EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out that the increase in the rates, the new rate from the average rate, would be, for example, here in the initial application, it was just around 92 percent.
It appears that the actual rate paid by commercial consumers here in Iqaluit is less than the average rate that’s listed in the application.
So, again, it’s another example where not the full accurate information is provided to the people that are being affected by these increases, because they’re not being told the full extent of the increase that they’re going to be looking at.
I’d like to ask the minister if he would comment on that and if he will ensure that all the pertinent and accurate information is provided to those people.
It’s not only for here.
It may be for every other community too.
I think it’s important to know that people have the real information, what the real differences are going to be, not based on an average rate.
I’m going to try to be as clear as I possibly can.
The Power Corporation has brought forward a proposal to have their rates increase so that they meet their revenue requirements and so that they can actually balance their book so that they won’t lose money like they have over the last few years.
That’s something that everyone in Nunavut would like to see happen, including the members in this House.
Based on that proposal, they’re saying here’s what the percentage increases will be: 90 percent, 100 percent, and so on.
It’s a proposal.
There is no increase.
They’re saying if this all went through, and we all accepted it, this is what would happen.
I’m telling you, Mr. Speaker, the House, and the people of Nunavut: this is a process.
The Utility Rates Review Council hearing is a public process.
This is not the first time it’s happened in Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, we remember the hearings in 1994 to 1996, by the Public Utilities Board for the Northwest Territories.
I was involved in the 1996, -97, -98 hearings that, again, caused all kinds of awful gnashing of teeth and a tempest in the teapot.
So, the member wants me to comment on the accuracy of numbers that are put in a proposed document.
They said they would like this amount put forward.
The information that the member is talking about, and again I’ll read it into the record to be precise, the information that has been provided me this morning, and I only have this to go on, is that the original table 12.7.1 indicated that the residential rate on line 25 of the commercial rate, on line 26, under the territorial rate-structure proposal, would be .5333 and .4983 respectively.
The revised table, after the information was brought forward 24 hours ago, the revised table of 12.7.1 indicates that the residential rate on line 25 and the commercial rate on line 26, under the territorial rate-structure proposed, Mr. Speaker, proposed, which means they’re saying this is what we’d like to see, would be .5524 and .5134 respectively.
Mr. Speaker, that’s a difference of 0.019 cents.
It’s 2 cents.
I know that’s a lot.
It could be an increase of 6 percent if everything went forward that they asked for.
That’s why we have the check and balance of the URRC, to uncover inaccuracies and to make sure that whatever rate that comes forward is there for all Nunavummiut.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, as the member and everyone in this House knows, if the rates went up by 10 percent, then 80 percent of that, or 8 out of every 10 cents, would be paid by the Government of Nunavut.
Of course the Government of Nunavut and our own financial people are also doing an analysis of the information that is being brought forward, because it would have a huge impact for this government on how we spend our money for education, for health, and other services.
We are also monitoring that and that provides, again, the check and balance process.
Question 126 – 2(2): AGRI-Food Fund
My question today is for the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation.
Can the minister inform the House as to how the funds from the Nunavut-Canada AGRI-Food Agreement will be used?
Speaker (interpretation): The Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Minister Simailak.
The five elements of the agreement include: business risk management; food safety and food quality; the science of innovation; environment; and renewal.
The funds are provided on a 60-40 cost-shared basis, with Canada providing 60 percent and Nunavut supplying 40 percent, up to an agreed upon maximum.
Canada has agreed to provide up to $180,000 annually, for five years.
And Nunavut is required to expend at least $120,000 annually.
We have also signed an agreement with AGRI-Food Canada; it is called the Nunavut Implementation Agreement.
The key elements for Nunavut would be that the NIA definition of producer has been expanded to include harvesters, which means that we can now use the funds to support commercial caribou and musk-ox harvests.
The administration would be overseen by a management committee made up of representatives of AGRI-Food Canada and our own department.
My apologies to the minister for catching him off guard.
My other question is, will a portion of the funds be used specifically for the Southampton Island caribou harvest or for the CDC?
Yes, we are presently looking at using part of that money for the Southampton Island caribou harvest.
We were told that we were going to be informed about the funding, if it’s going to be allocated.
I would like to get more information on whether the funds are going to be allocated.
Regarding the application for funding from Coral Harbour, the Nunavut government, by itself, cannot fund that wholly, because it is too expensive.
So, I have been asking if the federal government can cost-share this.
They have not responded.
Once they respond, I will inform my colleague and Member for Coral Harbour.
Question 127 – 2(2): 10% Elimination of Tax
My question, too, is for the Minister of Economic Development.
