EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If we were to eliminate the subsidy, then the rates would increase, so I would expect that the public at large would have an opportunity to bring that forward and I would say to you that any government that did that would probably be doing it at it’s peril.
So, I think it’s safe to assume Mr. Chairman, that the Government of Nunavut would consult on their rates and indeed the power subsidy itself.
Mr. Chairman, the Ikuma Report also recommends eventually combining the petroleum products division in order to eliminate the duplication of services.
Mr Chairman, does the minister have any indication of a time frame that is being considered for the integration of those services.
Mr. Chairman that is an excellent question that has come up before when some people have reviewed the report.
I just want to go back on the question of the power subsidy.
The power subsidy itself of course is not brought forward to the Public Utility Board.
The Public Utility Board deals with the actual rates and if the governments were to raise the rates then of course the board would give the opportunity for the public to be involved as an intervenor in any rate setting application.
On the second question the member had concerning POL, and the integration within the new Nunavut Power Corporation, that was one of the ideas that came out of the report to look at ways of cutting costs and creating some economies of scale.
One of the largest purchasers of fuel in Nunavut is the Power Corporation.
It would probably make sense as it was pointed out in the report, that some integration in the areas of operation of government be integrated.
It is a recommendation of the report but no action has been taken on it by the government and frankly we haven't paid that much attention to it because Mr. Chairperson, we were involved in setting the Power Corporation up itself.
It may be something that may be reviewed over the next several months as we get more inline with the setting up of the corporation.
And I'll ask Laura to add further comments to that.
Ms. Gauthier: Thank you Mr. Chairman, if I could direct the members’ attention to the summary document page one and two.
One of the goals that cabinet endorsed is goal number four which basically looks at a conservation ethic that would be promoted within Nunavut and consumers themselves.
This concept of a total energy provider versus just being an electricity provider was endorsed by cabinet and by the minister and in promoting that goal and that objective, looking at merging PPD with NTPC or NPC when we set up our own power corporation, is one of those ways or strategies of addressing that goal.
So that whole area, while we are trying to get the Power Corporation up and going it is not deemed to be critical enough.
We look at focusing our energies at getting the utility up and operational for April 1.
Mr. Chairman, while developing their report the team had NTI participate in the development of it and I would like to commend the minister for involving them in it.
What I would like to ask the minister is if there are any specific issues that they raised in regards to this process.
We looked at setting up the Ikuma working group in the beginning, we thought it was cognisant of us to include NTI because they had been a signatory of the land claims itself, and were also involved in negotiations leading up to the signing of the transition agreement between the OIC and the government of the Northwest Territories, prior to April 1, 1999.
They were a party to this report and I think it is safe to say that there were no major differences in opinion or a NTI point of view that was not reflective of were we were going as a government.
So I don't think that was the case.
Mr. Chairman, at present NTPC is exempt from the provisions of Article 24.
I would like to ask the minister if the Nunavut Power Corporation will be as well.
Mr. Chairman that is an excellent question.
Right now we have to look at setting up the Power Corporation itself and getting its board of directors in place and then looking at the whole corporate structure and the whole corporate mandate of the crown corporation, which will be the Nunavut Power Corporation.
So that will be one of the issues that we will look at.
I would suspect Mr. Chairman, that the Power Corporation, boards and agencies of Government of Nunavut would follow some of the articles of the land claim.
That would be my opinion, but again we would have to look at that after we set the Power Corporation up.
Of course right now the reason NTPC doesn't follow them is because NTPC is a trans-territorial company.
It operates in other jurisdictions other than just Nunavut.
Of course the majority of shareholders are located in the western region, or the Northwest Territories our former partner.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I guess as the minister had indicated that the he involved NTI up to this point in the development of the Ikuma report.
Will NTI continue to be involved in the development of the corporation.
Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't be involved in the actual setting up of the corporation because that would be the mandate of the government itself.
