EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
(interpretation ends) The standing committee’s third recommendation is that the Languages Commissioner includes a detailed summary of the reasoning, purpose, progress, and results of her systemic investigations in her next annual report.
Mr. Speaker, during the Languages Commissioner’s appearance before the standing committee, members raised a number of concerns with respect to the current status of the Inuit language, including statistics on usage, standardization, writing systems, and terminology. Members also raised a number of issues with respect to the current status, language service needs and demands of Nunavut’s francophone population.
The standing committee’s fourth recommendation is that the Languages Commissioner and her staff work to establish specific benchmarks and criteria with which to evaluate and report on support for language rights across Nunavut and that the results of applying these criteria and benchmarks be included in her annual reports.
(interpretation) The standing committee’s fifth recommendation is that specific studies conducted by the Office of the Languages Commissioner, such as the ten-year review which was included as an insert within her 2009-2010 annual report, be presented as distinct publications of the office and not as components of the annual reports.
During the Languages Commissioner’s appearance before the standing committee, committee members were pleased to have had the opportunity to address a number of issues relating to the provision of language services in the private sector. Members encourage the Languages Commissioner to place a priority on assisting entities to meet legislated requirements in industries where public safety issues are critical, such as the mining industry and the airline industry.
The standing committee’s sixth recommendation is that the Office of the Languages Commissioner be prepared to substantively address issues relating to the delivery of services in the territory’s official languages by federal and federally-regulated entities.
(interpretation ends) The standing committee’s seventh recommendation is that the Languages Commissioner take every opportunity provided with the presentation of her annual reports during appearances before the Legislative Assembly and in other formal appearances to clearly express her mandate and position on language legislation and its implementation.
The standing committee’s eighth recommendation is that the Office of the Languages Commissioner prepare a complete business plan for the upcoming fiscal year which clearly outlines the mandate of the office, details activities which support the mandate of the office, and describes specific budget allocations for each level of activity to be conducted by the Office of the Languages Commissioner.
The standing committee notes the role of the Management and Services Board of the Legislative Assembly in this process.
(interpretation) Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude the standing committee’s report with an important observation made by the Languages Commissioner during her appearance and which was echoed by several committee members throughout the two days of hearings. Support for language and culture starts at home.
As parents, educators, representatives, and leaders, we all share the responsibility of promoting Nunavut’s languages.
I move, pursuant to Rule 91, that the report of the standing committee be received by the House and that it be entered into the record as read.
Do members agree that the report of the standing committee be received by the House and that it be entered into record as read?
Committee Report on Bills 019 – 3(2): Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011 (Okalik)
I wish to report that Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011, has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Legislation, and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 43 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) and have Bill 43 immediately moved into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker (interpretation): Bill 43 has been referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Tabled Document 237 – 3(2): Correspondence with the Federal Minister of the Environment (Okalik)
Tabled Document 238 – 3(2): Correspondence with the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Okalik)
I wish to table copies of correspondence to the House which I have exchanged with the federal ministers of the Environment as well as Indian and Northern Affairs concerning the issues of the federal ban of export permits for polar bears harvested in Baffin Bay.
Furthermore, the letters also include as an issue of the appointment of the chairperson of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
I urge all my colleagues to review these documents with care.
Can I have the document brought forward to the table, please.
Tabled Document 239 – 3(2): FPT Ministers’ of Finance Meeting, June 14, 2010 (Peterson)
I am pleased to table the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Finance Meeting Report.
The meeting was held in Morell, Prince Edward Island, June 14, 2010.
Tabled Document 240 – 3(2): Community Justice Annual Report on Victims Assistance Committee April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 241 – 3(2): Community Justice Annual Report on Victims Assistance Committee April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 242 – 3(2): Community Justice Annual Report on Victims Assistance Committee April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 243 – 3(2): Community Justice Annual Report on Victims Assistance Committee April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 244 – 3(2): Community Justice Annual Report on Victims Assistance Committee April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 (Peterson)
I am very pleased to table the community justice annual reports on Victims Assistance Committee from the fiscal years beginning April 1, 2005 ending March 31, 2010.
Tabled Document 245 – 3(2): 2009-2010 Annual Report of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit (Tapardjuk)
As I stated in my Minister’s Statement, I am pleased to table the 2009-2010 Annual Report of the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit.
Tabled Document 246 – 3(2): Resolution from the September 2010 Annual General Meeting of the Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board (Ningark)
Mr. Ningark: Pardon me.
