EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Mr. Chairperson I move that this committee recommends that plain language information be made available to the public at the time of a fuel price increase.
To ensure they understand the reasons for an increase.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Nutarak. Your motion is in order. Are there any comments to the motion.
Committee Motion 41 - 1(3): Review of Petroleum Products division
Mr. Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Recommendation for the revision of the administration of the petroleum products division.
Mr. Chairman I move that this committee recommends the current administration of the petroleum products division be reviewed, with a view to identifying options for increasing efficiency and reducing the administrative cost of the fuel supply chain.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Akesuk, the motion is in order.
Member for Cambridge Bay.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Recorded vote.
Chairperson (interpretation): There is going to be a recorded vote on this motion.
You will stand when we call your name.
All those in favour please stand up and I will call your name.
Starting from Mr. Akesuk I'm going to ask for those people in favour.
Please stand up if you are in favour of the motion and if you're not please stay seated.
Mr. Akesuk please stand up if you are in favour of your motion.
I apologise, I just made a little mistake.
All those in favour please stand up.
Thank you. Mr. Nutarak , Mr. McLean, Mr. Tootoo.
I will just do it my way so I can chair the meeting orderly.
I'll start off from here again.
Mr. Alakannuark, Mr. McLean, Mr. Tootoo, Mr. Akesuk, Mr. Nutarak, Mr. Puqiqnak, are in favour of the motion.
Thank you opposed.
Please stand up those who oppose the motion.
All those who abstain. Please stand up: Ms. Thompson, Mr. Picco, Mr. Kilabuk, Mr. Ng, Mr. Okalik, Mr. Havioyak, Mr. Arvaluk, Mr. Anawak.
So that is how fast I forget names Thank you.
I will also, just a minute Mr. Akesuk after I have tallied the votes.
There were 6 members in favour, 0 opposed, and 8 who abstained.
Committee Motion 42 - 1(3): Review of Fuel Subsidy
Mr. Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman, (interpretation ends) I move that the committee recommends that the current fuel subsidy be reviewed, with a view to reducing fuel subsidies to government and commercial operations, and targeting fuel subsidies to individuals in Nunavut.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Akesuk has a motion.
So we will have a vote on this motion with a different process from the previous motion.
All those in favour. Opposed. Abstentions.
Thank you Mr. Akesuk.
Committee Motion 43 - 1(3): Review of Fuel Stabilisation Fund
My last motion Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I move that this committee recommends a review of the price stabilisation fund with a view to increasing the maximum allowable limit.
If none then, all those in favour of the motion. Opposed. Abstentions.
Mr. Chairperson I have a couple of motions to make.
Mr. Chairperson I move that this committee recommends that the overall objective of using the price stabilisation fund for fuel subsidies be aimed at keeping fuel prices at a level people can afford to pay.
…I will ask you to re-read it.
Thank you for explaining the mistake.
Please go ahead and re-read the correct motion.
Committee Motion 44 - 1(3): Review of Local Fuel Delivery Contracting Procedures (Withdrawn)
Mr. Chairperson I move that this committee recommends that a review be undertaken of the contracting procedures for local fuel delivery with a view to ensuring that the issues of final prices to the government and the retail price to the consumer are key factors in the selection process.
Chairperson (interpretation): The motion that you just read, we don’t have a copy.
It will have to be handed out to the motion.
Does everyone have a copy of the motion.
If everyone does have a copy of the motion then that is okay.
But we need a copy of that motion at the head table.
Thank you. The motion is in order.
It states in the motion here to undertake a review of contracting procedures for local fuel delivery.
I think it is the government that sets the price of fuel. The price of fuel is already set. I don’t think the contractors set the price of fuel.
Can anybody who is knowledgeable about that respond to the motion.
Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe that is the case in every situation in Nunavut.
In some cases there are independent suppliers that aren't regulated and they can raise the price up from what they purchase it from the government.
Mr. Anawak if you would like to make another comment.
Hon. Jack Anawak: This question is that I don't think that there are that many people out there.
The majority of people who deliver the fuel are contracted to the government.
I suspect the only ones are in Iqaluit.
All the others the government would set the price of gas at the pump.
I would think this problem would be localised to Iqaluit.
Maybe Mr. Green would you elaborate and make clarification on this.
What Mr. Anawak just mentioned is true.
The only place that is different is where local Iqaluit people use that procedure.
But the contractors are not usually the people who will set the price on fuel delivery.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister for Petroleum products.
Hon. James Arvaluk (interpretation): I would like to ask this question but I'm not sure who I should ask this too, but the contractors in Iqaluit are still under the ruling of the government.
As Canadians, what is the fuel or oil price procedures and this is how I perceive the motion is meant to be read.
