EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question.
I would like some clarity on this, Mr. Speaker; it states that the Taloyoak Health Centre Replacement Project will be used to build the one in Repulse Bay.
Has the design been completed yet?
As I stated earlier, we are going to deal with it during this sitting.
It might possibly be tomorrow but I can’t say exactly when we’re going to deal with the concerns that you have.
Question 358 – 2(4): Status of Cambridge Bay Airport Expansion (Peterson)
My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation and it concerns the Cambridge Bay Airport expansion.
First of all, I would like to thank the minister for his recent letter in January giving me an update. Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, I have been making a case for a Cambridge Bay Airport expansion four years as MLA and four years before that as a Mayor of Cambridge Bay and I have been getting nowhere with it.
Several Airport Capital Assistance proposals have been rejected; we’ve heard that for years as well.
Mr. Speaker, recently, the Building Canada Fund was announced with $242 million available over seven years for projects in Nunavut.
I noted in the press release that regional community airports are included for funding through there.
Mr. Speaker, I heard in November that the recent estimated cost for the airport expansion is $22 million.
So my question for the minister: can the minister tell the House what the status is of the Cambridge Bay Airport Project within his department?
Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Minister Netser.
Our hope is that with the announcement recently by the feds that we would address the Member for Cambridge Bay’s issues surrounding his airport.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Economic Development and Transportation has a considerable amount of data they have collected over the years that they use to prepare for the ACAP proposals to the federal government. I believe that information and data are still valid; it wouldn’t be that far out of date.
Can the minister tell me if that data will be used to fast track the Cambridge Bay Airport Expansion Project?
As I said in my answer to the member, that is one of our top priorities within our department and we will use what we can to address his concerns for the airport at Cambridge Bay.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Nunavut’s Finance Minister stated in November 2007 that no new capital projects will be initiated in the next three years.
Can the minister tell me that with the announcement of the Building Canada Fund, the monies now available under that program, will the Cambridge Bay Airport Expansion Project now advance through the GN’s current capital planning process?
The $242 million that we will be receiving from the federal government will allow us, like the Premier said, to reallocate some capital projects in the Five-Year Capital Plan and we hope to again address his wishes.
It seems like it’s been close to a decade that Cambridge Bay has been asking for help to expand the airport.
During that decade, the costs have escalated tremendously. As I mentioned earlier, the costs have gone from $6 million to $22 million in that span of time and it could continue to increase going forward.
So I would like to ask the minister if he could commit today to the House to include the Cambridge Bay Airport Project in the capital planning process for the 2009-2010 capital planning period.
All of the projects that we want to do have to, obviously, have Cabinet approval, so I cannot commit to the member’s request at the moment.
Question 359 – 2(4): Qulliq Energy Corporation (Curley)
My question is in reference to the Member’s Statement that I made earlier.
Last fall, I asked the minister a number of questions on October 31, and I remember vividly because it was Halloween and I think that’s why we couldn’t make any sense out of the response that I got.
I asked the minister a number of questions concerning the power rates that are charged by Qulliq to our constituents.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, the minister at that time made a big deal about his answer, and he stated that in a matter of fact, we decreased the Fuel Stabilization Rider by few percentage points of one cent I believe.
But he did not tell Nunavummiut that he had in his pocket to continue the rate rider until October 31, 2008.
My question is: why did you not tell Nunavummiut that you had this trick in your pocket?
Just a reminder, please keep your questions as brief as possible.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to just take this opportunity, first of all, to thank the member for again providing information for all Nunavummiut.
Although some of the information that has been given is not exactly correct in a sense of the answers that were given that day and the tricks that were in my pockets, indeed, there were no tricks in my pocket and I think that’s what we said during that debate.
What I did say was, when the member asked me that question in October, the Power Corporation has the right under regulations and legislations to ask for a fuel rider.
The fuel rider is put in place so that we don’t have a general rate increase and it is only to cover the fuel surcharge on fuel for the Power Corporation.
At that time, we had a rider in place that was 6.55 cents and the Power Corporation, because we actually did a little better on the purchase of our fuel this year, didn’t need such a high rider. The Power Corporation asked for a decrease in the rider to 6.40 cents.
So when they asked for that rider decrease, by regulation under legislation, the Cabinet has the opportunity and the minister to say, “Yes, we accept the lower rate,” and then the Power Corporation submits their application to the URRC who will review that and respond back and say, “Yes, you should have your decrease and it should be decreased more,” or may not be agreed to.
That information comes to the minister and the minister brings it to the Cabinet, and that’s what’s occurred.
