EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Number one, how much of the annual fuel supply purchased were used by Qulliq Energy and charged back to the ratepayers in Nunavut?
I closely listened to the question of the member yesterday and over the last couple of days in the House, and I know we’ve had some questions on this area and issue in the past.
First of all, the government doesn’t make profit on fuel.
We purchase the fuel and we sell it, and it’s done through legislation. We also have, as the members know, the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund and what we try to do on that is break even.
When the price of fuel is increased, then the Power Corporation also has to cover its costs.
However, they cannot apply for extra money to get those costs.
What it can do, through regulation, like every other jurisdiction in Canada, is to put on what’s called a fuel rider just to cover off the extra increases and expenses that are in place at that time.
If the question from the member is how much fuel the corporation will buy and what the price and cost of that fuel is, I don’t have that number right now because we haven’t finished the completion.
As I said in the House earlier, we have only purchased about 50 percent to date of all of our fuel supply and had it delivered, so we don’t have that firm number.
That will be available to us in about six weeks and then we would be able to look at if there’s a need for increase or indeed a decrease because we see what’s happening in the world market.
However, it’s too premature to be able to make that decision today.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response but I think Nunavummiut are looking for clarification. So my first question was really simple: what percentage or part is charged back to the consumer? We don’t know.
Is it at the whim of the minister? “It might be a good time to put a rate increase.” That’s how it currently operates right now.
What I’m trying to get at is: is there a policy rule where you establish ahead of time what percentage will be charged back to the consumers? If we do know that, then we would obviously have to deal with the other larger percentage of the fuel cost that may be.
Again, my second question is this: how much of the fuel bought by QEC in whole or in part is charged back to the consumers through the general pump prices throughout Nunavut?
Again, I’m going to try to be clear.
The price that the Power Corporation charges to generate electricity and to demonstrate a profit is called the rate.
That rate is in place and the Power Corporation, as everyone knows here in the House, went through a general rate application and that general rate application was agreed to by the URRC about two and a half years ago.
However, on top of that, when increases in fuel occur, and that’s an expense outside the control of the Power Corporation, they can put a fuel rider on. But before they can put that fuel rider on, they do have to apply to the URRC so that they can recover the costs that they would be expending based on the cost of the increase of fuel.
The URRC will monitor that and if the Power Corporation makes more money, or takes in more money, they have to rebate that back to the consumer. So those dollar values are in place and I think it’s safe to say that they are pretty transparent.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the question that the member is raising is a good one and that is, “What’s the total cost of the nominated fuel?” I believe that’s what the member is saying.
The Power Corporation buys fuel in two ways – one, at retail prices from the Government of Nunavut and two, in bulk prices from the Government of Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, it is obviously very clear that there’s no standard procedure for requesting a chargeback policy.
What I’m trying to get at is that there’s no general or specific rule where the percentages of fuel bought, whether it be nominated or on cost basis, is going to be charged back to communities.
I think it’s important that the minister should consider establishing guidelines for Nunavummiut at what percentage of the fuel used or bought by QEC should be charged back to the community, otherwise, we will continue to be living under uncertainty.
To make it more transparent, would the minister consider establishing guidelines and ask his officials to make it more fair and transparent for Nunavummiut to see whether or not part of the fuel that they are charged with through the pumps is part of QEC’s expenditures or if it’s just a CG&S general public consumption use.
So it would help if the minister can help us establish a clear guideline so that Nunavummiut are not confused about what they’re paying for.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, the member is raising three or four real different issues and we can’t compare apples to oranges. We have to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
What I’m saying to the member is number one: there are regulations and rules in place.
The Power Corporation cannot charge anything above what is allowed through the Utility Rate Review Council and the URRC looks at that. There is no rate increase for the Power Corporation. We did that two and a half or three years ago.
What is occurring right now is that when the Power Corporation goes out into the marketplace, whether it’s for the GN or on a rack price, on world market prices, if they have an increase in their costs, and in this case, we know there’s an increase in costs because we have all seen the price of oil going up, the Power Corporation has to recoup those costs and it can’t make a profit on those costs.
That’s transparent, that’s in regulation, and that’s in legislation. If the Power Corporation charges a rider for their fuel right now at 12 cents and they make $100,000 more than they’re supposed to, that has to be rebated back to all customers and consumers of the Power Corporation.