I wish to table a copy of a resolution from the September 2010 Annual General Meeting of the Kitikmeot Regional Wildlife Board.
This resolution is on the polar bear management zones of the McClintock Channel and Viscount Melville.
As a courtesy to the government, I wish to advice that I will have detailed questions on this matter at tomorrow’s sitting. I encourage them to be prepared.
Tabled Document 247 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Nunavut Housing Corporation (Curley)
I am pleased to table the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Tabled Document 248 – 3(2): Government of Nunavut Contract Activity Report Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (Kusugak)
I am pleased to table the following document: Contract Activity Report - Fiscal Year 2009-2010 for the Department of Community and Government Services.
Bills 42 and 43, and Tabled Documents 207 – 3(2), 209 – 3(2), 210 – 3(2), and 212 – 3(2) with Mr. Schell in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:56 and Committee resumed at 16:23
In the Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 42 and 43, and Tabled Documents 207 – 3(2), 209 – 3(2), 210 – 3(2), and 212 – 3(2).
We would like to commence our review of Bill 42, followed by Bill 43. We would then proceed with the concurrent review of the following tabled documents: 207 – 3(2), 209 – 3(2), 210 – 3(2), and 212 – 3(2).
Chairman: Are we agreement that we deal with Bill 42 first?
Bill 42 – Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2 – Consideration in Committee
Chairman: I would now like to ask Mr. Peterson to make his opening remarks.
I am pleased to present Bill 42, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2.
Bill 42 will forgive mortgage debt associated with accumulated interest charges on two mortgages inherited from the Government of the Northwest Territories at division.
Chairman: Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the minister and witnesses in, please.
Go ahead, Minister Curley.
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to declare a conflict with respect to Bill 43.
Chairman: Okay. Mr. Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman I, too, would like to declare a conflict on this bill.
Chairman: Thank you. Minister Peterson, could you please introduce your witnesses.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman To my right is Deputy Minister Peter Ma for the Department of Finance and to my left is Jeff Chown, Director of Expenditure Management for the Department of Finance.
Does the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation have comments?
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I believe we are on Bill 42.
Sorry, I was a little confused as one of the ministers said 43, but we are on 42.
The committee looked at these issues and has no issues with the outstanding debts that are to be forgiven under this bill. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If not, we will go clause by clause.
Bill 42, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2.
Chairman: We will go to Schedule on page 2.
Schedule. Debt Forgiven. Total. $140,366.85.
Chairman: Are you in agreement with Bill 42 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 42 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
I thank the members of the committee for their scrutiny of this bill.
We had a good and informative exchange in our standing committee meetings, and I am pleased that they concur with our recommendations.
Now we will move on to Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011.
I would like to ask Minister Peterson, responsible for the Department of Finance, to make his opening remarks.
Bill 43 – Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011 – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to present Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011.
Bill 43 will write off $2,626,493.43 of Government of Nunavut assets and $863,039.90 of Nunavut Housing Corporation assets.
The write-off of Government of Nunavut assets is comprised of $2,582,711 of petroleum products inventory lost in the normal course of business, due to evaporation and shrinkage during 2008-09 and 2009-2010, as well as $43,782.43 of expired pharmaceutical products from the Department of Health and Social Services.
The write-off of Nunavut Housing Corporation assets is for 18 housing units in various communities. The write-off is for housing units that have been replaced by new buildings, are beyond economic repair, or have burnt down.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. Does the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation have comments? Please proceed, Mr. Okalik.
Our committee closely scrutinized Bill 43 and had numerous questions with relation to the items that were going to be written off.
However, we recognized that the Minister of Finance was unable to provide proper responses since the questions were not really pertaining to his department.
My committee agreed that during the proceedings and when all of the ministers are here, we will be asking questions to the ministers with the appropriate portfolios.
Additionally, only after we have scrutinized the bill and we have received answers from the appropriate ministers, we would then deal with that bill.
That is what we agreed to as members of this committee, to scrutinize the bill and to be provided with adequate answers to the contents of the bill.
Any comments on the opening statement?
If, not, we will go on to Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011. Clause 1. Do you agree?
Chairman: Let’s go to Part 1. Schedule on page 2. Schedule.
It indicates here that the petroleum products inventory was lost due to evaporation and shrinkage.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that’s the information that we have.
Our committee had some questions regarding the issue of evaporation and shrinkage. There is a variation in any given year since sometimes there was less evaporation and shrinkage in a certain year and then a greater amount in loss of petroleum products in another year.
