EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay that Bill 3 – An Act to Amend the Statutes Revision Act be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, statutes revision is a process in which all the statutes up to a certain date are consolidated and revised.
That consists of combining all the amendments in the statutes being amended and then making limited changes of an editorial or technical nature.
These changes include renumbering and changing references to the Northwest Territories to Nunavut.
The amendment being proposed will change the dates as of which the statutes are revised from April 1, 1999 to January 1, 2000.
A few other technical changes will also be made.
The motion in carried.
Bill 3 has had second reading and accordingly the bill stands referred to committee.
I move seconded by the Honourable Member for Pangnirtung that Bill 4 – An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, the bill amends the Land Titles Act to simplify all of the required documents and to reduce the delays in the land conveyance process.
Signatures and affidavits of witnesses and listing of encumbrances will be longer be required.
A standardized form will require a seller or mortgager to recognize the rights of a spouse who is not registered on the title to a family home.
Remote service by fax could be permitted on conditions to be prescribed by regulations.
Duplicate certificates of title will no longer be issued automatically but only on request and payment of a fee.
This will help prevent delays that can be caused by lost certificates.
Some responsibilities of the registrar will be clarified for improved administration of the land titles system.
The bill will come into force on proclamation.
Certain sections may be proclaimed later than the rest of the bill where new systems, policies and regulations will be needed.
Bill 4 has had second reading and accordingly the bill stands referred to committee.
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rankin South.
That Bill 5 – The Floral Emblem Act be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, the Act adopts the purple saxifrage as the floral emblem of Nunavut.
Bill 5 has had second reading and accordingly the bill stands referred to committee.
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Hudson Bay that Bill 6 an Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act and other Acts in relation to the Legislative Assembly be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Legislative Assembly Executive Council Act in relation to the living allowances members get when they attends sessions in the Legislative Assembly, attend certain meetings or perform other duties.
The amounts of living allowances are currently set in the Act at 57 per day.
If the member is within commuting distance and 200 per day if the member is not within commuting distance.
The amendments will provide for these living allowance to be set by regulation.
The bill also amends the Elections Act and the Official Languages Act to provide for the appointment in certain circumstances of an acting Chief Electoral Officer or acting Languages Commissioner.
The Interpretation act is also amended to remove the related provisions which will become unnecessary as a result of the amendments that deal with other acts.
Bill 6 has had second reading and accordingly the Bill stands referred to the committee.
Ministers’ statements 6-1(4), 7-1(4), 8-1(4).
Bill 1, 5 and 6.
Mr. Puqiqnak will chair.
Prior to commencement of the committee of the whole we will recess for approximately 30 minutes.
I ask the members to join me in the members’ lounge.
>>House recessed at 12.12 p.m. and resumed at 12.56 p.m.
Chairperson (Mr. Puqiqnak) (interpretation): Good afternoon Members of the Legislative Assembly and Cabinet Members.
We are now in committee of the whole.
During the committee of the whole, we will deal with Minister's Statement 006-1 (4) and also Minister's Statement 007-1 (4), Minister's Statement 008-1 (4), Bill 1 – Supplementary Appropriations Act, No. 1, 2000/2001, Bill 5 – The Floral Emblem Act, Bill 6 – An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly & Executive Council Act and Other Acts in Relation to the Legislative Assembly.
What’s the wish of the Committee.
Mr. Havioyak: We wish to discuss Minister's Statement 7 - 1(4).
Fuel Price Increases.
Chairperson (interpretation): Fuel Price Increases for Nunavut.
The committee wishes to deal with the Minister's Statement.
Minister Thompson, do you have any new comments.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation):Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I can go sit down at the witness table if that is the wish of the committee, with the witnesses from Petroleum Products.
We will continue with the fuel price increases.
Yes, you may go to the witness table along with your witnesses.
I’m sure that we know who your witnesses are, but you are the minister for the department, your witnesses are Mr. Green and Deputy Minister Mrazek.
We’ve already been introduced.
Yesterday, we debated the matter during committee of the whole, we’ll just continue on from yesterday's debate.
Madame Minister do you have any opening comments.
I don't have any opening comments because I did the opening comments yesterday.
We can just continue with yesterday's debate and I hope you had a great lunch today.
Chairperson (interpretation): I apologize for asking for your opening comments.
We are just continuing yesterday's debate.
I had a list of names yesterday, but since we are on a new day, I didn't bring my list of names.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I was asking about the price stabilization fund and Mr. Green indicated that it was established in 1972 with five million dollars.
I also asked about looking at indexing and seeing what that would be worth today.
I checked into it and I used the Bank of Canada's inflation calculator and Mr. Chairman, in 1972, five million dollars would be in the year 2000, equivalent to 21 million 918 dollars.