Chairperson (interpretation): There is a motion on the floor moved by Mr. Tootoo.
The minister and her officials have made a clarification.
Are there any comments our questions.
Mr. Chairperson I would just like to clarify as to why we put the motion together like that.
In every community there is a set rate that the government sets for the fuel.
However, if you run out of fuel there are additional charges such as call out charges and etc.
I was looking at those types of things.
We want to make sure that the consumers best interests are looked after throughout this process.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Tootoo. Mr. Arvaluk.
Hon. James Arvaluk: I am not disagreeing with the principle of the motion rather this motion would recommend to the government to interfere with the private enterprise pricing system.
That is the only question I have.
I don't think this government, unless you are specifically saying to, undertakes a contract with the private supplier, will we be protected and not be seen as interfering with private enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that we are trying at all to say the government would at all interfere in private contracts.
I think we are just saying to take a review of the procedures and to ensure that all those factors are considered.
If you have one bidder saying that he is going to buy it from the government at price "X" and sell it at a 10 cent increase or, if you have someone else say they will buy it for the same price and sell it at a 20 cent increase, then that should be a factor in the selection process.
I'm not talking about trying to interfere or anything like that.
Basically, when the government contracts out fuel delivery services and gas delivery to all the communities, the contractors determine their hours.
I wouldn't want to interfere if some entrepreneur buys from the contractor to sell after hours, let say after hours of the other gas stations.
I wouldn't want to interfere as long as the price remains constant, as the government sets it to the contractors.
Mr. McLean: Thank you, I think there is going to be a movement and I'm detecting it in this region.
Their will be a movement outside the POL contractors that will want to get into distributing gasoline and petroleum products.
If these individuals are successful at doing this then there is not going to be any regulation on what they can sell the price of gasoline or home heating fuel for.
The bad thing about that is if you're stuck for gas and you got a private individual buying it from the contractor say at eighty cents a litre and reselling after hours for a $1.20 a litre.
We are the ones who come under fire for this.
And I know we are going to come under fire for this.
That is a problem I see coming.
I don't know if POL is thinking about changing their policies, but I'm getting indications that one gas station in some of the larger communities is not enough, and that gasoline is being sold between nine or eight- thirty and five and then it is very difficult to get gasoline in an emergency situation after hours, and I think there is going to be a need for private sectors to set up gas stations to serve the public after hours, and on weekends.
But there is also and I know this for a fact, because I made the phone calls myself that if an individual, a home owner runs out of fuel oil in the middle of the night due to a busy work week and scheduling, I know people in my community run out in the middle of the night and there is no way possible these individuals can meet the minimum purchase requirements, which varies from community "X" to community "Y".
I know there is no standard there, because I did the checking myself.
So, a person in Arviat may end up waking this contractor up at two o'clock in the morning and purchasing five hundred dollars worth of fuel products where in a community like Rankin Inlet he may only have to purchase fifty dollars of fuel products.
I don't know what the standard is in Chesterfield Inlet, but they are all different, to my recollection.
That is a direct hit to the consumer and we have heard that in the House what the price of home heating fuel and gasoline is.
But sometimes the minimum standards set by individual contractors are higher than acceptable to people who purchase fuel in a community and it may be five hundred dollars before you get enough fuel to get your house warm again.
I know that from first hand experience that this is happening in this region.
Because I've talked to bankers about it and it is a concern to them.
I think that is what this motion is getting to.
We're not trying dictate to the private sector, but what we are doing here is let's have uniformity across the board.
Because, I know that if the minister and her department checked in this region, that the disparities are huge.
In Rankin Inlet you can, if you are short of cash you can go up to the gas station here and buy twenty litres of fuel oil to tide you over to pay day.
It is no secret that a lot of people in Nunavut live paycheque to paycheque.
Some people do not have six or seven hundred dollars to purchase fuel at the minimum requirements.
So I think that is what we are getting at here in protecting the consumer.
I don't think we want to quash the private sector.
Hon. Jack Anawak: Thank you. In reading the motion it does say regulating fuel prices which are regulated but I do agree with the comments made by the member from Baker Lake that there needs to be a uniformity of charges outside of regular business hours.
Again, I would agree there needs to be some kind of a guideline to the contractors on call out charges after hours.
But on this particular motion, to me, it is fine it if you are able to interpret that motion to mean that.
But basically what this does is talk about the price I pay at the gas station.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the whole concept of this motion was that when the Nunavut Government awarded fuel contracts that it would consider the lowest possible bidder.
I think it is no secret if it costs us more to do something that cost will be passed on to the consumer.
So I guess that all we are trying to say here is simply that.
These things should be taken into consideration as key factors during the selection process.
When Mr. Tootoo mentioned the motion we understood what he was trying to get us to do.
We agree with what his motion was earlier.
