EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The Five-Year Capital Plan will be coming into place which has the Nunavut Arctic College Campus on it. As I said earlier, the plan would be to relocate the brand new building and then be able to add on to that building and actually have a formidable campus in Cambridge Bay.
Again, we will make sure that the Hamlet of Cambridge Bay and indeed the residents are kept up to date and that will happen this spring once we have the RFP complete for the other building and facility.
I thank the minister for indicating that the project continues to have a high priority within the Government of Nunavut and that is indeed on the Five-Year Capital Plan.
My question for the minister: could the minister indicate to the House if a site has been selected in Cambridge Bay for the new Nunavut Arctic College Campus?
Right now, we’re looking at a couple of options in Cambridge Bay to see where we would locate the new campus building, which is what we have been talking about, it’s an extra $300,000.
It’s a bit of an embarrassment that we a campus in Cambridge Bay consisting of various older buildings. There are two, or three, or more buildings that are being used for offices, and so on. The whole idea is, like we have done in Rankin Inlet, like what we have here in Iqaluit, we would like to have in Cambridge Bay, where you have one building and a campus.
So that’s the direction that we’re moving in.
We haven’t finalized the site yet, so I don’t want to comment on that right now. What I can say is that we have looked at a couple of alternatives that has to be done in conjunction with the Hamlet of Cambridge Bay and that’s the process that is underway.
Mr. Speaker, over the years, in the capital planning process, we have learned that the capital projects are becoming very expensive and causing delays.
I’m wondering if the minister’s department, working with the Department of Community and Government Services, has taken into consideration the high costs of constructing facilities like that and if they’re looking at alternative ways to finance the Nunavut Arctic College Campus in Cambridge Bay.
Let me say very quickly and very expeditiously that Minister Brown has been working really hard within CGS to ascertain how we can bring those prices for some of our capital projects down. Indeed, we have seen this across Canada where programs and capital projects are coming in 30 to 40 percent over budget, Mr. Speaker. So I think that we have been working on that process.
We believe we will have the funds available to be able to facilitate the new building in Cambridge Bay. Again, with the yeoman service that’s being put forward by Mr. Peterson for the people of Cambridge Bay, in the next Assembly in the New Year, I’m sure that the people will be able to look forward to those allocated dollars at that time.
Item 12: Tabled Documents
Tabled Document 300 – 2(4): Shared Directional Statement 2008-2009 - GN Minister of Justice and Nunavut Commanding Officer RCMP (Okalik)
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) This document is further to my colleague for Cambridge Bay’s inquiries.
Nunavut Minister of Justice’s and the Nunavut Commanding Officer’s Shared Directional Statement for the RCMP, 2008-2009.
Tabled Document 301 – 2(4): Inuit Employment Plan 2004-2008 Final Report (Barnabas)
Inuit Employment Plan Final Report 2004-2008.
I would like to return to Item 5.
Speaker (interpretation): Perhaps you can ask that question once we are finished with Tabling of Documents.
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation and Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Minister Netser.
Tabled Document 302 – 2(4): GN Response to the Report on the Review of the 2007 Report of the Auditor General on the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation (Netser)
Tabled Document 303 – 2(4): Nunavut Housing Corporation Annual Report 2006-2007 Award Winning Design (Netser)
Tabled Document 304 – 2(4): Nunavut Development Corporation Annual Report 2007/08 (Netser)
Hon. Patterk Netser: Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I am pleased to table three documents.
The first one is the response to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability Report on the Review of the 2007 Report of the Auditor General of Canada on NBCC; and also, the Nunavut Housing Corporation Annual Report for 2006-2007; and also, the Nunavut Development Corporation’s Annual Report for 2007-2008. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 305 – 2(4): Titiraliritti!
(Tapardjuk)
Tabled Document 306 – 2(4): Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit Report on Activities 2004-2008 (Tapardjuk)
Tabled Document 307 – 2(4): Inuit Language Protection Act – Coming into Force (Tapardjuk)
The first one is:
Titiraliritti, a book of winning stories in Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun.
And Mr. Speaker, I am please to table the following document:
Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit’s Report on Activism 2004-2008.
And the third document that I would like to table is regarding Bill 7. During our detailed review of Bill 7, Inuit Language Protection Act, the members requested that I provided plain language coming into force sections under clause 49. I am now tabling the coming into force of various sections and parts of the legislation appearing under clause 49.
Tabled Document 308 – 2(4): Tusaqtuut Group Position Paper: Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Tootoo)
I wish to table today a copy of a position paper from the Tusaqtuut Group.