I am just wondering, given that's the difference between then and now, is there any possibility of increasing or indexing that stabilization fund.
I am going to ask Mr. Green to tell us what the consequences would be in regards to that.
But the bottom line still is that the government would still have to pay the bill, whether it is 5 million, 10 million, 2 million.
It is still something that we would have to pay the consequences as a government.
I will ask Mr. Green to elaborate more on that.
The five million dollar stabilization fund as you are all aware is a part of the revolving fund.
So if we were to index the stabilization fund, if that was an option, what would need to be done, there would need to be a submission put through the Financial Management Board and I think then it would become part of an amendment to the Revolving Fund Act which would have to be carried out though the Legislative Assembly.
I can only comment on the stabilization fund, that the stabilization fund had worked well up until this year, for the most part, because we have only had an 8 cent increase over a two year period.
The last two years the reason why the stabilization has been ineffective is mainly due to the significant increase of refined products on the international markets.
We have seen over the last two years the price of diesel home heating fuel double.
It was a 100 per cent increase for what we paid on the 1998 re-supply compared to what we paid this year.
Gasoline we saw a 120 per cent increase.
So these are some of the reasons why right now we find ourselves in the situation that we are going forward with an increase in the retail rates.
But no matter what, if you increase the stabilization fund to 21 million dollars, then it becomes a government debt.
It has to be repaid at some point in time and by increasing the stabilization fund all you are doing is deferring, keeping the price of fuel up in the long term.
It is a good short term solution but it does nothing in the long term.
Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Chairman, I was not asking to increase the stabilization fund to 21 million dollars.
I was just stating that is what 5 million dollars in 1972 would be worth today.
Just to get an idea across of how costs have changed over the years.
You talked about a 100, 120 percent increase in gas and fuel oil.
The percentage change from 5 million to 21. 9 million is roughly a 340 percent difference.
I am not asking that we increase it that much but maybe Mr. Chairman if I could ask what would we have to increase the stabilization fund to, in order to accommodate, looking at cutting the increase from 13.9 in half for both home heating fuel and gasoline.
If that was done how much would we have to increase that fund.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, did you forget who I was.
I do not have the detailed numbers.
Although Mr. Green does not have the detailed numbers perhaps he can respond to your question.
Hypothetically, although we understand that the 5 million dollar stabilization fund is increased, the government would still have to pay for the increase of the stabilization fund.
It would become a debt for government.
That is how we see it.
Perhaps Mr. Green can elaborate on that to you.
Mr. Green: Just an estimate based on some of the numbers that I have been familiar with.
The volumes that if we were to look at reducing the price of diesel home heating down to half of what has been approved and decrease the price of gas, you are probably looking at about 4.5 to 5 million dollars that would be covered through the revolving fund.
In September the revolving fund limit was 1.5 so if we were to go ahead then we would likely exceed the maximum level limit under the revolving fund.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Given the numbers, I can appreciate the fact that is a ball park number that he is using.
Given that information, if we were to cut the increase in half on home heating fuel and gasoline we would only have to increase the stabilization fund 3.5 million dollars.
I think the Minister of Finance indicated there was a 60 million dollar surplus this year from last year and they are looking at an operating deficit of 30 million.
It still leaves 30 million dollars out there.
I do not see why an option like that is not looked at.
Mr. Green can correct me if I am wrong.
I understand that we would be in debt to the government only if it is used.
Any sales or any profits, let’s say if prices were to suddenly drop and the division made money that would also go in there to offset that deficit.
It is not just any profits made also go in there.
I would not, it may, even though its increased, even if we increase it, 3.5 million dollars, it is only a debt if we use it.
If we looked at that over time and prices dropped that will have an effect as well.
Hon. Manitok Thompson: I do not think there was a question, just a comment.
But I could say we looked at all the options and as you know there are other priorities of the government.
We looked at all those as a government.
The officials in my department looked at all the options and they felt that 13.9 was the best number to work with to stabilize the fuel for the next 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, then is the minister saying that this government has already earmarked the surplus of 53 million dollars for other purposes, that is already earmarked for something.
If so I would like to hear what that is because and as far as I know any surpluses or any money that has to be spent by this government have to be approved by this House.
As it sits right now, we are looking at 30 million dollars roughly sitting out there.
I do not see why we can not take three and a half of that and increase the stabilization fund in order to reduce the impact that the rising price of fuel would have on all the residents of Nunavut.
I am not speaking for the Minister of Finance but I do know from the comments that are coming forward from the regular members there is a lot of need in the communities.
For instance this morning we heard recreation facilities need to be built, schools need to be built, and health facilities need to be built.