Maybe just the wording of the motion should be changed a bit to address what his concern is, because we can do that as a department.
We can review the fuel contractors call-out charges, and pricing procedures for private operators.
It is probably just the wording of the motion that is confusing people or the members.
Chairperson (interpretation): If there is to be an amendment to the motion you will need to do it officially through a proper motion.
More comments Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Chairperson I believe what I'm hearing is that there is no opposition to the motion but maybe what we can do is pull that one back and reintroduce it in Iqaluit or at another time.
Have it re-worded so everyone is happy with it, and then deal with it when we reconvene in Iqaluit.
I will ask you now if you are withdrawing the motion.
Mr. Tootoo: Yes Mr. Chairperson.
I will withdraw that motion now.
Chairperson (interpretation): The motion is withdrawn.
Committee Motion 45 - 1(3): Affordable Fuel Prices
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Chairman then I have one more motion.
Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee recommends that the overall government objective of using the price stabilisation fund, fuel subsidies and other targeted programs be aimed at keeping fuel prices at a level people can afford to pay.
Hon. James Arvaluk : Thank you.
The only problem I have is that most of the prices whether it's fuel or consumer goods, all the prices that most of us cannot afford.
I am just wondering what is the aim of keeping fuel prices at a level most us can afford to pay.
What is it eighty cents, fifty cents.
I guess what will happen is that the fuel prices per barrel around the world will continue to increase for example, then we continue to subsidise fuel prices more and more.
Something else has to give.
Because the government will have to increase the limit of the five million dollar buffer zone in order to increase that price stabilisation fund ceiling.
Then do we cancel the building of a school, or cancel something else in the government programs.
Because it will require a few million dollars to keep that cap that is requested in this motion.
So I have these two questions Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairman, again here the intent of this motion is to ensure that people can afford to buy gasoline to go hunting.
As far as what levels people can afford to pay, I think that sounds like an excellent task for the government to undertake to review and make recommendations on, and then try and work around that.
Say we don't subsidise fuel anymore will it continue to go up and up.
Will the people on income support, will the minister responsible for income support provide extra funding to those individuals to buy that fuel, as the cost of living is going up.
It is the same thing with the municipalities.
The money is all coming from the same place.
So if we are not going to subsidise it from one level the money is coming from somewhere else.
The way that the public of Nunavut are being paid and the way the municipalities are funded is adequate.
If there isn't any control then it must come from somewhere.
If we don't try to keep it at a price where people can afford to buy it then where else is the money going to come from in order for people to go hunting and provide country food for their family.
Those are the areas and people we need to protect so they can do that.
Hon. James Arvaluk: I find this motion to have a very narrow vision.
Because you cannot govern the budget process through the price stabilisation fund alone.
You cannot say that we might go up another five or ten cents to keep the price of fuel at the level people can afford to pay, then therefore, we will decrease some programs in other areas.
You cannot have the government basing their operations on the fuel prices.
You have to look at all your programs and set your priorities.
For example, the government priority announced was education and housing, and you cannot just change your priorities in the middle of the session, and change it to the importance of the fuel stabilisation fund over everything else.
The problem I have here is that everything will be based on how the price of fuel rises and lowers around the world.
I am having a hard time when I'm looking at the government performing the budget process under that motion.
Mr. Tootoo, any further comments.
I don’t think we’re trying to change any priorities that the government has set forth.
We had all agreed that housing, education and health care were the priorities.
Maybe if the minister would like me to read the motion over again, it might become a little clearer.
That the committee recommend that the overall government objectives of using the price stabilisation fund, the fuel subsidies and other targeted programs be aimed at keeping fuel prices at levels that people can afford to pay.
Those are programs Mr. Chairman, that are already in existence.
We’re trying to use those programs to make sure that the best use of those and that that be the objective of the government to use those programs to keep fuel prices at a level that people can afford to pay.
And maybe to go a little further, if any changes to that have to come forward, they have to come from the department to FMB, to Cabinet then to this House so it’s not changing anything.
I think I understand what the members are trying to move but there’s some contradictions in the different motions.
The motions aren’t numbered so, if I refer back to your earlier motion that the committee passed, which was the recommendation for reviewing the fuel subsidy, you said to reduce the fuel subsidy to commercial and government operations.
Well if you reduce the fuel subsidy to commercial operations, for example, the Northern Store, the Coop, individual private businesses, if you reduce their fuel subsidy, and ask them to pay market rate or whatever, retail rate, then they’re going to increase their prices on food and so on and so forth to cover the cost of the reduction of the fuel subsidy.
You say, the fuel subsidies should be used to come up with some kind of price that people can afford, and who can say what people can afford.