But they would be monitoring, being a full party to the Ikuma report, and I would suspect if there was something that we weren't following or abdicate within the report itself, then they would have some concerns that they would bring forward.
But as a signatory to the land claims agreement they have a role to play and that’s why they’re involved in the report itself and I guess in the evaluation of the report that we already put out.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question but I would like to make a comment for the minister and his team who did a tremendous job making this report.
I know it takes time and effort to make this thick a report.
Also, I feel we need a corporation in our region that is fair and square for all Nunavummiut.
That we can have say to it, because at this point we have no say for example on power cut off notices which are only in English.
So if we have our own corporation in our region it will also be under the Nunavut Government, we can also have a minister.
I would like to say that we need it the sooner the better.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Picco do you want to make a comment.
Hon. Ed Picco: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a quick comment.
I would like to thank the member for his kind words and on behalf of the working group and the staff that generated this report and my cabinet colleges who have been very supportive of the praise I'm getting today.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman I'm glad I can have an opportunity to make a comment before the time is up.
In the Ikuma report, if we can look at the Ikuma report on page 111 in the Inuktitut part.
In English it is just A5.
Looking at the numbers in there, if we look at the communities and we look at Clyde River.
I'm looking at the numbers for 1999 - one million one hundred eighty-four, in the year 2000 we will use one million five hundred eighty-eight. In 2002, it will be three million dollars that Clyde River will have used.
If I look at the figures here, this is going to mean a deficit for Clyde River.
Using the NTPC system, Clyde River will be in a deficit for three million dollars even though we are quite small in size and we don't have any economic opportunities.
Looking at the three million dollars this is a huge deficit for Clyde River and they will have to pay for that deficit themselves.
We want to get our own Nunavut Power Corporation and I have been supporting that idea because I feel that the three million dollars will have to be paid in Clyde River.
That is up to a 30 to 40 percent increase.
If we did get our own Nunavut Power Corporation would we be able to correct this increase.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr Picco.
Mr. Chairman, the member if anything is persistent and with the same the same persistent questions, and I give full credit for that.
I have answered this question, I don't know how many different ways and different times.
I thank him for giving me the chance to answer this question for the 74,892 time.
Mr. Chairperson, I think realistically, the Nunavut Power Corporation, with the best information provided to me, is that we are not looking at any rate increase in Clyde River for at least twelve to fourteen months, and I think it is realistic to say and I went to the mayor in Clyde River with the member to discuss the power rate, that the Nunavut government realises that increases from 35 to 40 percent are not sustainable and indeed it wouldn't be sustainable in any other of our communities.
There are opportunities available to the people of Clyde River through the Public Utilities Board process, where they would be an intervenor, or could be an intervenor and would be paid for that cost.
I think what we have to do Mr. Chairman, is the community of Clyde River needs that power plant, consumption has grown and the population has grown and the three million dollars, which the member is correct in talking about, will be spent over the next two and a half years in Clyde River creating employment and spending money there.
So I would say to the member and I commit to the member again, that the people of Clyde River will have a chance to have their say and the Nunavut Government will not anticipate increasing the rates by 40 percent, because at the end of the day it would be us paying for that.
So I hope that gives the member some level of comfort on this question.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Chairperson (interpretation): Do you understand his response Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for creating a very good future for me and looking at the future I know I will be able to make more comments in the future and we will leave it at that for now Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, earlier the minister indicated the long term debt that we will be receiving is roughly about 33 or 32 percent of that debt as reflected by the portion of that corporation we own.
Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if that is reflective of the actual dollar value of debt actually spent or incurred within the Nunavut Territory.
Mr. Chairman, that is a good question.
The forerunner of NTPC was the Northern Canada Power Commission, and since that commission has been in place for many years now it would be very difficult for me to say what the capitalisation costs of all the infrastructure they put in place and what that debt would have been, if it is the 33 percent.
What I can say to the member is the amount of debt that we would take a portion of is based on what we own which has been agreed to previously.