That is the point of where I am coming from.
I am not saying that anything is committed on behalf of the government I can not speak for the Finance Minister.
I am trying to say that there are other priorities and a lot of pressing issues for this government.
Mr. Chairman I think with this issue that fuel prices is one where we do not have any control over the world price.
I would guess that if members or this government would have known about it ahead of time it would have been put forward as a priority.
Mr. Chairman I know last February with the 5-cent increase there were many concerns raised at that time.
Again to the government and to the ministers, do they not feel that this although it is not a planned thing that we have control over, not to take it as enough of a priority to try and reduce the impact, the negative impact that it would have on all people of Nunavut.
Looking at putting a fraction of some of the surplus towards dealing with this problem.
I understand your comments.
However on the revolving fund, looking at the stabilization fund and all the other funds that are going to be used for petroleum products, that is the number we picked 13.9 cents.
We figured it would be best for the increase.
From the various options, my staff has reviewed all the options, the staff of the Department of Finance has reviewed this 13.9, and it does not go over a dollar, so we felt that this figure would be the most appropriate.
I think everyone knew, everyone in the world knew that the oil prices were going to go up.
Everybody is aware it’s not news to us, we have known about these increases for quite some time.
Although we knew that the world oil prices would go up, officials, when they started to look at the options, this would have the least negative impact on the people with the 13.9.
So we thought this figure was the best.
Mr. Chairman, given that the minister just said that they were looking at all the options, can I ask her if increasing the stabilization fund at all was looked at as an option.
As I have said before, that the Petroleum Products Department would be under review, and at that time this was reviewed also.
I know that the fuel price is going to increase, they looked at the options and they looked at the stabilization fund, this was also reviewed.
If we increase the stabilization fund, we would pay for it, and the government would be in debt, and we would have to use the government dollars to increase that stabilization fund.
I just want to make sure I have it correct. So the minister said they did look at the fact of increasing that stabilization fund, but then decided against it, is that what’s she saying.
The way it is, we looked at whether the government would go into a deficit situation, or according to this figure, are we going to try to keep out of a deficit situation.
What I am trying to say is that officials from Petroleum Products, reviewed the stabilization fund and other funds, they reviewed all these issues, and they came up with the best option which was 13.9.
Then the minister is saying that the cabinet didn’t look at the option of increasing the stabilization fund or analyzing the impact that it would have on the government’s financial situation.
That it was staff at PPD that just presented the one option and that was the best and that was what the minister took forward.
Is that what happened.
Based on her last comment, that’s what I heard.
At the cabinet level we discussed this but looking at the government as a whole, we make decisions for government as a whole, with these various options.
We discussed these various options, and this was reviewed by MSB.
We discussed these and then we made an agreement.
At the cabinet level we have already discussed this and agreed to it, and that is how the system goes, we review all different aspects before we make any decisions.
For those who have been given authority to deal with finances, we have to respect them too.
Because they have to deal with these issues too and they have to look at various options.
Once they have reviewed all aspects they give us options for us to decide on.
As ministers we have to select what is best.
This is done at the cabinet level.
It is not just the department that makes these decisions.
The decisions are made at the cabinet level.
I have other people on my list.
I will be asking another member after this one.
I guess I still do not have an answer to whether cabinet or FMB did seriously look at the possibility of increasing the stabilization fund and the impact it would have on the financial situation.
Was that something that cabinet did look at and analyse.
The member Mr. Tootoo continues to raise questions about cabinet discussions.
FMB discussions, what options were brought forward.
I have kind of allowed him to get into discussions but I think at some point Mr. Chairman that the normal rule of parliamentary procedure, that cabinet discussions, FMB discussions, committees of cabinet, what takes place is not normally in the realm of the public for discussion or not particularly in the House.
So I would ask that be taken into consideration.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ng. Mr. Tootoo.
I was not really asking the details of that discussion.
All I really wanted to know is, was that an option that they looked at in that way and I have not been able to get that answer.
I do not try to keep saying it over and over again in order to find out whether or not, simply that at any level of detail that was an option that the government looked at.
Following the House rules.
We have the House Leader who made appropriate comments.
They are not allowed to be discussed in the House.
Some things that were discussed at meetings can not be discussed outside to the public or in the House.
Ms. Thompson do you want to respond to Mr. Tootoo's question.
Mr. Tootoo I will ask you about your last question.
To whom are you directing that question.
To madam minister. Ms. Thompson.
I can only say that as I stated in Inuktitut, we look at all options when we are making a decision.
We do not make decisions by not looking at other options.
Mr. Tootoo I will then allow another member to ask a question.
I just want to refer to your statement in the last paragraph.