We were told that it’s due to the climate, with the interplay between the cold and the heat, but that is a huge variation on a year to year basis.
We did not receive an adequate response to the questions.
The committee had questions about what kind of monitoring systems they have or how they measure the evaporation and shrinkage and extrapolate this loss into a dollar amount.
However, we were not made aware of the system they use to come up with the loss rates. Perhaps they should first get information from the communities before the rates are struck. One of the questions the committee wanted answered was how they measured in the communities.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister for Community and Government Services, responsible for the Petroleum Products Division, is here today and we have asked him to be here to answer the detailed questions from the committee.
I did not notice I had been appointed as a minister since the question was redirected to the Minister responsible for the Petroleum Products Division.
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Community and Government Services, if he can respond to that.
I will try to respond before Mr. Okalik becomes a minister again.
In regard to your concern, there is a variation on any given year because petroleum products evaporate depending on the temperature.
We know that the sun can heat the tanks, which expand and condense, so evaporation continues to impact us.
In the one year where there was a large evaporation and shrinkage rate, we had estimates that were too low. Prior to the start of the fiscal year, this estimate was added to the current year and that is why it was so large.
In the past, it seemed that we had no loss due to evaporation since it was added to the previous amounts as a loss rate.
We wouldn’t have realized it if it was accounted for in the year that there were errors in measurement because the percentage was included in that year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I answered Mr. Okalik’s question.
Yes, that was the information provided to us and that this happened for approximately two years. It’s a little over $2 million, so we did get that information.
However, in some of the years, we had rates of the loss due to evaporation.
There’s a variation of loss between any given years.
It would have been better if there were closer percentages on a yearly basis. It would be a good example to do this, but only when we were dealing with the past years did we note that the estimates were not even close to the actual rates of loss.
We have some questions about the system and if there was a model, we would have more clarity on how there was loss due to evaporation and shrinkage.
Using a community, for example, I imagine that they are asked how much is lost due to evaporation and shrinkage. Once the information has been compiled, we could see the variety in the loss from one particular community and what happens in another community.
That was the option preferred by the committee members.
My question is: is the minister open to such suggestions?
Yes, you indicated that this is based on a two-year percentage and that’s why it looks too large.
But in the years that you looked at, there were some that are higher than the others, and that’s because they are not in one year.
They are averaged out and that’s why you see some jumps in some years.
Yes, we are looking at our options with respect to the petroleum product losses. In our review, we will consider your suggestion.
Our fuel shipping contract is in its final year. When we are dealing with these issues in the future, we will have the opportunity to review the issues that Mr. Okalik referred to and to try and make changes.
I recognize this is not a new issue and this is an annual item which we already undertake.
Now, when I ask a question from the other side, the response usually seemed to evaporate like petroleum products. For that reason, I do not envy the minister’s position.
He will have to provide more direction to his staff to provide a proper response.
It’s not a trivial matter when we are considering the loss we incur due to evaporation and shrinkage, so I would like to urge the minister to consider our suggestions for a better laid out report and to implement them possibly in the New Year.
I think that was just a comment, but if you want to comment on that, Mr. Kusugak.
I hope I responded correctly, but we do an annual review to see and to anticipate what is lost due to evaporation and shrinkage, not due to leakage.
We look at the size of the tanks, the climate, consolidate all of those together, and then average it out to loss due to evaporation and shrinkage.
We will look at all of the matters and see how we can improve the system in order to have a more accurate figure so that we can figure out the bulk amount that we buy at the beginning of the year and the amount of loss at the end of the year.
There is a loss that we also have to apply.
All of your suggestions will be clearly entered into all of this.
My questions will be directed to the Minister of Community and Government Services also. My first question is: when does the testing take place for shrinkage? Is it done annually, like once a year, or is it done monthly to see how the shrinkage is going?
I’m just trying to get an idea of when the testing is done.
At the end of each fiscal year, PPD undertakes a full physical inventory of all of its petroleum products on hand.
At that time, actual volumes on hand are compared to system calculated year-end volumes. So that is when the whole thing is completed.
You mentioned earlier that if the sun is out, the gas expands and you probably have more shrinkage that way.
If you tested your tanks on a hot, sunny day, would you actually have more volume in your tanks at that time?
I don’t know the exact parameters and things that they go through.
It is a very complex way of measuring shrinkage, Mr. Chairman, and there are different variances and different ways that are analyzed in it.
