EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Hon. David Simailak: Yes, we are actively looking at wind energy on an ongoing basis and we are trying to look at opportunities to expand the wind energy program in Nunavut and reduce dependence on imported oil by doing that.
So, alternate energy, wind energy specifically, is an overhead priority within our organization.
Speaker (interpretation): Supplementary. Mr. Peterson.
I think last fall the government completed a wind map study in Nunavut.
In Cambridge Bay, we always thought we had a very windy place. The study will probably confirm that.
Could the minister tell the House if the study was completed and what communities have been identified as potential sites for the wind turbine farms.
Hon. David Simailak: I understand that Environment Canada is supporting our efforts by preparing territorial wind resource maps that will compile historical climate data and also by assisting the identification of potential wind project locations.
And that is all of the information I have on these studies at the moment.
Speaker (interpretation): Your second supplementary. Mr. Peterson.
Over the years, Cambridge Bay had wind farms. I think my colleague from Kugluktuk could tell us that his communities did too, so we have a lot of experience with wind turbine. I am wondering if the minister could tell us if the energy division is also looking into micro-hydro technology, micro turbines, and solar energy as alternate sources of energy for Nunavut.
Yes, that division is actually looking at all types of alternate energy.
A company in Cambridge Bay, Dutch Industries, was experimenting with energy over the years, and they were trying to get funding to expand their operations. They ran into a situation where the Power Corporation had signed franchise agreements with the municipality. This basically prevented or required them to sell the energy back to the Power Corporation and prevented any competition from opening up in the community.
I am wondering if the minister would be willing to tear up those franchise agreements to permit competition to develop in the communities with respect to wind energy.
Yes, I can certainly look at having my department take a look at that idea.
We will certainly look at it.
Question 167 – 2(1): Plans on Implementing a Fuel Rider
Earlier she indicated to my colleague that the $10 million that was in our budget for the stabilization rider subsidy… .
In the budget, it clearly indicates that it is a power subsidy specific to the implementation of a fuel rider.
So, I guess, from that point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that the implementation of a fuel rider be considered from the government’s perspective as a rate or tariff that is going to be showing up on our power bills in the next year or near future.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister of Finance. Aglukkaq.
In terms of the question related to the fuel rider, or the rider itself, but directed to Qulliq Energy Corporation… . That response, related to the $10 million… . The minister responded the $10 million subsidy is in lieu of the fuel rider.
I recall the minister stating that in the budget document, in the main estimates, it clearly states specific to the implementation of the fuel rider… .
So, that indicates that there will be a fuel rider implemented, and the minister had indicated that Qulliq Energy Corporation had gone to FMB with the request for the $10 million to cover that off.
My question to the minister is, when did Qulliq Energy Corporation go to FMB with that request?
March 18, 2004.
As the Minister of Finance, then the chair of the FMB, they became aware that the utility Qulliq Energy Corporation was planning on bringing forward this request for a rider to go in place and the subsidy to cover it off in March… .
The Act is pretty clear that within 15 days of receiving that request, the minister has to seek advice from the utility review council.
Did not the minister realize that? And, I would like to invite the minister responsible to follow the legal route that it is required to.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister Aglukkaq.
On this file, there are so many issues that happened or many things that happened leading up to March 18, but it is up to the Minister responsible for Qulliq Energy Corporation to proceed with that.
As a chair for FMB, that deals with all the financial matters of the government, I would like to ask the minister who oversees direction of the different ministers to ensure that they comply with the legal requirements as far as looking for funds and proposing different things.
Like, is there someone from the FMB, the Department of Finance, that is looking at ensuring that things happen as they should?
Or, is it just basically something that is ignored?
I don’t think it is correct to state that legislations are ignored.
It is up to each minister to ensure that they comply with legislations that are in place.
What is the point of having legislation, is what you said, and it is up to each minister to be accountable to ensure they comply with legislation, and I don’t think it is appropriate to imply that we didn’t follow legislation.
Question 168 – 2(1): Policies on Energy Developments
I am directing this question to the minister of Nunavut Power.
I recall that when we were still with Northwest Territories that when we were dealing with the power plant in my home community, we were told by the Northwest Territories government that we were not to look for any alternatives for power, such as wind, and I would like to know if this is a legislation that we should not look for alternatives.
Speaker (interpretation): The Minister of Energy.
Can you repeat the question, please?
When we were still with the Northwest Territories we only used generators in the community, yet we could not look for alternatives for energy.
Is this still the legislation of the Nunavut government?
We are looking for alternatives power sources. as we stated, such as using the wind.
Do I understand that the communities are able to look for alternatives for power?
At the Qulliq Energy Corporation, yes, we are looking for alternatives for energy.
