EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Bill 8 - An Act amend the Access to Information Act and the Protection of Privacy Act - First Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Hudson Bay that Bill 8 - An Act to Amend the Access to Information Act and the Protection of Privacy Act be read for the first time.
Hon. Ed Picco: Qujannamik Uqaqti.
Mr. Speaker, I request consent of this Assembly to waive the two day notice required for the first reading of Bill 9 - An Act to Facilitate the Transfer of Employees from the NWT Power Corporation to the Nunavut Power Corporation.
Bill 9 - An Act to Facilitate the Transfer of Employees from the NWT Power Corporation to the Nunavut Power Corporation - First Reading
Hon. Ed Picco: It has something to do with Halloween Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Pangnirtung that Bill 9 - An Act to Facilitate the Transfer of Employees from the NWT Power Corporation to the Nunavut Power Corporation be read for the first time.
Bill 7 - Legislative Assembly Members Removal and Disqualification Act - Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Kugluktuk that Bill 7 - Legislative Assembly Members Removal and Disqualification Act be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act to change the consequences for Members of the Legislative Assembly who are convicted of offences.
Under the new provisions, a member who is convicted of a criminal code offence that was prosecuted by indictment shall not be elected, or sit as a member.
If a member is convicted of any Federal or Nunavut offence the Legislative Assembly may determine whether to expel or otherwise discipline the member.
The bill also amends the Elections Act to disqualify a member who loses his or her seat or resigns as a result of a conviction from being candidate until after the member’s successor is elected.
We are on Item 18, second reading of bills.
Mr. Speaker, I request consent of this assembly to give second reading to Bill 8 - An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The bill is ready for second reading.
Bill 8 - Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act - Second Reading
Hon. Paul Okalik: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Hudson Bay that Bill 8 - An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to extend the period of time before the provisions of the act will prevail over the provisions of any other Act.
The Act is also amended to change the rules concerning when notice is given.
Mr. Premier. The motion is in order.
All those in favour of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I request consent of the Assembly to give second reading to Bill 9 - An Act to Facilitate the Transfer of Employees from the Northwest Territories Power Corporation to the Nunavut Power Corporation.
Bill 9 - An Act to Facilitate the Transfer of Employees from the NWT Power Corporation to the Nunavut Power Corporation - Second Reading
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Pangnirtung, that Bill 9 - An Act to Facilitate the Transfer of Employees from the Northwest Territories Power Corporation to the Nunavut Power Corporation be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow NTPC employees currently working in Nunavut to become employees of the Nunavut Power Corporation on April 1, 2001.
We require this legislation to ensure that we may keep our valued Nunavut based NTPC employees with us when the Nunavut Power Corporation takes over operations on April 1, 2001.
Item 18 on the orders of the day.
Bill 1, Minister's Statement 006 – 1(4), Minister's Statement 007 – 1(4), Minister's Statement 008 – 1(4).
We will deal with Bill 7, with Mr. Iqaqrialu in the Chair.
Chairperson (Mr. Iqaqrialu) (interpretation): Thank you members.
It has been a while since I have chaired the committee so be patient with me as I will probably be making mistakes, although I don't want to.
The committee wishes to deal with Minister's Statement 007 – 1(4) Fuel Price Increases.
I was reading my document here.
During committee of the whole we have before us Minister's statements 006 – 1(4), 007 – 1(4), 008 – 1(4), and Bills 1 and 7.
What do the members wish.
Mr. Havioyak (interpretation): I will try it again.
What we would like to deal with is Minister's Statement 007 - 1(4) on the fuel price increase issue.
Yes, we will deal with ministers' statement 007-1 (4) on the increase of fuel prices.
We started this during the previous day's session.
Madame minister you can go down to the witness table with your staff.
Thank you, you can start with your opening remarks.
I give the floor to the minister.
Roy Green is not with us today.
He was with us last week when we were discussing the increase of fuel prices.
He will not be able to participate in this meeting because of unforeseen circumstances.
I have our Deputy Minister here with me, Mr. Ross Mrazek.
I think this is a continuation of last week's discussion on increasing fuel prices.
So I do not have any opening remarks, as that was done already last week.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Madame minister.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you Mr. Chairman and nice to see you in the chair again after such a long absence.
I am just wondering Mr. Chairman if the minister or her staff could explain in plain language the purpose of the petroleum products stabilization fund.
That is one thing that I have been trying to get my head around, how it works.
It is not a very easy thing to try to do.
It seems when you talk to different people you get a different answer.
So I would like to ask if it can be explained in plain language for us.
Hon. Manitok Thompson: The petroleum products stabilization fund has only one purpose and that is to help control prices.