So our percentage of the debt is the percentage of ownership we have which is approximately 33 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whatever that dollar amount is and I've heard concerns from people that if you take Clyde River as an example you will have to build a new plant.
Also, there are problems in Iqaluit right now with the increased capacity we are going to need to upgrade the facility there.
I'm sure there are a number of old plants operating within Nunavut right now that are going to need to be redone over the next little bit of time.
I guess I'm just wondering if this long-term debt, is it our long-term debt, or was it debt from capital projects developed in the west over the number of years.
Hon. Ed Picco: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you to the member for clarifying that.
He has made a good point and I think the member is trying to say for example where the Northwest Territories Power Corporation two years ago got involved in some natural gas work in the Mackenzie valley, would that debt be part of the debt we would have to share, part of the debt that we talked about before.
The process that has been put in place to look at the identification of our assets and liabilities is that three separate methodologies that I spoke to you about, and that is the table where we would be able to highlight some of the concerns brought forward by the member on the capitalisation costs themselves.
For example, if you look at the power plant in Baker Lake maybe the capitalisation costs have been paid ten years ago which is the actual cost of putting that plant in place.
So you wouldn't be able to look at that as a long-term debt of the corporation because it has already paid for itself.
That would be very hard to figure out and that is one of the reasons that the debt itself is based on the share ownership east and west.
So in our case we take 33 percent of that debt.
Mr. Chairman, maybe the minister can correct me if I'm wrong on determining the value of assets that we have.
Once a plant is built it has a life expectancy of say 25 years and it depreciates every year.
So I guess when we are doing the asset and liability split that is taken into account already, because if there is only five years left in the life expectancy of that asset then it is only worth one fifth of the value and I can't see that being reflective in the amount of debt that has been established.
If we have a lot of old plants that only have five years left on them, and a lot of this long term debt has been incurred in the last five years then we know it hasn't been incurred in Nunavut.
So I guess I would like to take a look at that if there isn't a better way of doing it.
Mr Chairman, the three step methodology is inclusive of and includes the capitalisation costs.
If a plant was built fifty years ago or forty years ago or thirty years ago, it would be very difficult to see what those costs were relative to what they are today and what the relative debt that was there thirty years ago is there today.
We think that the structure that is in place is fair to Nunavut, that we take 33% of the value of our share, we take the value of that debt.
Again it has to follow the three-step methodology that is in place and we will have to take that into account so that we can make sure that is done correctly.
Again that would be reviewed with the offices of the Minister of Finance to make sure that we weren’t being short-changed, I’m sure, as he looks at me inquisitively.
Laura, would you like to add anything more to this.
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Gauthier would like to add to that.
Chairperson: Ms. Gauthier.
Ms. Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In hopes of maybe clarifying the three step methodology process, as much as I’ve rehearsed it myself, to me it still seems fairly complex at times.
This whole process was actually designed by what was known as the Northern Representatives Committee which was set up before division to look at how assets and liabilities would be split between the east and the west for all of government, not just for the power corp. So we came to them for a methodology on how to split NTPC assets when it looked like we couldn’t continue on a joint arrangement as part of those negotiations with the GNWT.
So, what this three step methodology really does is it separates all those physical assets east and west, so what’s on the ground stays east and west.
Those stranded assets so all of the power corporation that has been valued inside of Nunavut will stay inside of Nunavut and all of those in the west will stay where they are.
The next step sort of looks at those assets that you can’t really divide on a geographic basis.
So that next level of how you get to that final formula, that’s using that ratio that’s identified in the transition agreement.
And then the third sort of category are those things that you really can’t, they’re sort of soft assets and liabilities that are fuzzy if you want to call it that.
And those are also using the formula that’s set out in the transition agreement.
So that’s just to help provide a bit more clarity to the actual methodology so that hopefully that will address Mr. Tootoo’s question.
Chairperson (interpretation): Is that it for comments.