Question 169 – 2(1): Utility Rate Review Council Application
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to address the Minister of Justice, Mr. Premier, since you are responsible for Justice and also the URRC.
This past winter, the chairman was waiting for the application to raise the price of fuel.
I would like to ask why this did not go ahead.
Speaker (interpretation): The minister responsible for the Utility Rate Review Council.
We have been dealing with this issue for a while now.
We have been looking at different things.
This has been looked at by the Auditor General.
We know at the council… . We put some money aside for the coming year.
We are not looking at this right now.
We will be revisiting this and we will be looking at putting up the price of energy next year.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): My supplementary is, following legislation for energy, if we just receive this from the government, if it is not a loan of $14 million to NPC right now, how is this going to be returned?
We agreed with the $4 million, but the $10 million has not been approved yet.
I cannot speak on that issue before it has been accepted.
We know that if we do not help them it could go down.
It would not be appropriate for the public consumers. We have looked at the Auditor General’s report and we would like to help them one time only this year.
It will change next year.
To my understanding, the $4 million… . That rates rider was a fuel subsidy or a fuel stabilization rider and following that legislation, the price has to go up and right now this has been put to a halt.
I would like to know about the $4 million: how is this going to be returned?
It was done once and we were going to… . We looked at this again, and last year this was not available and we had this for one year only.
From that, we learned this winter how this is going to be, and we helped them out with another $10 million.
This is our own interest, and it is used by the public, because if it is not there, we would not be able move.
We would not have any light or electricity.
We would like to see this one on its own, but up to today we have been providing assisance.
For the next year, we will be setting the appropriate price so that we will not have to go back to them next year.
Last supplementary. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): The last question that I have: in your own thinking, if the $10 million is approved, it would be $14 million?
Also, in your thinking, we would not go up in price, is that correct?
Yes, they owe money. Right now we are looking for alternatives and we will be having regular meetings on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 170 – 2(1): Air Transportation Regulations
I am asking the minister of transportation: when I got elected last fall, I got some concerns about Kivalliq Air; I was told by the deputy minister at that time that aircraft has to be a Twin Otter and it would be travelling for over two hours. They need toilet facilities.
I would like to know if this is under regulation.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): I apologize. I have not seen the legislation. I will take this as notice, Mr. Speaker.
The aircraft that fly in Kivalliq, Skyward, Calm Air and Kivalliq Air, they use them for medevacs. If this is true, will they follow that legislation?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Yes, I will look into this, I will ask my staff to look into this and let my colleague know as soon as I know about this.
Question 171 – 2(1): Clarity on Fuel Rider or Rate Tariff
My question is for the minister responsible for the Utility Rate Review Council. I just want to try and clarify some of the issues around here.
When you referred to, in the Department of Finance’s budget, a $10 million subsidy in there, it indicates that it is specific to a fuel rider. As the minister responsible for the Utility Rate Review Council, would a fuel rider be considered a rate or tariff under the Act?
As my colleagues have mentioned before, we know that the Power Corporation was in some difficulty financially and if we failed to act, they were going to be in worse shape.
So, we have said that the finances built into that for the time being, that we should absorb some of the financial difficulties as a government and in response to the Auditor General’s findings.
That is what we did, assist the Power Corporation and not raise the rates for our customers.
So, our customers are not going to be affected; their power bills will not go up.
For the time being, we are assisting them, and they will be going through a regulatory process for this coming year.
So, in this instance, we felt that in the interest of the public and in the interest of making sure the Power Corporation is operational we should assist them.
That is what we did.
We subsidized the operations of the corporation and will not increase any rates for our customers at this time.
Speaker (interpretation): Supplementary question. Mr. Tootoo.
I do not think anyone here would argue that that is a necessary requirement to do that, and no one here is arguing that they would like to see their power bills go up, although they have already by $18 thanks to a mistake by the Corporation for a while.
I would like to ask again the same question.
Would a fuel rider be considered a rate or tariff by the Utility Rate Review Council?
Under the legislation, rate means a rate that we charge to a customer.
So, the rate that we will be charging the customer is not going up.
We are absorbing those added costs so the customer, at the end of the day, will not be affected by this $10 million decision that we put forward.
The member is somehow confused with the rate issue, which will be taking place this year with the Power Corporation and the Utility Rate Review Council, that is required by legislation.
I know I am not confused and I know that the government is planning, the utility is planning on bringing forward a general rate application. That is a rate, but a rate or tariff… .
Would a fuel… . Was the last time… . During the last Assembly, last year, a fuel rider was requested by the utility and was determined to be a rate or tariff and was required to go to the Utility Rate Review Council.