It is used to keep fuel prices from jumping up and down every year.
As you know we pay for fuel once a year, if you are down south the fuel prices jump up and down all year.
But the stabilization fund is there to stabilize the prices.
The maximum amount that can be charged to this account is 5 million dollars as the members know already.
It is just to help to maintain the prices for the year because we just buy fuel once a year.
That is all it is there for, just to help control prices.
Mr. Chairman, we talked about how our prices are controlled and how that fund is used to stabilize the prices of petroleum products purchased and sold in Nunavut.
I am just wondering, I know the minister indicated that the maximum amount that they could charge to the fund is 5 million dollars and I am just wondering Mr. Chairman, are there any provisions, or what happens in the event where there is a deficit balance in that stabilization fund that exceeds 5 million dollars at the end of the year.
What would happen.
Hon. Manitok Thompson: Mr. Chair, if it were to go over the 5 million dollars I would have to go to the ministers, it is a debt, the bottom line is that the 5 million dollars is a debt.
I would have to go to the ministers and ask for more money.
We could no longer stabilize the fuel.
Mr. Chairman, I know over the number of days that we have discussed this issue, the minister has made it quite clear that the department and cabinet did a thorough and complete analysis in determining that this was the best option for the government to take, the 13.9 cents per litre increase.
I am just wondering if the minister could inform the House of what that increase, or the impact that the increase will have on single income families, low income families, single parents, hunters, small business owners, students, day care centres and senior citizens that are either homeowners or in public housing or other individuals that are on a fixed income.
I think everybody knows that it will have an impact on everything.
It will have an impact on the low income families.
It will have an impact on people that are buying groceries, they will have a harder time buying the groceries because they will have to manage their money better.
So it will have an impact on all the list that the member just mentioned.
But I can say that from March 2000 to September 2000, we bought the fuel, as you know, in July.
The fund went up 300% because the rising fuel prices in the world market have gone up so high.
So the stabilization fund went from 342 thousand in March 2000, up to September 2000, it went up to 1 million 500 thousand dollars.
That's how fast the fuel price increase went, because we had to stabilize it.
We were selling the new fuel at the old price from August to September.
It went up 300% and we all know that it is going to have an impact on all the consumers.
On the quality of life in our communities, but we have had to put the increase up otherwise we would be going into a big deficit.
If we don't increase the fuel now, we will be in a deficit of 9.7 million dollars by March 1, 2001.
If we don't increase the fuel, by March 31, 2002, we will be in a deficit of 13.2 million dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I am assuming that the numbers that the minister is talking about, and it sure would be nice to have that type of information so that we are not guessing at wrong numbers when we are replying to it.
Are those numbers she indicated if we do not raise the fuel prices at all. Is that what she is saying.
That's exactly what I am saying.
If we stayed at the old price and we didn't do any increases we would be in a big deficit on March 2002.
We would be in a deficit of 13.2 million dollars.
Just for an example, the cost to purchase fuel products has increased an average of 8 cents for diesel aviation since the government purchased its fuel in July of this year.
From July because of the rising fuel prices it would have cost us 9 million dollars more today if we went to buy it now.
If we hadn't bought it in July and we bought it today it would be 9 million dollars more than in July.
That's how fast the crude prices have changed, it is very unpredictable.
I don't feel comfortable saying your last name so I will just call you Manitok or Minister.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we bought our fuel back in July and not today.
Those numbers, however they may be accurate, they are not really relevant to the discussions that we are having.
The fact is we bought our fuel as the minister indicated in July, and we know how much we paid for it.
I guess the minister has indicated that they know that it will have an impact on these groups of people and organizations that I mentioned.
I would like to know what, in making their decision, surely you must have looked at what those impacts would be on those groups.
I would really like to know for myself, before I approve anything, that those types of impacts that are going to be faced by those individuals are sustainable. That they can afford to do that.
I would hope, or guess that in the very thorough and very complete analysis that departments did, that type of information should be available.
So I would really like to hear what the actual impacts are going to be on those various groups.
The reason why I talked about the rise in fuel prices was because the member was talking about the stabilization fund when he started out his questions and that was the reasoning behind that.
These are accurate numbers and Mr. Green did the analysis on this and these are the numbers that he came up with because he knows that after we purchased the fuel the average increase has been 8 cents a litre already from July.
So that was why I mentioned it.
We all know that for any increase whether it is groceries, whether it is cigarettes, alcohol, fuel, we all know that it impacts on families' living costs.
Is the member asking me how much it is going to cost the hunters, how much it is going to cost the mothers, how much it is going to cost the fathers, the sons and the kids.