Mr. Tootoo: One last question, Mr. Chairman, just in regards to the rates.
You know there’s a couple of pages in here on the rates.
I’m just wondering, and realising that the rates are set by the Public Utilities Board, will there be any recommendation or look at coming from the power corporation to the Public Utilities Board that’s setting a uniform rate for everyone in Nunavut so it doesn’t matter where you live, you all pay the same rate.
We wouldn’t be looking at problems that we’re running into right now like in Clyde River where the way the system is set up, where they’re looking at, if you went by the book you’d be looking at a 40% increase.
If there was a uniform rate set up, that everyone paid a pool or reserve could be built up in order to do the upgrade, from the capital upgrades that are necessary without the brunt of that being born by the community itself.
Mr. Picco, possibly you want to respond to that.
There are several options under rates that we could look at.
One would be the status quo that we have, basically what’s there to stay in place, and uses the community based rate approach.
The problem with the community based rate approach is Clyde River’s problem where any infrastructure that goes in there with a community based rate approach, those people have to pay the infrastructure, the capitalisation costs of the infrastructure being bought and put in the communities by increasing their rates.
So we know there’s a problem with that.
We could go to zones.
Zones is where maybe six or seven communities in a certain area with the same capacity, would share a rate and then if infrastructure was put in Clyde River, then Broughton, Pang, Pond would help pay for that infrastructure.
That’s another option, that’s called zones.
Or we could look at what Greenland does.
They have what’s called a postage stamp rate.
That’s one rate for everyone in the whole area.
So there are different things that could be looked at.
As a government, again we have to get the Power Corporation up and running.
We need consultation with the Premier, through the Public Utilities Board process.
There might be an opportunity there for setting rates and so on and so forth.
It is a complex issue.
There are recommendations in the report that we’ve been looking at and taking those in context with the subsidies we would come out with a decision to look at that over the next several months.
So I would say to you Mr. Chairman, that the member’s question is a good one and hopefully we can get the power corporation up and running and that’s something we could come back to the members with again and say what option should we take.
Chairperson (interpretation): Any further comments to the report.
Are we agreed then. 45-1(3) and 20-1 (24) I believe there’s a mistake in here.
I got confused because there’s a typo.
Tabled Document 20-1(3) is completed.
Are we agreed.
Minister Picco and Ms. Gauthier I would like to thank you very much for being at the witness table.
We’ll see you again.
Did you want to make your final comments Mr. Picco.
Hon. Ed Picco: Just a quick comment.
I do appreciate sincerely the nice comments from the members on the report and on the power corporation report and on the Ikuma Report itself.
I do enjoy some of the jokes that we have here in House and some of the good-natured humour that the members like to bring toward me.
And I have tried to keep my comments short and I would just like to thank you Mr. Chairman for a good job.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Akesuk.
Chairperson (interpretation): Okay then, there is a motion on the floor.
While we’re waiting we’ll take a brief break or what is the wish of the committee.
We’ll take a five-minute break.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): There was a motion and our Speaker is here with us.
Adjourn right away.
Chairperson: Agreed.
Speaker (interpretation): Item 20, report of the committee of the whole.
Your committee has been considering Minister’s Statement 45-1(3) and Tabled Document 20-1(3) and would like to report that the Minister’s Statement 45-1(3) and Tabled Document 20-1(3) are concluded and Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the committee of the whole be concurred with.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Iqaqrialu. Mr. Irqittuq, I apologise.
There’s a motion on the floor, seconded by Mr. Premier.
Item 21, third reading of bills.
Meeting of the Standing Committee on Culture, Education and Health at 6:15 tonight in the hotel board room.
Also a social event, there is a square dance at the community hall at 9:00 p.m. to assist the elders to raise funds for their van and also an old timer’s hockey game at 9:00 p.m.
Orders of the day for Friday, February 25th, at 10:00 a.m.
