000 kilowatt-hours, will pay 3 cents more.
How we came up with the 1000 kilowatt-hours: during the Utility Rates Review Council’s public consultations the business sector, the private homeowners, and every Nunavutmiut, including members, had an opportunity to appear before the URRC to talk about their concerns on the Qulliq Energy Corporation proposal: “in the winter months and in the dark days we should have a different subsidy program.”
So, what we did was we agreed to putting it up to 1000 kilowatt-hours to factor in the conditions that we live in, in Nunavut.
I still have three names on my list.
Question 194 – 2(2): Nunavut Arctic College Report Clarification
My question is for the minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College.
I am a little confused from his comments the other day that he made in the Committee of the Whole, and I will quote him from Hansard here.
It says: “When I first became the Minister of Education, I met with the board of governors at the college and directed the college to do an external review of the college on its programs and services and financial aspects.”
And then he goes on to say, “…it was an internal report to me as the minister.”
He gave a copy of the report to the president of the college.
Then, if you look at the report that he tabled yesterday, it’s prepared for the Minister of Education.
I am little confused. And then it goes on: when he was asked to table that report, he said that he would have to consult with the chair of the board governors to see if they minded if he tabled it. That would indicate to me, “is it their report or is it his report?”
It seems like it’s conflicting information, so maybe if I just ask the minister if he could clarify exactly whose report is it.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister responsible for the Nunavut Arctic College, Mr. Picco.
The short answer would be that it’s our report.
I was appointed the Minister of Education in March, as the members are aware. Shortly after that, I actually met with the board of governors.
When you become a minister, you want to be able to outline some of your priorities, for example, in education.
I talked to the staff about changing the school funding formula with the college.
I said, “Look, there may be some issues here, it has been five years, since 1999 to 2004; this is an opportunity to do a review of the college because of some of the concerns that I have heard during the election campaign.”
The board of governors agreed with that, and I would suggest to you that we retained the work of a consultant who was actually doing some work already for the college, for the board of governors.
I would say that the report is our report.
It was never to be a public report; it was an external review, and several people were on the review committee that were outside of the college but within the Department of Education and the government.
I wonder if the minister said the individual that they retained to do the work… . How was that advertised: was it an RFP; was it an expression of interest; was it a tender that was put out; or was it a sole-sourced contract?
How and who put that out?
Hon. Ed Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the member following up on the executive summary and the external review of the college.
The member, yesterday in the House, pointed out very strongly, many times, that we shouldn’t be afraid of issues that are occurring in government; that we should address them; we should move forward.
Mr. Speaker, on the 75 recommendations in the executive summary to be endorsed by the college, by the minister, by the government, I think in this case the consultant in the question, I believe it was a year ago, was already working for the college, already under a contract.
We went to him and said, “Are you able to do some extra work because you are already doing a review on some other issues?”
That is what occurred; it was an extension to the contract of the contractor.
That is how it occurred.
I just want to ask the minister if there was a terms of reference for that extension, for that contract that was done up?
There were a list of issues that were developed through the Department of Education and in consultation with the board of governors that we wanted the consultant to review.
The consultant did that, and there were over 37 external constituents related to the college that were interviewed, including alumni, faculty, and instructors and so on.
So, Mr. Speaker, the answer is, yes.
I know that the ministers have, over the years, commissioned many reports, and the minister indicated that usually they don’t make these kinds of reports public. When it seems to be a good news story, no problem making it public and tabling it and providing that information out there; the language of instruction report is a good example.
I am sure if we go through the list of tabled documents we’ll see all kinds of reports that the ministers and departments commissioned to get done.
My question for the minister then: if they had this individual working for them already and the minister, in some of his comments, there was a terms of reference done up… . Is he confident that the review was done in an objective manner and reflects the objectivity of looking at and dealing with those terms of reference?
This report was one of the better reports, external reviews, I think, that has been done on any Crown agency that I am aware of in the Government of Nunavut since 1999.
We set up, under the review steering committee… . So, we had the consultant who continually fed back to a steering committee, and the steering committee consisted of the Deputy Minister of Education, the Secretary of the Crown Agency Council, the director of internal audits for the Department of Finance.
It also consisted of the chief executive officer of NTI and Mr. Brian McLeod, who was on the board of governors for the college.
As the consultant worked through the taskforce recommendations that were given to him, in advance, of what we wanted to be reviewed.
Those were updated and reviewed on a constant basis.
The report came back to the review committee.
Other questions were asked, and finally the final report was completed and brought to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, this week the senior directors of the college are meeting in Rankin Inlet to go through the 75 recommendations that are there.
About three weeks ago the college board of governors accepted the report and passed it in the... . I just answered the question; keep listening.
Thank you, Mr. Tootoo; I’m glad Mr. Tootoo is in agreement with the answer that’s been given.
Question 195 – 2(2): RFP Award
My question is directed to the Minister of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
In September 2002, the Nunavut Housing Corporation issued a request for proposal for a feasibility study to assess the viability of relocating residential housing units from Nanisivik to Arctic Bay.
Can the minister tell the House when the RFP was awarded.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister Responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation, Mr. Kilabuk.
I would like to apologize to my colleague that at this time, I don’t have the answers in front of me, but I can assure him that I will take this question as notice and will respond to him further.
Written Question 026 – 2(2): Status of Decentralization
My written question is for the Minister of Human Resources.
It is concerning the status of decentralization.
The question is, since the data is in a comparable format to that which is provided in return to written question 9-2(1), what is the status of the Government of Nunavut’s decentralization initiative as of March 1, 2005?
Item 12. Item 13. Item 14, Tabling of documents.
Tabled Document 089 – 2(2): Workers’ Compensation Board Annual Report 2003
I wish to table the following document, the Worker’s Compensation Board’s Annual Report, 2003.
Speaker (interpretation): Please forward the documents to our clerk.
Tabled Document 090 – 2(2): Law Foundation Annual Report 2002