The second point that the member is making, which again is comparing apples to oranges, is: what is the nominated cost of fuel? The Government of Nunavut makes no profit on fuel; the government does not make money on fuel.
The government purchases the fuel at bulk prices and it is run through a Petroleum Products Revolving Fund. The price that is set at the pump by Nunavut… when the Government of Nunavut says that the increase is 22 cents, then those 22 cents is supposed, as the members know, to cover off the Nunavut government’s cost of purchasing, supplying, and transporting fuel.
The price at the pump that a retailer charges is a little bit different because they have to make a profit. If the Baffin Gas Bar, for example, is selling gas, they have employees, they have to pay their light and phone bills, and so on and so forth, so they have to make some kind of profit to be able to operate a gas bar.
That’s a little bit different.
So hopefully that helps clarify the amounts and so on. There are regulations and there is legislation in place to guide and give us direction when we look at the cost of fuel.
Question 638 – 2(4): Nuisance Bears (Peterson)
Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents in Cambridge Bay have raised the issue of nuisance grizzly bears with me.
As the minister may be aware, the number of bear sightings near the community has increased in recent years. Just over the long weekend, Mr. Speaker, a mother bear and three cubs were observed approaching a cabin that had 20 people at it.
Fortunately, the bears were distracted by a herd of musk ox and ran off after them.
Mr. Speaker, cabins that are near the community have also been ransacked by bears. A constituent told me last night that they had a bear on the roof of his cabin, but it fell off and ran away.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that sections 74 and 97 of the territorial Wildlife Act address the issues of dangerous animals and the defence of life or property. However, many of my constituents don’t know what the law allows them to do in different circumstances.
One of my constituents told me last night that he’s worried that if he shoots a bear, he will be charged. So he’s unclear.
I’m wondering if the minister could tell me how his department works with local wildlife offices and HTOs to ensure that the general public is clearly aware of the law and how it is enforced.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) During this week, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board held a meeting on this very issue and how they’re going to be dealing with grizzly bears in Nunavut as they don’t want people to face safety issues.
We’re hoping that our staff will work very closely with the communities in dealing with grizzly and nuisance bears.
We have to place a priority on the people of Nunavut and make sure that there are no safety issues.
Once we have the minutes of the meeting, perhaps I can write a letter stating when we would be able to provide more assistance and how government employees can be included or involved when there are individuals in danger.
I thank the minister for that informational update and I certainly hope they have successful meetings this week.
Mr. Speaker, this issue of nuisance grizzly bears was recently discussed by Cambridge Bay’s hamlet council, and constituents and residents of Cambridge Bay have raised that issue with them as well.
Will the minister commit to writing directly to the hamlet council on this matter and offer to have departmental officials brief the hamlet council on the issue of how to deal with nuisance bears near the community?
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, grizzly bear sightings near Cambridge Bay have increased in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, grizzly bears are not an indigenous species to Victoria Island. We usually have polar bears up there but not grizzly bears.
I wonder if the minister could indicate to me if his department has conducted a grizzly bear population count for Victoria Island.
As of now, the GN has developed a draft Grizzly Bear Management Plan and up to now, we haven’t done enough consultations.
Once that is done, we will make sure that we do the counts in the future.
Without a management plan, I don’t think we have decided to do inventory on the polar bears.
Once that management plan is developed and finished, we will certainly make sure that we have the inventory of the grizzly bears in our territory.
There is estimated to be 20 to 30 grizzly bears on Victoria Island and many of them are near the community and some are as far north as Hadley Bay.
I wonder if the minister, when he’s preparing the Grizzly Bear Management Plan, can consider relocating the grizzly bears on Victoria Island back to the mainland where they will be indigenous to their area.
I guess we will have to work very closely with NWMB, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, to come up with ideas on how we could deal with grizzly bears in the future. Again, we will also consider that in our management plan.
Question 639 – 2(4): End of Life Vehicle Removal Outside of Iqaluit (Kattuk)
The minister told us that they’re doing a clean-up of end-of-life vehicles and scrap metal removal from Iqaluit.
Could the minister indicate to the House if they have identified the other communities outside of Iqaluit that will be cleaned up?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) We haven’t identified the other communities at this point.
There were a number of communities that were doing an inventory of the amount of end-of-life vehicles and scrap metal that has to be removed, as well as cost estimates.