All that analysis, is that what he is asking me to put forward to him right now.
Mr. Chairman, yes exactly that.
I know that other than the fact that its is going to have an impact on these groups I would certainly hope that the government would have looked at exactly what those impacts are going to be on those groups of people and whether or not those groups of people can afford that type of an impact on them, you know the rising cost on them, for example of a pensioner that is living here in Iqaluit.
The taxi drivers are saying that they are going to have to increase their fares to get around, and already some of these people that are on pensions cannot afford to take a taxi as it is right now.
To get around, some of them are ageing, that is the only way that they can get around if they do not have a vehicle.
That is the only way they get around.
The money that they have, the fixed income that they have, it has to pay their rent, it has to pay their power, it has to pay for their groceries, and it has to pay for taxis and transportation, for them to get around.
Has the government looked at that impact on these types of people to determine whether or not they can sustain those increases. I think before making a decision on whether we go ahead with this I think we need to find out that information because if we pass or go ahead with this it is going to, my feeling is, I am sure I am not alone, is that this increase is going to inflict undue hardships onto those individuals and those organizational groups that are struggling right now from pay cheque to pay cheque.
How are they going to be able to survive with this added increase that has been cast upon them.
It is either we go into a deficit or we pass some of the costs of the fuel to the consumers.
We do have programs in the government for social assistance that are being reviewed by Education to help out the low income families.
We have fuel subsidies that have gone up from 9 million last year as the members know, 9.6 last year, 1998 - 99.
It has gone up to 10.4 already.
We are stabilizing the fuel prices, we are subsidizing, we are giving out welfare to people, we are looking at subsidizing the harvesters and we are already subsidizing a lot to the Nunavut residents.
We cannot do without the increase in fuel prices because the fuel price increase is dictated by international markets.
I think an important point to make is that no one, none of us on the, none of the regular members at any point indicated that we do not want any increase in fuel costs.
The understanding is there that it is costing us more to purchase this fuel, home heating fuel and gasoline.
The majority of Nunavummiut survive by finding ways to lessen the costs in those areas.
Suggestions from any member of this side of the House that the minister keeps referring to "what do you want us to do not have any increase".
I do not think anyone this side of the House has said there should not be any increase.
What we are saying is we want to be sure that the increase that is implemented is something that is sustainable by Nunavummiut.
I would say the majority of the population in Nunavut live paycheque to paycheque to be above the poverty line.
I have told stories in the past where you do have full time indeterminate employees of the government having to go to social services for social assistance in some communities.
When you consider low income, single income families.
You have the factor of extended families.
The income earner in the family is providing for his or her family but they are also providing for the extended family that they have as well.
I don’t believe that, based on the information is provided, that the government has taken a good look at the impact that this increase will have on the people of Nunavut.
The minister hit it on the head. Are we going to increase it or are we going into a deficit.
I would like to know, taking a look at this, is that the factor that was taken into consideration.
The fact that you are going to increase the fuel or we are going to a deficit.
Or was that the rationale that was behind developing what this increase is that we are facing.
Was in fact the methodology and process that the department and government used in determining what this increase would be was exactly that, whether we are going into debt or not.
We have specialized staff that look at the numbers, they look at everything.
When we came up with 13.9 and we capped it at 98 cents, that was the best decision that cabinet could make on this.
If we compared it to Northern Quebec communities who are in the same situation as us, low income families exactly the same situation as us, they are already paying 1.23 a litre for gas.
One dollar and twenty cents a litre or one dollar and twenty five cents a litre.
We could have gone over a dollar.
But we felt as cabinet, that 98 cents was what would be the best price to sell gas at this time.
Otherwise we would just go into a deficit.
I have talked to many Nunavut elders who do not want their new government to go into a deficit.
Even 300 thousand dollars is a lot of money for some people who have never seen 300 hundred thousand coming into their communities to fix the recreation centre, for instance.
So there was a lot of analysis.
There were a lot of options looked at.
It took a lot of work on behalf of the staff.
I cannot provide the details of that analysis.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank Madame Minister.
Mr. Tootoo, there are other members who would like to ask questions.
I will give you one more opportunity and then I will let another member ask questions.
Looking at all the minister’s comments, I would really like to know because those groups of people that I talked about are the people that are going to be calling me as an MLA, are going to be calling every single one of us as an MLA, and I want to be able to tell them.
The government realized that it was going to impact you guys in this area and they felt that was sustainable.
I think we owe it, that is the largest percentage of our population that we are talking about here.
We need think about that.
You know when you talk about how this is all put together by the staff and that the decision was made by the senior management and by cabinet.
You know that we are looking at individuals that are making the decision that for the most part are usually in the higher income bracket range.