This organization is working to collect and compile traditional Inuit knowledge and I encourage all members and Cabinet Ministers to review this document with care.
Tabled Document 309 – 2(4): Schedule for the Student Loan Fund for the Year Ending March 31, 2008 (Picco)
It gives me great pleasure to be able to table the following document:
Student Loan Fund 2007-2008.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) Can we have that document brought forward to the table, please.
Members, I have some documents to table.
Tabled Document 310 – 2(4): Legislative Assembly Supplementary Retiring Allowances Fund Financial Statements March 31, 2008 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 311 – 2(4): Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Fund Financial Statements March 31, 2008 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 312 – 2(4): Pension Administration Report March 31, 2008 (Speaker)
(interpretation ends) Members, as required by the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, I wish to table today the audited financial statements of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Fund for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.
And also, members, as required by the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act... just give me a second, please. (interpretation) Thank you.
We had a problem with the order of our documents.
(interpretation ends) As required by the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, I wish to table today the audited financial statements of the Retiring Allowances Fund for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.
And also, as required by the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, I wish to table today the pension administration report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.
I’m sorry; I was going to allow Mr. Alagalak to ask to go back to an item.
I would like to recognize someone from Arviat, Brian Aglukark, who is in the Gallery. Please welcome him.
I was waiting for you to ask to return to Item 5, but now I am just going to welcome the visitor with you.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome one of my constituents to the Gallery. It’s not very often I get to recognize a Kitikmeot resident in the Gallery and I would like to recognize Ms. Bernice Lyall.
Bernice is here for the next eight weeks for training. I would like to ask the people of Iqaluit to extend the same kindness to Bernice while she’s here that they have extended to me over the last four and a half years. Welcome to the Gallery, Bernice.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Welcome to the Gallery. (interpretation) Item 15.
Item 15: Motions
I seek the unanimous consent of this House to deal with a motion today. I gave notice for it yesterday and I would like to get approval from the members.
Mr. Curley is seeking unanimous consent to deal with his motion today.
Motion 046 – 2(4): Comprehensive Audit of the Government of Nunavut’s Evaluation and Award Process in relation to RFP 2007-52: Standing Offer Agreement for Medical Travel on Scheduled Airlines (Curley)
WHEREAS Tabled Document 216 – 2(4), Government of Nunavut Request for Proposals for Standing Offer Agreement for Medical Travel on Scheduled Airlines, was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on March 12, 2008, and subsequently referred to the Committee of the Whole for consideration;
AND WHEREAS Members of this House, during their scrutiny of the Tabled Document, raised a number of questions and concerns with respect to the Government of Nunavut’s evaluation and award process in relation to this Request for Proposals;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Baker Lake, that the Legislative Assembly recommends that the Executive Council of Nunavut, pursuant to section 47 of the Nunavut Act, advise the Commissioner of Nunavut to request the Auditor General of Canada to undertake a comprehensive audit of the Government of Nunavut’s evaluation and award process in relation to RFP 2007-52: Standing Offer Agreement for Medical Travel on Scheduled Airlines, and report thereon to the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable.
I want to say a few words to the motion. With regards to the recommendation that we’re discussing, we all know that the Auditor General has to complete her audit first before she starts.
However, I can state in the House that she may not agree as we cannot compel her to initiate an audit immediately.
She has to conduct her audit first and then provide her findings, and she would probably report that the process used was not adequate.
I can state, Mr. Speaker, when the Request for Proposals on air travel was being reviewed, there was great concern expressed about the Inuit ownership criterion, which the Departments of Community and Government Services and Health stated was very important because Inuit ownership is listed as a criterion under the NNI Policy.
But I can say that there are two airlines operating in the Kivalliq.
As the Member for Hudson Bay pointed out, not even one cent of Kivalliq Air is owned by Inuit.
With respect to Calm Air in the Kivalliq region, 65 percent of their seats will be used to transport medical patients to Winnipeg and again, I can state unequivocally that not one penny of it is owned by Inuit, absolutely nothing.
What some of the members are thinking is that the government seems to be abusing the NNI Policy.
It’s quite convoluted since they keep insisting that they awarded the contracts to Inuit owned firms, but none of those firms are owned by any Inuit and I don’t believe that that should be the case.
(interpretation ends) In my view, Mr. Speaker, I believe I used the word the other day, I believe in my conviction that the process was questionable.
It may have been flawed in that regard, therefore, it needs to be looked at fairly with an objective evaluation. That’s all I’m calling for, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge all of you, in order to be transparent and fair for Nunavummiut, that you’re obligated, in my view, to vote in support of this motion.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Minister of Community and Government Services, Minister Brown.