We will make sure that all the paperwork and everything required is completed before we identify which communities are going to have this activity done after the Iqaluit project. We will have to look at all the specifics before we find out which community and which year the clean-up would be started, and I think we will have a better idea next year.
They have to do an inventory and other specifics before they identify the other communities.
Could the minister indicate how much end-of-life vehicles and scrap metal would have to be removed from a community before it’s identified as a priority?
We haven’t set up a specific tonnage or anything, but the end-of-life vehicles have been there for quite a long time and we would like to have them entirely removed and shipped to recycling facilities down south some time in the future.
We would like to work with all communities in the coming years to ensure that scrap metal and end-of-life vehicles are sent out wherever possible.
In the Belcher Islands and in the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq, there have been some mining activities, not very much but there has been some activity around the Belcher Islands.
There are leftover drills and scrap metal abandoned outside of Sanikiluaq, around the Belcher Islands.
Could the minister indicate to the House if they were looking at cleaning up the sites outside of the municipal proper areas?
Those sites are the responsibility of the federal government.
We’re looking at remediation of DEW line sites and other areas outside of the communities. It would have to go through the federal government process, but I will make sure that I get the information that is required before anything is done around that area.
I’m sure it affects all the communities, but in my riding, there are scrap metal and end-of-life vehicles that have been buried.
What about those scrap metal dumps and the items that have been buried?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) I’ll get the information.
If the scrap metal and end-of-life vehicles are available and dug out, it would make it a lot easier to send them down to the recycling facilities in southern Canada.
I’ll make sure that I get all that information and provide it to the members.
Question 640 – 2(4): Response to Written Question 15 – 2(4) (Tootoo)
As soon as I asked my third supplementary question last time, I realized I had the wrong question and the Premier did answer correctly. I should have known that solicitor-client privilege is confidential.
Now, would the Premier, Mr. Speaker, indicate what law prevents him from releasing certain information? I’m just wondering if he could be specific and inform us as to what statute, what section, or where it is that prohibits him from providing us or me with that number.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) It is a long established practice and convention that Cabinet meetings are confidential and considered that way, and that any information is not to be disclosed.
So that is a convention that we have followed and will continue to follow as it provides for freedom of discussion, without fear amongst Cabinet Ministers on what proceedings are taking place within Cabinet will remain in Cabinet. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I’m a little confused.
Earlier, he said he is prevented by law from providing that information and now, it’s just a long-standing tradition.
Maybe if I could just get a clarification.
Is it a law that’s preventing the Premier from providing, not any information of what happened, I’m asking what I was asking, if a number, if a certain clause was ever invoked or used in their meetings.
Is it a law, as he stated earlier, or is it a convention that’s preventing him from providing that information?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) It is a convention that has been in place for every government that is following the British system that we are practicing today. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know and I respect the traditions of Parliament as I know in a lot of cases in the past here, I fought to protect the privilege of the House and the Assembly for all members and I respect that, but I fail to understand and see how providing a number breaches that.
Maybe we can just get an explanation from the Premier on how providing a number is a breach of that.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) As I said, contents of meetings, what is discussed in Cabinet remains in Cabinet and that is the convention that we are following today and will continue to practice for Cabinet Ministers that are going to be in Cabinet today and tomorrow and in future governments so that they can have the confidence that the proceedings are protected, so they are free to discuss what is of concern to them and raise issues and matters for Cabinet.
So that is the practice that we have followed today and will continue to follow. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I totally agree with the Premier on that, but I fail to see... I’m not asking for the contents of any meetings, or minutes, I’m not asking for any discussions.
I’m simply asking how many times a section of the Integrity Act has been invoked or not.
That’s it, just the number.
What does that have to do with anyone’s ability to be worried about saying anything or doesn’t divulge any information? I’m not asking for whom, or about, or why.
I’m just asking and the question was clear: how many times has that section of the Act been invoked?
Maybe with that, the Premier could clearly and concisely inform me and other Members of this House and the listening public how that’s putting out information that is confidential.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I cannot say how many times, but I can assure the member that my colleagues have been very upfront and forthright in our proceedings and have taken extra precautions.
Even when they don’t have to disclose information, they have freely provided information before proceedings and have continued to do so to this day, and have been very cooperative in making sure that all the procedures and precautions are taking place if there is potential for conflict.
So that is something that we have continued to practice to this day. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 641 – 2(4): When Will GN Complete the Fuel Purchase for 2008-2009 (Tootoo)
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Energy, or the Minister of Community and Government Services, but I want an answer to this from whomever.