Yesterday I read a story in the CBC about the private member’s bill in Ottawa that calls for the elimination of a ten percent excise tax on Canadian jewelry.
Mr. Speaker, the Nunavut diamond industry is set to take off in 2006, when the Tahera Diamond Mine opens in the Kitikmeot.
We consider the secondary diamond industry to be a valuable industry.
It could provide huge opportunities in terms of creating employment for jewelers and artisans.
My question to the minister is: does the Government of Nunavut support the elimination of a 10 percent excise tax on jewelry manufactured and sold in Nunavut?
Speaker (interpretation): Minister Responsible for Economic Development, Mr. Simailak.
We are in the process of developing an exploration and mining strategy for Nunavut, and any and all options are being considered right now and will be considered further.
The industry will be consulted on the proposed strategy once it’s completed. I would hope by the end of this month they will complete that strategy, but all options are being considered and that is one that we would consider very seriously also.
I thank the minister for that reply.
I was going to ask the minister about the status of the mining strategy for Nunavut... .
I think he called it a Nunavut mining strategy in May, and now he mentioned the Nunavut exploration strategy; I don’t know if it’s the same document.
Could the minister update the House on who is being consulted on the mining strategy and whether there could be some policy statements included in the strategy pertaining to the diamond industry?
Yes, we were calling it the Nunavut Mining Strategy in May and we are, at present, calling it an exploration and mining strategy.
The title could change again, but it is a mining strategy and it includes exploration.
The plan right now is that I would hope the proposal will be completed by the end of this month.
Then I would look at it and then we would look at how much consultation we would want to go through with and how that consultation would be done with stakeholders from the industry or hamlets or individuals or MLA’s.
We would look at all of that in very early January.
Several years ago, the government of the Northwest Territories established a policy that required diamond mines to sell a minimum percentage of their rough diamonds to cutting and polishing companies in the Northwest Territories. As we’ve read in the media over the last year or so, it has not met with a lot of success.
So, my question for the minister: is the Government of Nunavut considering a similar policy for Nunavut when the diamond mines go into production in the Kitikmeot?
My department is still looking at the action plan that was for the National Diamond Strategy that was approved by Premiers earlier this summer.
We are still looking at those recommendations that include the supply of Canadian rough diamonds, demand for diamonds processed in Canada, regulation of the markets.
So, we are still looking at all of that.
The strategy that he is asking about is one of the things that you are looking at, but nothing seriously, no final decisions or even recommendations, has been made on that yet.
I thank the minister.
The federal government requires a Canadian government diamond evaluator to value the rough diamonds before they leave the territory or province and then leave Canada to be sent to Antwerp for further valuation.
That’s done for royalty purposes so that Canada gets a share of the value of the diamonds.
My question for the minister: will the Government of Nunavut be negotiating with the Canadian government to retain a larger share of the royalties that come from Nunavut diamonds when they leave the territory?
Yes, we are looking at all areas of mining our diamonds, our gold, or any mining that goes on, to maximize benefits to the people of Nunavut and to the territory of Nunavut and to the Government of Nunavut.
I would certainly approach my staff about how much discussion has gone on about the idea that the member is presenting, and we will certainly look at it as a department if we have not been looking at it already.
Question 128 – 2(2): Economic Impact Study
Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister of Energy seems to be putting very little faith in the information provided by the Power Corporation through the GRA application, and that Economic Development is one of the top priorities of this government as a whole, as decided by all members of this House, would the minister commit to doing an economic impact study of any proposed rates to the economy of Nunavut.
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Mr. Simailak.
I did in fact receive a letter from the Iqaluit Chamber of Commerce asking for almost exactly that.
That impacts a number of departments within the government, that request.
I’ve been discussing this with colleagues and it’s also being discussed at the bureaucratic level.
I should be responding to the Iqaluit Chamber of Commerce literally within days, the next two or three days, to try to find ways of the helping them do the study that they’re asking to do.
I appreciate the minister’s willingness to work with the chamber of commerce here to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I guess what I’m asking is, as the minister responsible for economic development, would he commit to have his department undertake to do that economic impact study, as it would affect the total economy of Nunavut and not just the city of Iqaluit.
We are prepared to work with industry and with stakeholders to support whatever work is necessary, and that’s what we’re looking at right now with the Iqaluit Chamber of Commerce and with the business community as a whole, because the whole of the business community would be very interested in the study that the chamber would do.
In terms of the department itself doing that, I had not considered that.
But I’ll certainly discuss it with my staff to see what we can do with a suggestion like that.