To them this type of an increase does not have that much of an impact, they can live with it.
I am pretty confident that a lot of these other groups will not be able to and I want to know that was taken into consideration and what the impacts would be on those people before I approve or I agree.
I think we owe that to them.
Mr. Picco did you want to make a comment.
Mr. Chairman, first of all Mr. Tootoo just said that he wanted to make sure that the people who are under privileged and so on were taken into account when the decision was made to increase the fuel prices.
We said in this House many times Mr. Chairman, for the record, that the minister had to wait until all the sealift was delivered to all communities.
Then you had to weight the balance of those costs to all communities because we know exactly then what the total cost of the fuel was.
That was a factor.
Then we looked Mr. Chairman, at the total cost of the fuel itself, as well as the factors that the minister has responded to several times and Mr. Chairman, for the record, we also look at the impact not only at the local level, the community level, but at the constituency level.
So if the member said that he is interested in what the constituents are saying, so am I. His constituents are my constituents and the constituents of Mr. Okalik and all the other members here.
I had to pay the fuel prices and so did my family and in-laws and so on.
Mr. Chairman those decisions were taken fairly and as the minister has pointed out several times now that we have kept the price 98 cents Mr. Chairman.
So I think for the record, we should point out that those types of decisions and those discussions were made, as the minister has tried to say several times and I do not appreciate the connotations that as a member of cabinet making decisions because my salary might be a little higher or something that we were not cognisant of the fact that other people's are not.
As I stated there are other people who would like to ask questions. After a round I will give you another opportunity.
You will have another opportunity to make your comments.
At this time Mr. Alakannuark. If you continue bickering about this then the others will not have a chance to pose their questions.
I am not sure exactly how I will pose my question but the question I want to ask is about the concerns I have regarding the hunters and how the hunters will be effected or impacted this year after the fuel price has gone up.
In my community, a hunter told me that although he wanted to go out hunting, he could not go out because he could not afford any gas. When the fuel prices go up my community will be severely impacted because the price of fuel is very high there.
There are families who have a low income. My question is what kind of subsidies will hunters be entitled to, after the fuel price has gone up.
As I stated before our department is working, we have an employee named Susan Makpalu, who is reviewing the analysis on low income families and I know an elderly couple who own a home that cannot afford to keep up with the fuel prices either.
Mr. Chairman, regarding Mr. Alakannuark’s question when I made my minister’s statement, I stated that the price of gasoline will not go over 1 dollar a litre. I said that it will remain at 98 cents and it will remain at 98 cents all over Nunavut.
As I said we will be working closely with NTI and we have begun to do that. I heard NTI Vice-President James Eetoolook supports this stabilization fund.
NTI was going to do their part in looking for areas where they can help subsidize hunters, and I said that those who will be not be able to keep up with heating fuel costs will be taken into consideration.
The policy will not only be pertaining to the elders who are not able to afford the price of fuel but also for the hunters that will be affected.
Our department has looked into this issue, and they are compiling information and right now our subsidy costs have run over 10 million dollars from 9 million.
Chairperson: Mr. Alakannuark
Thank you for answering my question. Now this subsidy program for hunters, when will this subsidy be available to the hunters. Thank you.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Are you asking when this stabilization fund will become effective.
The subsidization for hunters is under the Minister of Education's portfolio and for those who are homeowners, I don’t have any answers for that question right now.
Before we go any further.
Mr. Tootoo wanted to reply.
But I want you to know that you have a limited time for your response.
I will be quick.
I think I should apologize to the minister if she took offence.
I was talking in general of the perception from the public out there.
That is how they will perceive it, whether rightly or wrongly so.
You know the old saying, perception is reality.
I was also glad to hear the minister state that they did look at the impact on these little target groups.
So you know I am just asking what those impacts that they determined would be involving those target groups.
Because I want to be able to answer to my constituents what they were exactly.
I do not think that was a question.
I think that question was already answered.
I understand what Mr. Tootoo is saying and I am also a Member of the Assembly.
So I feel for my constituents.
I also have parents and siblings who also have to make ends meet as well.
But we became a government so we can make hard decisions on these issues.
That was one of the issues that we had to face.
We have to make sure that we are not overspending our funds here in Nunavut.
We had a list of options in front of us and the one that was most agreeable to us was the 13.9 % increase.
Mr. Alakannuark I do not think you finished your comments.
I think the subsidy for elders was also mentioned.
The subsidy runs from September 1 to March 31 for those elders.
We will receive applications for subsidies and we provide a subsidy for those who are eligible.
We work with our Finance Minister to go over these costs and look at other options.