I think it was mentioned the other day that the government hasn’t yet completed purchasing its fuel.
So I was wondering if we could get indication as to when it anticipates all the fuel that we need for this year’s resupply will be completed being purchased.
We order a large volume and I’m sure that the member knows that during the session on December 7, 2006, there was a ship that was docked here and it was carrying petroleum.
I don’t want to make a guess but it will probably be here again in November.
In the past, I remember that ship in the ice out there a couple of years ago and I know in previous years, I don’t recall deliveries being that late in the season.
I’m just wondering if the minister could give an indication as to why the delivery seems to be happening later and later than they were previously.
We all know that in every community, the population is growing and the ice stays out a lot longer or it doesn’t ice up.
It’s a little bit different here in Iqaluit.
The ships come in later and later all the time because the Coast Guard is there to help the ships out and that’s why they come to Iqaluit.
We encountered a danger in Rankin Inlet last year and I can still remember it, so I emailed a letter in regard to that because it’s dangerous for the ships to try to come into the community.
How can we, as a government, provide more assistance?
How can the Department of Community and Government Services provide leadership or encouragement to change the shipment dates of these transportation ships?
They are liable to sink if they run into ice.
I know at the time when that ship was here in December, I believe one of the local companies that does the supply refused to have their people out there just because of the dangerous conditions along the fuel line for the resupply.  Mr. Speaker, like I said, this is something that has been happening more and more just recently.
I’m just wondering if the minister can indicate if it is a result of the new contract that was entered into by the government for the provisions of resupplying the fuel to Nunavut. If not, what issues are causing it to be that late in the year?
I think it’s high time that the GN look at the regulations with the Coast Guard and see what they have in place as a safety net for these latecomers because it is becoming a safety issue.
I would like to talk with my senior officials to see what can be done to address that issue.
I thank the minister for that and I certainly look forward to hearing any information or ideas that they do come up with.
Can the minister indicate if it’s a result of the new contract that they have for fuel delivery that’s causing the delays or is it an internal problem that is causing the fuel to come later and later every year?
Certainly, the member’s questioning is a good one.
Certainly, we would have to put in a monitoring mechanism for sure because this is a concern to a lot of us.
Like I say, we have different contractors with different shipping companies and we don’t tell them how to ship their goods because they’re a company.
The scheduling is set up by each company, but I think we can raise our concerns that have been raised in this House, by this Assembly, to the companies. I will make sure that it is conveyed to them.
Tabled Document 278 – 2(4): Towards a Representative Public Service – Statistics as of March 31, 2008 (Barnabas)
Hon. Levi Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to table the following document: Towards a Representative Public Service – Statistics as of March 31, 2008.
Bill 40 – An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Nanulik, that Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act, be read for the second time.
Bill 40 has had second reading and is referred to the appropriate standing committee.
Bill 41 – Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2008-2009 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 41, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2008-2009, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the forgiveness of a debt in accordance with section 83 of the Financial Administration Act.
Bill 41 has had second reading and is referred to the appropriate standing committee.
Bill 42 – Miscellaneous Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 – Second Reading
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Quttiktuq, that Bill 42, Miscellaneous Justice Statutes Act, 2008, be read for the second time.
This bill corrects inconsistencies and errors in certain Acts of Nunavut and updates one Act to change references that relate to the Northwest Territories to refer instead to Nunavut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I seek unanimous consent of the House to waive Rule 67(2) and have Bill 42 moved to the Committee of the Whole. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister is asking for unanimous consent that Bill 42 proceed directly into the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 42 is referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 43 – Write-Off of Assets and Debts Act, 2008-2009 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets and Debts Act, 2008-2009, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the write-off of assets and debts in accordance with sections 24 and 82 of the Financial Administration Act.
Bill 43 has had second reading and is referred to the appropriate standing committee.
Levinia Brown.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to go back to an item on the Order Paper.
There is an individual here from Rankin Inlet.
Tagak and I usually don’t have an opportunity to recognize individuals in the House, so I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Peter Pilgrim. He is an RCMP member from Rankin Inlet and also one of my constituents. He is well known throughout Nunavut.
Bills 39 and 42, and also Tabled Document 216 – 2(4), with Mr. Kattuk in the Chair.
Before we proceed with the Committee of the Whole, we will take a 20-minute break.