I would strongly urge the minister to look at undertaking such an undertaking, as I’d see that could be, as the Minister of Energy pointed out… .
A recommendation comes from the Utility Rate Review Council to the responsible minister who then brings it to his cabinet colleagues, and they have the final say.
Information outlined in that economic impact study could be very valuable information in assisting the cabinet with how to deal with any recommendation that comes forward.
So, again, I would strongly urge the minister to do that and if he could get back to me, before the end of our sitting day, after discussing it with his cabinet colleagues or his departmental officials.
I think that’s something that if they’re going to do it, they can work in conjunction with any chambers of commerce that are looking at it instead of doing a duplication of efforts.
I will discuss it with my staff and we will consider his recommendation very seriously.
Question 129 – 2(2): Support an Independent Child Advocate
My question is for the Minister of Education this morning.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of Education speak so eloquently a couple of Fridays ago, in his minister’s statement, about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
As the minister is probably aware from reading the document I tabled the other day, the UN committee recommends that an independent children’s advocate be established in the provinces that have not done so, as well as in the three territories where a high proportion of vulnerable children live.
My question for the minister: since the minister is so eager to quote from the United Nations, can he confirm to this House that he supports the establishment of an independent children’s advocate for Nunavut, yes, or no.
I would first like to compliment the member on his crusade for a children’s advocate.
Mr. Speaker, three years ago, when I was in Cambridge Bay, a constituent of Cambridge Bay asked me, as the minister of health at that time, did I endorse the proposal for a children’s advocate.
Mr. Speaker, it was the first time that it had been raised in a public domain and indeed, Mr. Peterson may have made a motion in May of 2004 asking for one, I believe.
So, the member has been anything but inconsistent on this file.
He has indeed been consistent.
I did quote from the United Nations proposal on the children’s advocacy.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that in Nunavut, there are issues around our children and poverty.
We have put in place, as the Premier said earlier, extra officials, for example, probation, we have social workers and so on.
I guess what the government needs to be able to look at... .
I heard Minister Brown’s commitment to you that over the next few months, she’ll have an opportunity to look at what’s available for a children’s advocate: is the work load there?
Can we ascertain what the total scope of that position would be and so on.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that I, as the Minister of Education, would work with the minister of health and her department as well as with the Minister of CLEY to see what opportunities are there for the position that’s being advocated for by the member.
I asked for a yes or no answer.
I don’t know if I got that.
Mr. Speaker, last week I had to help a lady in a tough situation with a child that the government was planning to take away.
If we had a children’s advocate in Nunavut, they would have been able to step in and be a voice for that child.
I had to step in with the help of my minister colleague, the minister of health; we sorted it out temporarily.
A child advocate would have been a great asset.
So, my question again, for the Minister of Education: does he support an independent children’s advocate for Nunavut?
The government has moved from the last three years to look at what options are out there for the needs of children and youth.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we do have an intergovernmental departmental plan, which includes Education, Health and CLEY, to look at these responses.
I said I heard the minister of health’s response.
At the same time Mr. Speaker, we need to be able to see what the logistics are, including the administrative and financial needs that need to be put forward, for a children’s advocate position and to see what that recommendation is.
So, Mr. Speaker, the short answer is, we’ll have to look at it again in the next couple of months.
I know that the minister of health has been working on it with her departmental staff, and again, we have to ascertain the logistical, administrative, and the financial aspects of that position.
I’m not trying to stonewall the member.
But it would be no good for me to make some kind of position or promise or something here when there aren’t any resources and when there are other issues that need to be addressed in place.
So, I would just ask the member to be patient and give the minister of health an opportunity to review the situation and see if we can answer those logistical, administrative, and financial aspects of that position.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Peterson
I am trying to get an answer out of the minister, so I will keep asking.
The Government of Nunavut has had three or four or five years to do all the work that the minister is saying they want to do.
All the stonewalling tactics that the government use... .
They take things into committee, they had interdepartmental meetings. With senior-level officials, they generate reports and recommendations to the ministers, and then they tell the regular members that we don’t have the resources.
We know that they have the resources. Children are more than 50 percent of the population of Nunavut.
So, if we can’t find some resources from the Government of Nunavut to help out the children of Nunavut, I have to question the spirit of the Bathurst Mandate.
I am going to ask the minister again: does he support the establishment of an independent children’s advocate for Nunavut?
I think I’m trying to be clear here.
There are a lot of outstanding issues.
There is an interdepartmental group and they are bringing a discussion paper forward so that cabinet can review it.
Then we have to look at what the needs are based on that.