The process undertaken to award the contract was completely open and transparent.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, under my leadership, this House has asked that the contract procedures in process be followed to ensure that there is a fair competition and allow for anyone to bid for government contracts.
Over the past three years, Mr. Speaker, I have worked very hard to ensure that the process is sound. I am confident, if the review is to go ahead, that it will be validated.
Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a difficult position to support the review as I know, Mr. Speaker, that my department has implemented all the processes that we have been mandated to follow.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) Member for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
I would like to speak in favour of the motion. I’m not, in any way, questioning, as Minister Brown indicated, the integrity of the process that her department followed.
However, given the nature of the questioning and concerns that had been raised over the last number of months in relation to this, I think it would be good to benefit from a thorough, third party look at it.
If there are areas of concern that could be identified, then improvements can be made to ensure that there is no way to allow any questions or concerns like this to happen again in the future. I think it can’t do anything but help to improve on the process.
For that reason, I would support that and like my colleague said, I would expect the government, as Minister Brown has indicated that they have nothing to hide, to support it as well.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation ends) To the motion. (interpretation) I don’t have any more names on my list.
I would like to ask the mover if he has any last reply.
I would only like to thank those that are supporting the motion. I think it’s only fair that we ask for transparency and the only way that we’re going to see that is through an independent review of this process and that’s what the motion is calling for. I will be asking for a recorded vote on this.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) A recorded vote has been requested and the procedure that we will follow: first, for the votes, I will ask people to stand in favour and then those who oppose.
First, all those in favour, please stand and sit when I call your name.
All those opposed, please stand and sit when I call your name. All those abstaining, please stand and sit when I call your name.
The results: for, nine; against, zero; abstentions, seven.
Bills 20, 21, 40, 41, and 43.
With the authority provided to me by Motion 4 – 2(4), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
I would like to ask Mr. Arreak, the Chair, to sit at the table and then you will proceed directly into Committee of the Whole.
>>House recessed at 16:52 and Committee resumed at 16:56
Item 18: Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 20, 21, 40, 41, and 43.
We wish to commence our review of Bill 40, followed by Bills 41, 43, 20, and 21.
Chairman (interpretation): Does the committee agree that we first deal with Bill 40?
Bill 40 – An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act – Consideration in Committee
Chairman: I would now like to ask the Minister of Finance, Minister Tapardjuk, to make his opening remarks.
Good day, Mr. Chairman and Members.
Because of escalating fuel prices, the current legislative limits of the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund (PPRF) and the Petroleum Products Stabilization Fund (PPSF) are no longer adequate.
As such, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act will update the legislative limits of the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund and the Petroleum Products Stabilization Fund to appropriate amounts.
The legislative limit of the PPRF will increase to $200 million from its existing legislative limit of $150 million, while the PPSF will move from plus/minus $5 million to plus/minus $10 million.
The PPRF and the PPSF are used by the Petroleum Products Division (PPD) of the Department of Community and Government Services to cash flow the purchase of the annual fuel resupply.
In other words, funds are used initially by PPD to purchase the annual fuel resupply, which causes an outflow of cash.
Subsequently, as fuel purchases by consumers occur, an inflow of cash happens.
This should ultimately balance out the cash position, provided that fuel prices are adequate to reflect any increases in purchase costs.
Minister, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the witness table?
To my left is Peter Ma, Deputy Minister of Finance, and to my right is David Akeeagok, the Deputy Minister of Community and Government Services.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development have any opening comments?
As Chair of the Legislative Assembly’s Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development, I would like to make some brief opening comments concerning the standing committee’s review of Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act.
The standing committee recognizes that the intent of Bill 40 is to ensure that adequate funds exist for the bulk purchase and transportation of fuel to Nunavut communities.
Bill 40 proposes to increase the authorized limit of the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund to $200 million. This is a significant increase from April 1, 1999, when the limit was $55 million.
As members will recall, the limit was increased to $150 million just two years ago when the House approved Bill 19.
At that time, members expressed concerns with respect to the rising world price of oil.
Committee members urged the minister to find innovative ways to minimize the impact of increases on Nunavummiut. Although the government subsequently introduced a new fuel hedging strategy, members have been given to understand that concerns related to the risk of this approach have resulted in the government’s reconsideration of the strategy.
As chair of the standing committee, I have ongoing concerns related to the government’s methodology for setting fuel prices in Nunavut.
I believe that this is an issue that would benefit from a comprehensive review by the Third Assembly.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks, although I can go on if you allow me.
I don’t want you to go on and on.
I have a very brief comment. I also want to speak to the matter and perhaps supplement what Mr. Curley alluded to.