In this case, the same thing is being done except the government has decided, apparently last March, to subsidize its consumers, which is a good thing.
I am not saying it is a bad thing, but there is still the legal requirement.
If a rate or tariff was going to be put in place, whether or not it is going to be subsidized 100 percent by the government or not, it is still required to go through that process.
I will ask the minister, why that did not happen if it was required? It happened before, why was it not done again?
Why did they ignore the legislation?
We increased assistance to the Power Corporation by $4 million last year, yet there were no hearings.
We absorbed those costs.
We are doing the same thing this year; we are not increasing any rates for our customers.
None of our constituents will see any increase on the rates charge, so it will be redundant to hold hearings at this time.
The Power Corporation, according to the Auditor General, needs financial help. That is exactly what we have done here: assess the Power Corporation as per the requirement under the Auditor General’s report.
So, to try and do both procedures, to hold up the money when the Power Corporation needs assistance, would be redundant at this point. What we are doing is assisting the Power Corporation. Hopefully this Legislature will approve the budget so that they can move on, and none of our customers will see any increase for this year, until a hearing has taken place for a general rate application.
I’m not arguing the fact. I think it’s a good thing that the government is subsidizing the Corporation, as they subsidized them last year.
In my understanding, this $10 million is going to show up on people’s power bills as a rider, and there is going to be an offsetting on the bill as a subsidy provided by the government on that.
So, in effect it is a rider being put in place, whether or not it’s being 100 percent subsidized or not.
There is a legal requirement for the government to do that. Just as the Minister of Finance indicated last March, the FMB received that request;within the 15 days, if the minister would have written to the URRC, it may have determined that it wasn’t necessary to have public hearings and just to go ahead and impose that tariff.
Then the government’s legal obligations would have been met.
It’s not a matter of delaying things or anything like that, I’m just saying if we have legislation there, why are we not following it?
Again, I remind you that this is a subsidy in lieu of a rider.
None of the rates of our customers is going up.
Let me be clear, if that is going to happen, it has to go to URRC, and that will happen; that’s required by legislation.
None of our customers will pay any extra because of this subsidy.
That’s why we had to approve it, so that our customers will not see an increase in their power rates.
I look forward to the hearings that will be taking place, perhaps this year, for the general rate application as required by legislation.
We received advice before we went this way.
Of course, we had to follow legislation.
Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to advise the members that I am tabling returns to Written Question 002 – 2(1) and Written Question 007 – 2(1) on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Thank you.
Return to Written Question 002 – 2(1): Nunavut Payroll Tax
Asked By: Keith Peterson on May 12, 2004
To the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Finance
Question 1: For each of the following fiscal years, how much revenue was collected by the Government of Nunavut pursuant to the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut)?
($000)
1999-2000 $3,591
2000-2001 $5,057
2001-2002 $5,125
2002-2003 $5,715
2003-2004 $5,733
Question 2: For each of the following fiscal years, approximately how many individuals paid an amount to the Nunavut Consolidated Revenue Fund pursuant to the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut)?
Response: The following is an absolute count of the number of employees listed by employers on the returns filed to comply with the payroll tax.
1999-2000 19,584
2000-2001 21,183
2001-2002 21,084
2002-2003 21,089
2003-2004 22,210
Question 3: With respect to the individuals who paid Nunavut Payroll Tax in each of the following fiscal years, how many were deemed to be residents of Nunavut for federal income tax purposes and how many were not residents of Nunavut?
Response: There is no administrative link between the payroll tax and the Nunavut personal income tax.
The payroll tax is administered locally by the Department of Finance and the Nunavut personal income tax is administered on behalf of the Government of Nunavut by the Canada Revenue Agency under the terms of the Nunavut-Canada Tax Collection Agreement with the federal Department of Finance.
It is not possible to do a direct comparison of individuals who are liable for the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut) with individuals who are assessed under the Nunavut personal income tax as residents of Nunavut.
Question 4: Are residents of Nunavut who receive remuneration from the Government of Nunavut, its boards and/or agencies and/or crown [sic] corporations on a contractual or consultancy basis liable to pay an amount under the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut)?
Response: Yes, if residents are employees of the Government of Nunavut, its boards and/or agencies and/or Crown corporations, they are liable to pay the payroll tax.
Self-employed individuals that may perform contractual or consulting work for the Government of Nunavut, its boards and/or agencies and/or Crown corporations are not liable to pay the payroll tax.
Question 5: Are non-residents of Nunavut who receive remuneration from the Government of Nunavut, its boards and/or agencies and/or crown [sic] corporations on a contractual or consultancy basis liable to pay an amount under the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut)?