I said that part of that is to answer some of the administrative as well as the financial and logistical questions that would entail with the children’s advocate proposal.
It is something that other jurisdictions have put in place; not every jurisdiction has a children’s advocate position.
We have to look at some of the other factors around the issues of children.
Are they being addressed through the Child and Family Services Act that we have in place?
Are the issues being facilitated by some of the outreach positions that we have put out in place, and so on.
So, we need to ascertain all of those things first.
Like I said, we would hope to be in the position to look at this in the departments of Health and CLEY in the coming months.
I guess that would be the short answer.
Again, I asked for a yes or no answer.
In October 2002, the former health minister’s staff had developed a legislative proposal that they were planning to table in the House.
It didn’t go anywhere because they said that government didn’t have enough time in its legislative agenda to deal with it.
I presume that a lot of work had gone into that, otherwise that department wouldn’t have put together a legislative proposal.
There are children’s advocates in eight provinces.
New Brunswick is coming on stream soon and Yukon territory is making progress. Prince Edward Island may be working on something.
The only place that I don’t see any action happening on a children’s advocate is Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
It would be a disgrace if we didn’t have a children’s advocate for Nunavut.
An independent child advocate reports to you, Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
I ask the minister again: does he support the establishment of an independent child advocate for Nunavut?
What I am trying to say, as the Minister of Education, is that we are trying to look at what has been done in other jurisdictions.
There is an interdepartmental group working on it, so for the member to say that there is nothing happening, that is a little bit disingenuous.
There has been a lot of foot work, a lot of ground-level work, a lot of administrative work that has been put into the proposal.
That is where we are moving forward at that point.
It is very difficult for me to say that I support or do not support a program or a proposal until we have actually looked at the logistic, administrative, and the financial issues that it entails.
That is what I am trying to say to the member, and we will be in the position in the next couple of months.
As I said earlier, the minister of health answered your question on this earlier, last week.
I am sure that we stand by what the minister of health said at that time.
We will move forward from that position and maybe be in a better position in the coming weeks to look at it.
Try to make your preamble short. Mr. Kattuk.
Question 130 – 2(2): Assistance from the Federal Government
I will be directing my question to the Minister of Energy.
We hear how the Auditor General... I am speaking as an Inuk, but the Auditor General doesn’t know the residents of Sanikiluaq. Most Nunavut communities only go by what the minister is told by the Auditor General, or from the public service, because there are recommendations that we have to follow, but that Auditor General has never seen Inuit.
We live in Nunavut.
So, for that matter, I can state: if you are going to set up a community we should not have to pay for a thing.
I would like to ask the minister: has the minister made this clear or has the minister asked the federal government for assistance in the hardship we face over energy?
The beginning of Nunavut, the genesis of Nunavut, in 1968, started with the creation of the Government of the Northwest Territories, and of course, the land claim facilitated the government in setting up a territory in 1993, when that was signed.
We have not consulted the federal government on the rate application that is being put forward by the Power Corporation to the Utility Rates Review Council.
As a legislative jurisdiction, we have the right and the authority to work with and within the framework of our own processes to determine our own direction.
That’s why we have an independent legislative assembly and 19 elected members.
So, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
I have not contacted the federal government in regards to this proposal being put forward by the Power Corporation.
His response was, no, he has not contacted the federal government.
Can the minister go to the federal government and try to get them to support us?
Is he at least going to try?
I think I know what the members is trying to imply and that the point he is trying to make is that before the Government of Nunavut and before 1968, when people had to move in off the land into communities, there was some understanding that the federal government at that time, and this is my understanding of it, told the people that they would not have to pay rent and they would not have to pay bills and so on.
Now, we are in a position, 30 years on: should we go back to the federal government and ask them to cover the costs, the incremental costs, of being a territory, for housing, for rent, for utilities and so on?
I am not in a position to ask that question to the federal government.
Things have superceded that argument in the Assembly.
We are an independent assembly and for the decisions we take here at the Assembly, we don’t have to check with the federal government unless there’s decisions we make that overlay or infringe federal legislation and the law, because the federal law supercedes our legislation in the law.
So, I guess the short answer, again, would be that there would be no requirement for us to go to the federal government to get permission for the rates.
The bigger issue that I think the member is asking, maybe he could clarify it, is because of the commitment that people are understanding was made by the federal government about housing and utilities, maybe the Government of Nunavut should make that known to the federal government.
The minister keeps referring to 1968, but it was around 1964 that the people moved in to the established communities.
I’m sure the minister can respond to my question regarding the rates that we pay for power.