What David Iqaqrialu can afford and what Mr. Tootoo can afford or what Mr. Picco can afford, will be different than what someone who is on social assistance can afford.
And what someone doing minimum wage can afford will be different than what someone else can afford.
So who decides that.
And if you’re asking to reduce all subsidies to commercial establishments, which is your other previous motion, you're contradicting yourself on this one because you’re asking that the fuel subsidies be used to help people, but once you cut the fuel subsidies, someone has to pay the difference.
The difference will be paid by the consumer and that consumer may not be just the person who buys fuel, but the person who buys food and groceries and everything because the business person will have to pay for that extra fuel cost.
When you reduce it to governments, I think you’re trying to say the federal government, because that’s the subsidy you talked about earlier, if you asked this government to be cut on their fuel subsidy, which includes municipal governments who get their subsidy from MACA, you’re asking for health centres, schools and everything.
If you reduce their subsidy for fuel which this government pays, then someone else has to make up the difference and that money will have to come from the programs and services of this government.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think there’s a couple of contradictions in this.
So if you're asking to review the subsidy of government and then at the same time you’re asking to put it towards individuals, it’s a contradiction, because when you reduce the price for someone, someone else has to pay for it.
That’s why by the way Mr. Chairman, that’s why you have the stabilisation fund in place because the stabilisation fund keeps the level of fuel costs to a price that can be borne out through the stabilisation fund.
Chairperson (interpretation): Those questions were already brought up and please keep to the motion at hand.
Hon. Ed Picco: Maybe the committee could explain the contradiction in the two motions, one asking for reducing the fuel subsidy to commercial and business and then this one, using those same fuel subsidies that you asked to reduce to lower the fuel costs.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Picco.
Mr. Chairman, maybe we can ask Minister Picco, if it should be more important to subsidize other governments and airlines and companies that don’t even have a basis of operations in Nunavut to subsidize those types of organisations than it is to subsidize our elders and our hunters that are trying to heat and feed their families.
Mr. Picco, I will give you the opportunity to make a comment but I have another name on my list.
Hon. Ed Picco: I’m not saying that at all.
All I’m saying is that when you reduce the subsidy to one group, you want to reduce the subsidy to the airlines, but the airlines are going to increase their ticket prices.
And if you reduce the subsidy to a business, they’re going to have to recover their costs somehow.
I’m not here to debate, I’m asking you a question and you can come back and clarify.
I’m not here to argue with the member, and if the member wants to talk about elders and so on and so forth, I agree him and everyone agrees with that.
I don’t think that we have to get into that rhetoric, all I’m saying is that in one motion, they’re actually asking to review all subsidies, this motion they’re saying review the subsidies and put them toward the consumer and say what the consumer can pay.
Mr. Chairman, this is the same debate all across Canada, deciding what people can pay.
We’ve seen the prices of fuel increase, we don’t generate fuel here in Nunavut, we have to buy it at the world market prices.
Those costs are outside what we can control.
I will give this person an opportunity to ask a question.
I think it will be easier. Mr. Anawak.
I don’t mind the intent of the motion but I don’t know how you’re capable of drafting this motion and as a government the price of fuel went up so we increased the price.
We of course, can feel the price increases but we did have a buffer and in regards to Mr. Picco’s comments, the elders are also consumers and there’s also subsidies for businesses.
If we should decrease the subsidy, then they will just pass on the increase to the customer.
I can use the example of an airline where if there’s an increase in the fuel, then they will increase the price to the consumer.
We as a government, we’re not in opposition, we are a consensus government.
We have feelings and we’re not going to make a drastic increase in the rates.
I don’t mind trying to put this motion ahead but we as a government, the way I see it, I think that you see the government as a body that has no feelings.
We’re starting to talk about the same issues over again.
It could be carried or defeated.
Because we’re talking about the same issues, I would like to ask Mr. Tootoo to keep the process going and not ask the same questions.
Mr. Chairman, maybe to try and bring the debate to a close is if I can suggest an amendment to the motion.
It’s a very small one.
Again the intent of what we’re trying to do here with our recommendations is to focus on where the need is.
Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee recommends the overall government objective of using the price stabilisation fund, the fuel subsidies and any other targeted programs be aimed at trying to keep fuel prices at a level people can afford to pay.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment there is adding, trying to keep the fuel prices at levels that people can afford to pay.
I believe some of the concern from the other side of the floor is that it would force the government to keep prices at a certain level.
I think this would help to alleviate those fears.
Before I give the two other people an opportunity I would like to give these two an opportunity.
People who are making the comments, they’re just debating back and forth, they are the same people.
We have been talking about the fuel price increases for the last three days.
It’s okay with me if we keep the debate going but I would like to say that the POL people that are working in my department have already been asked to look into the issue and these motions.
We know where these motions are coming from.