-Minister’s Statement 50-1(3)
-Minister’s Statement 51-1(3)
-Tabled documents 24-1(3), 25-1(3), 27-1(3),
Speaker: Thank you Mr. Clerk. (interpretation) We’re going to adjourn the meeting.
We will proceed tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.
Sergeant-At-Arms
>>House Adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Friday, February 25, 2000
Pages 649 - 689
Opening Prayer 649
Ministers’ Statements 649
Members’ Statements 651
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 656
Oral Questions 657
Written Questions 671
Petitions 672
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on the Review of Bills 672
Tabling of Documents 672
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 673
Point Of Order 685
Point of Order 685
Report of the Committee of the Whole 688
Orders of the Day 689
Friday, February 25, 2000 649
64 - 1(3): Criminal Offence Investigation (Anawak) 649
65 - 1(3): Corrections Planning Committee Report (Anawak) 649
66 - 1(3): Change of Name, Status of Women to Qulliit Council (Havioyak) 650
139 - 1(3): Mobile Treatment Programs (McLean) 651
140 - 1(3): Day Care Facility for Gjoa Haven (Puqiqnak) 651
141 - 1(3): Daughter’s Birthday (Irqittuq) 653
142 - 1(3): Day Care Funding (Tootoo) 653
143 - 1(3): Recognition of Baffin Crisis Line Volunteers (Anawak) 654
144 - 1(3): Student Summer Jobs (Akesuk) 655
145 - 1(3): Thanks to Constituents and Family (Kilabuk) 655
146 - 1(3): Kugluktuk Arctic Winter Games Athletes (Havioyak) 655
223 - 1(3): Funding for Mobile Treatment Programs (McLean) 657
224 - 1(3): Treatment Centres in Communities (Iqaqrialu) 657
225 - 1(3): Justice Programs at Apex Treatment Centre (Tootoo) 658
226 - 1(3): Treatment Programs for Inmates (Kattuk) 660
227 - 1(3): Overcrowding and Safety in Schools (Akesuk) 661
228 - 1(3): Update on Clam Diving Project in Clyde River (Iqaqrialu) 661
229 - 1(3): Home Care for New Born Children (Irqittuq) 662
230 - 1(3): Repairs to Public Housing Unit, Repulse Bay (Alakannuark) 662
231 - 1(3): Nunavut Seat on Canada Post Board and Council (Tootoo) 663
232 - 1(3): Update on Task Force on Housing (O'Brien) 665
233 - 1(3): Nunavut Involvement in Gun Control Challenge (Kattuk) 666
234 - 1(3): Funding for Cultural Instructors (Iqaqrialu) 667
235 - 1(3): Use of Budget Surplus (Tootoo) 669
236 - 1(3): Recreation Facilities in Pond Inlet (Nutarak) 671
05 - 1(3): Summer Jobs at Nanisivik and Polaris Mines (Akesuk) 671
Response to Petition 08 - 1(3): Broughton Island Co-op (Kilabuk) 672
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on the Review of Bills
11 - 1(3): Community Empowerment & Sustainable Development: Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts in Relation to Judges 672
31 - 1(3): Hamlet of Kugaaruk Re: Community Gym (Alakannuark) 672
32 - 1(3): Nunatsiaq News Article on BCC Use of Apex Treatment Centre (Tootoo) 673  Friday, February 25, 2000
Minister’s Statement 64 - 1(3): Criminal Offence Investigation
Today I rise to inform the members present that there is now an investigation going on after a criminal offence was committed this evening.
We don't know the situation right now, but as things progress we will let you know.
Speaker (interpretation): Ministers’ Statements.
Minister’s Statement 65 - 1(3): Corrections Planning Committee Report
Members are aware that the Nunavut Corrections Planning Committee released it's final report last fall.
I provided each member with a copy of the report and I invited comments.
Today I would like to inform you that the Department of Justice has been reviewing the committee’s recommendations and has been preparing a plan to implement as many of the recommendations as possible.
In some cases we can act quickly.