Response: Yes, if non-residents are employees of the Government of Nunavut, its boards and/or agencies and/or Crown corporations, they are liable to pay the payroll tax.
Question 6: Is the Government of Nunavut’s 1% Payroll Tax applied to monies paid to persons who receive settlement payments from the Government of Nunavut subsequent to the termination of their employment as members of the public service?
Response: The payroll tax is applicable to the remuneration of an employee.
Remuneration includes all payments and the value of all benefits and allowances received or deemed to be received by an individual that, by reason of subsection 5(1) or section 6 or 7 of the Income Tax Act (Canada), are required to be included in the income of the individual for the purposes of that Act.
All amounts received as damage payments in respect of a termination are considered fully taxable under Income Tax Act (Canada) under subsection 5(1) or section 6, whichever may be applicable.
Question 7: What is the approximate annual cost to the Government of Nunavut for the administration of the Nunavut Payroll Tax?
Response: The payroll tax is administered within the Taxation and Risk Management division of the Department of Finance.
The proposed budget of this division is approximately $1.076 million for fiscal year 2004-05.
It is estimated that about 15% - 18% of the division’s budget would be used to administer the payroll tax.
Question 8: What is the average annual cost to a private sector employer for complying with the provisions of the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut)?
Response: There is no provision in Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut) for employers to report the costs associated with complying the law.
The information required by an employer to fulfil the reporting requirements of the Act is information gathered in the process of maintaining a payroll system.
As well, the Act provides a varied filing schedule for employers which is linked to the size of the payroll.
Small employers, with small payrolls, are required to file less frequently then those employers with large payrolls.
Question 9: In what circumstances can a resident of Nunavut receive a rebate pursuant to the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut)?
Response: An employer or employee may apply to the Minister of Finance for the refund of any overpayment of the tax.  Return to Written Question 007 – 2(1): Nunavut Payroll Tax
Asked By: Keith Peterson on May 13, 2004
Question: Are Nunavut residents who are paid the minimum rate of wages, pursuant to section 12 of the Labour Standards Act, required to pay the 1% payroll tax, pursuant to the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut)?  Response: Yes, Nunavut residents who are paid the minimum wage are subject to the Payroll Tax Act, 1993 (Nunavut).
The payroll tax is applicable to remuneration earned in the territory and every employee is liable to pay to the tax, regardless of the rate of pay.
The exceptions to this general rule are where an employee normally works outside of Nunavut for a Nunavut employer and where remuneration paid to the employee does not exceed $5000 for a year.  Speaker (interpretation): Item 9.
Tabled Document 028 – 2(1): Legislative Assembly of Nunavut Annual Report April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004 (Speaker)
Speaker (interpretation): Pursuant to Section 57 of the Integrity Act, I wish to table the integrity commissioner’s report for the year ending March 31, 2004.
Bill 5 – An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act – Notice
I give notice that on June 3, 2004, I shall move that Bill 5 – An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act be read for the first time.
At the appropriate time, I will seek consent to deal with my motion today.
Bill 5 – An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act – First Reading
I request the consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirements for the first reading of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act.
Speaker (interpretation): The minister is seeking consent to waive the two day notice requirements for the first reading of bills for today.
Yes, Mr. Kilabuk.
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Natilik, that Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act be read for the first time.
Bill 5 has been read for the first time.
I request the consent of this Assembly to waive the one-day requirement for the second reading of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act.
Speaker (interpretation): The minister is requesting the consent of this Assembly to waive the one-day requirement for the second reading of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act.
With this request for the consent, if there are two nays then we cannot go ahead with the second reading.
Bill 5 – An Act to Amend the Revolving Fund Act – Second Reading
I would like to thank the members.
The Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove and I move that Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act be read for the second time, to increase the maximum amount of the fund to $110,000,000.
Speaker (interpretation): Question being called.
I would like to speak on the principle of the bill.
At this moment, the revolving fund has $75 million that would be used for the purchase of bulk fuel.
There are $5 million in there, there was an increase by $50 million, I believe, when it was moved to Nunavut.
After that move, we now have $35 million that will be used for the purchase of bulk fuel. That was increased by the government.
Last year they used $85 million for the purchase of bulk fuel and were short by $400,000.
With the new Corporation… . These monies are going to be loaned to that Corporation, and now we are requesting $110 million. Only if there is an increase can we put back the money into that pot.
I think that $110 million is too much, and I would like to have it go through the Utility Rate Review Council before it is increased.
The government is saying that they do not know whether there is going to be an increase in the prices, and that is my concern.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): My point, Mr. Speaker, is I believe the people who are abstaining should be counted also.
There were nine nays, opposed, abstentions; one abstainer.  Bill 5 has been read for the second time and will be referred to the standing committee.