I was just wondering, it got me curious anyway. When you are talking about some options may be possible for low-income homeowners.
Possibly through programs such as the seniors' fuel subsidy program.
I am just wondering what your, when you say that, you said you have options.
What are those options that you are looking at now.
We are looking at the option of expanding the seniors' fuel subsidy program.
That is the option we are looking at right now for how to help the low income homeowners.
Mr. Havioyak: Expanding the subsidy.
Is that what you meant.
What I am saying is that the fuel subsidy that we have right now under education is just for senior homeowners and it is just for the winter months.
So what I am saying is that we are looking at expanding that program so that it covers a wider variety of homeowners.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Mr. Havioyak: When I read it, it seems to me that, I know what you are talking about when you say low-income homeowners.
Are you looking at more than one option or is that one of the options that you are looking at.
To me when I read that it is more than one.
I am not sure that I am reading this right.
That is the only option we have right now that we are looking at is the seniors' fuel subsidy program unless there is another option in regards to homeowners.
But right now, we are looking at that subsidy that we already have to senior homeowners.
Mr. Havioyak (interpretation): Thank you for replying to that.
If we keep looking for options that is good.
Yesterday, it was also mentioned by Hunter and others that in all of Nunavut, it is very difficult.
It will be hard for people.
For people that are having difficulty it will make it harder for them even to try, because they are trying to pay for fuel and if they want to go out hunting they will have a hard time with this.
You mentioned yesterday also in your note that you would be working with NTI towards something.
Will this be announced or will NTI be speaking to this in the near future of harvester's support on fuel subsidies.
Because some people have difficulty buying groceries, so they have to go out and hunt instead of going to the store to Northern.
They will have difficulties with this.
The minister stated that she is working with NTI towards a solution.
I am wondering what progress has been made on this.
NTI and the GN have been talking about the increase in fuel prices and we also gave them information about the increase.
We are hoping to see Nunavut Tunngavik put something together.
Of course they are not experts in regards to fuel, but we have given them all the necessary information that they require, we have also talked to Mr. Paul Quassa, who is the President of NTI, and we had a discussion on the increases in fuel prices.
At that time NTI wanted to know what would be happening because we just had discussions in the summer time.
They wanted to know exactly what the plans were of our department.
But NTI is also looking at options; I cannot be speaking on behalf of NTI or make decisions for them though, Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Havioyak.
Mr. Havioyak (interpretation): I thought maybe she had meant there had been talk or, I just wanted to know because you said we are working with NTI.
I would like to mention is that a point you have heard from other people as well, that it will be a difficulty.
That there will be hardship for people.
Have you tried to find different options to help resolve this.
If the fuel subsidy was increased, it would help people.
Chairperson (interpretation): I have other names, Mr. Iqaqrialu and Mr. Arvaluk.
I will make this short as much as possible.
As the minister stated earlier, and as Mr. Tootoo stated, they reviewed various options, in regards to putting it at 98.9 cents so that it wouldn't have an adverse effect on the people out there.
But what else happened, the minister stated that 13.9 cents would put it even with the 5 million dollar stabilization fund.
So I do not understand which figures she is talking about.
In regards to that you came up with that zero figure through the accounting calculations and in the same breath, she stated that she considered all the options that were put on the table.
Maybe the minister could briefly tell me how she came up with those numbers.
Or what she meant by that.
In regards to the stabilization fund, I believe that is what he’s referring to, I can’t recall whether I said we would go into a zero figure.
I will go back to my documents to find out if I said we would go to a balanced figure.
I do not recall making that statement.
I do not think we are coming to zero or to a balanced figure.
This stabilization fund when it was audited was changed and I will get my official to give you the status on this.
Because there has been a change.
The stabilization fund was recently audited and there has been a slight change.
Mr. Green will elaborate more on this.
The member for Nanulik I believe asked you a very short question or a very brief question.
I do not know where his question was coming from.
Mr. Arvaluk could you clarify your question.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think most of the MLAs know already what the procedural system is.
We get these lectures and explanations, briefings etc, etc.
That is not my question Mr. Chairman.
My question is, Mr. Chairman, by the way the Hansard will show tomorrow her statement that calculating to arrive at 13.9 cents will neutralize the stabilization fund to meet the maximum increase of 98.9 cents.
She said that to Mr. Tootoo.
That is a very simple accounting calculation Mr. Chairman, and with the same breath she was saying we considered all the options what ever we feel not to have too much impact on the Nunavummiut.
My question was which are the simple calculations she is using right now with the proposal for November 1.
Or the other what Mr. Tootoo was asking all along.
So, thanks for the answer but the Hansard will show again what the answer was.