We are in a precarious position as the Nunavut government due to the fact that the funds we receive have limits.
Hypothetically, if oil prices soar higher or if it becomes more expensive than its current price, then all we would be left with would be funds to buy fuel for our communities and defer all capital projects in Nunavut.
That puts us in a perilous situation and that’s why this is such an urgent matter.
I believe the Power Corporation’s plan for hydroelectric power or wind power will have to be studied as alternatives sooner rather than later.
We are already overwhelmed just trying to deal with Nunavut’s lack of infrastructure and the funds allocated to Nunavut are quite small to deal with all of the issues we face.
When people ask, “Who owns the High Arctic, the Canadians or not?”
When people ask about sovereignty, Inuit have to be included and acknowledged by the federal government.
They have to realize that the Inuit are the stewards of the Arctic and are the Canadian face since they are looking after the lands in the High Arctic and live up there. So those issues have to be considered.
Given our challenges in trying to live up north, it’s worrisome to see the high cost of fuel, especially since the fuel we use for power generation comprises a large portion of our bulk fuel purchases.
I am happy that Bill 40 will limit the retail prices to the consumers in Nunavut.
With the increase, it will mitigate the effect of the prices on our residents.
We will now proceed with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 40.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I probably can do it at clause 1, I have a question to the minister later. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise a question about the funds that we will be increasing throughout this bill.
As an example, we read that the fund was set at $150 million and we will raise it to $200 million.
However, I want our audience to hear the response to my question, if it’s provided.
The revolving fund will now increase to $200 million with a stabilization fund of plus/minus $10 million. So if there’s an increase in costs, then it could go up to $210 million.
Last week, I was raising questions during committee meetings where the minister appeared before us. The response we heard was that the two governments, federal and territorial, along with housing are the largest users.
Due to this reason, if our bulk fuel purchase rises to $200 million for all of Nunavut, can you let us know what range, perhaps in terms of percentages, is allocated only for our government?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you. Just off the top of my head, close to about 80 percent is used for the government and that’s for all organizations that depend on the government for their funding, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): If that’s the case, as we just heard, then let’s say we only have $100 of fuel that we purchase for all of Nunavut, then $80 is set aside for the government and we, the public, whether we’re hunters, private homeowners, business owners, are left with $20 of fuel.
The part that I have never been able to comprehend is why the price isn’t reduced for the unemployed when the government is buying up $80 million of fuel for their use. It seems that we are subsidizing the fuel costs when we are paying retail fuel prices at the pumps so that the government can maintain its operations. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
It’s quite obvious that we purchase a very large amount of fuel as per his question.
If we were to just look at the amount of fuel purchased in 2003, it will bring it into perspective. In 2003, we purchased 135,207,555 litres of aviation fuel and in 2007, we purchased 170,133,500 litres.
As an example, if the government purchased only what it needed and bought only what it needed for housing and the Power Corporation, if we were to just purchase fuel for our use without purchasing fuel for retail, then someone who wanted to purchase fuel for resale would not be able to purchase as much and it would be much more expensive.
Once we purchase in bulk, it becomes cheaper by the volume and that’s the reason why we purchase in bulk.
Purchasing large volumes also enables us to assist the hunters.
If the government were to purchase fuel solely for their own use and if a contractor or a private company bought their fuel separately for resale, the price would be much higher as we all know. That’s how I can respond to his question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I thank the minister for his response.
The minister mentioned at our committee meeting last week that world prices must be monitored continuously.
From my perspective, I think that if we were to buy the bulk fuel from the world market, I am sure that the price is the same when we buy it off the free market prior to it being pumped onto the tanker ships.
Now, I tend to think that the government doesn’t have liquidity problems and should be able to buy petroleum products wholesale instead of paying pump prices.
I believe that if we are to include them in the Petroleum Products’ bulk fuel purchase, the federal and territorial government should pay upfront O&M costs instead of just giving it to Nunavummiut, private homeowners, and the like. The government should pay for the costs upfront and those of us who have to buy the different fuels would just pay the pump prices as charged.
You shouldn’t include the government’s share in our bulk fuel purchases. If our population increases by 100 percent, then it would double the cost right now.
For that reason, would you agree that this needs to be considered by our new government?
Right now, as we are debating the bill on the bulk fuel purchase, the government, even though it’s rich in comparison to the average person, is offloading the costs to the people who can least afford it.
With this $200 million, it seems that the government is telling the people that only with their subsidization of the fuel prices can they maintain their level of operations, at least it does in my eyes.
For that reason, I urge you to give this more consideration.