If you want exact details on how that is all done, I’m sure we have people in that field who would be able to answer that at an appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.
My next question is: how do you differentiate between evaporation, leakage, or even theft of fuel?
Is there any way of determining whether, you know, if it evaporated or if somebody stole the fuel? How do you put these kinds of checks and balances in place?
Spillage does occur, and we work with the contractors to ensure that it doesn’t happen, but in cases where it does, there are checks and balances to find out how much actually spilled out.
In terms of theft, we believe that there is actually no intentional theft because the tanks are secured.
Fuel that is unaccounted for is probably to do more with lost meter tickets and stuff like that.
It’s a tough question, but that is what is done to deal with it.
Chairman: Thank you. Any more questions?
I’ll probably direct my question to the Minister of CGS.
The tanks are monitored with dipsticks, I believe it is. Who does the measuring? Is it the contractor, a government department, or is it a non-government entity and independent from the contractor?
Our staff are the ones who take the measurements to see how much there is in the tank in all possibilities.
If it’s not possible, then it’s the people who they appoint to do that do so.
How many times a year do you take measurements?
When you get a new contractor, is there an evaluation or a measurement taken before and after they have taken over the contract?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): While it’s being measured to see how much evaporation or loss there is, they check to see how much is left in the tank and how much they had sold.
All of those are factored in. They measure the loss due to evaporation and shrinkage on an annual basis.
If there’s a change in the contractor, again, the same type of procedure is followed to make sure that there’s a good working relationship between the two parties.
If there are any changes, then all of the processes are done before being handed over.
Again, if fuel is brought in by tanker or by aircraft, is there measurements done to see how much is in the tank before any new fuel is put in the tank?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark, for asking that question. It’s a very excellent question.
Yes, all processes are taken.
If there’s fuel delivered, we usually have an employee on the tanker because they are monitoring the vault to make sure that it’s proper and to make sure that it’s offloaded using the standards.
Everything is monitored from the time that it’s bought to the time that it’s delivered to the community, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Ugyuk.
Most communities see the advertisement for oil spillage and that we have to call a toll-free line for spills to the Department of Environment. My question is: how much oil spillage occurs here in Nunavut? Perhaps he can provide that information on an annual basis.
How much is spilled on average in Nunavut? I believe they are reported to the Department of Environment. Is that the case?
I don’t know of any large oil spillage having occurred this year during the transportation of oil products.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) My question was to the Minister of Environment. In the communities, we hear that they have to report spills environmental officers. Are there any spills being reported to them?
That is correct. Any spills need to be reported to the spill line, which is headquartered in Yellowknife.
As far as the number of spills and the spills that have occurred in Nunavut, I don’t have that information on me right now, but I could get that information for you.
My question is with respect to the assets that are going to be written off in this fiscal year, but I am unsure as to whether this item is part of the listed assets identified for write offs.
We were informed that our community has had excess gasoline products every year, and this started in 2004 after the faulty gasoline episode that resulted in many broken down snowmobiles.
It was reported that this gasoline was still stored in one of the leaning type of holding tanks.
They finally started to remove this unusable gasoline this summer when the oil tanker ship arrived in our community.
They were going to remove that gasoline that was purported to be holding this faulty gasoline.
My question is: was this gasoline being offloaded the product that caused all of the problems previously? Secondly, is this leftover gasoline product listed in the write-off of assets? That will be my first question.
I thank Mr. Komoartok for that question.
Mr. Chairman, that fuel was written off in 2006-07 and the fuel is still in the community in drums or a sludge tank and it will be removed as part of the tank farm expansion project that is underway.
I completely understood the minister’s response.
I just wanted to make an additional comment on that issue. I have noticed previously in our community that there was a person on top of the tank, on one of those immense tanks, with just a bucket on a rope… . Oops.
They lowered this bucket on a rope and they were transferring this gasoline one bucket at a time to their tanks.
This resulted in charges being laid against the person who stole that gasoline. I imagine that there are not too many examples of transferring gasoline with a bucket on a rope here in Nunavut that you may have observed.
I want to know if there have been any other cases of gasoline theft that has occurred in Nunavut.
We here at this table are unaware of anything, unless Minister Kusugak has some information he wants to share.
I also thank the member for raising that issue.
No, I have not heard of reports of anybody stealing gasoline, at least from our department. We have not been informed of any other situations where someone stole gasoline products in any community.