So for the record, Mr. Speaker, the information that the member is saying isn’t entirely correct, and indeed, there was a decrease in the rider.
Actually, the rider that the member talks about has actually gone down from 7.87 cents to 6.40 cents, and it’s a mechanism that’s in place to work and it is working.
I appreciate that part of the clarification but what is important, Mr. Speaker, is that the rate rider imposed at any given period of time is only for a certain time.
He’s talking about the 2007 rate rider that was to expire on October 31, 2007.
The decrease that he’s talking about applied that time to October 31, 2007.
What he failed to tell the Nunavummiut; and I consider that a trick in his pocket; is this: that a new rate rider to be applied was to come into affect on November 1, 2007 and to continue until October 31, 2008. That required a Cabinet decision.
Did you receive a Cabinet decision on October 31 or before October 31?
That was my question then and you did not say to Nunavummiut that that is to come into effect, and by the way, if URRC considers it otherwise, your account will be credited.
No, you are not correct.
The amount of the rider, again, Mr. Speaker, it’s in regulation and legislation. When the price of oil goes up, instead of the Power Corporation asking people to put in a General Rate Application or increasing all of their prices, they’re not allowed to do that, but they can do, under legislation so that the consumer is protected, is to put an application to the URRC to be able to look at putting a rider in place.
That rider can be in place for a six-month period or a 12-month period, whatever the Power Corporation decides based on the money that’s expended and based on the total amount of dollar values that are available to it for what it needs to recoup from the rider; meaning if the price of oil went up $1 million and they had to recoup $1 million, then they would be able to apply that rider in place.
What the Power Corporation did, for the record, on October 23, 2007, is said that they would like to have a rider and applied for the rider under regulations as the minister and the government were unable to put the rider that they have asked for in place.
If they never received that rider, say if they put in an application for 6.40 cents and the URRC said, “No, you don’t get that.
You only get 4.00 cents,” then yes, the Power Corporation would have had to pay it back to the customers any excess money that they received but that didn’t occur because when they put their application in, the URRC agreed that the 6.40 cents was the correct amount, and again, Mr. Speaker, that was a decrease from what was previously in place, which was 6.55 cents and that was in place from July 1, 2007 to October. July, August, September, October, not 12 months, Mr. Speaker; four months.
Mr. Speaker, the latest information that I read on Nunavut Gazette states and it’s clear that from October, the rate rider that you approved prior to October 31 for the coming winter season applied from November 1, 2007 to October 31. That’s in Nunavut Gazette and it’s supplied now to the consumers. Unless the URRC has considered otherwise, then our accounts will be credited.
My additional question to you, minister, is this: QEC purchases fuel from CGS, and if that is the case, do you purchase fuel on wholesale price at cost landed to Nunavummiut?
Again, I just want to clarify because the member keeps throwing numbers in and we want to make sure everyone is clear that the rider that was in place was 6.55 cents and that was in place from July 1, 2007 to October 31, and the URRC implemented and agreed to the request for a rider, which was lower, to 6.40 cents from November 1 on to where we are right now, and the member is correct on that amount.
The Power Corporation, and that again is correct, purchases fuel from POL at the same cost as it costs POL to purchase the fuel at what’s called a nominated cost of fuel. The POL doesn’t go out to charge the Power Corporation a markup of 20 cents or anything like that, and because of that, those costs are not passed on to the consumer, and indeed, we actually get a good price because we are a volume buyer of fuel.
Nunavummiut cannot afford any longer for the price of fuel as well as electricity. Rate riders, I believe, are putting additional pressures on homeowners, as well as the private consumers and businesses.
The question I’m asking the minister is: if the QEC is buying directly from QEC the total cost, whether it is at a nominated price or not, why do you have to charge an additional Fuel Stabilization Rider? Are you not double-dipping and asking the consumers to pay extra for fuel when you in fact have purchased it at cost?
Minister for Energy, Minister Picco.
I think it’s important again to point out that what the government did last year, or actually almost two years ago now, was actually put new subsidies in place.
We actually subsidize all homeowners for the first 800 to the first 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity.
Yes, that’s right. Thank you, Mr. Curley.
That was a good thing to put in place.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Curley’s second question was: how we calculate the price of fuel and what are those costs? QEC, Mr. Speaker, calculates the fuel cost based on the total cost of fuel; the cost of labour, fees, or transaction costs and so on, those are in the base price of electricity and that was part of the last GRA.
Those are not included when we say the cost of what the purchase of fuel is.
An example, Mr. Speaker, was in 2006-07, the actual cost of fuel that the Power Corporation purchased was a little over $34 million, and we’re projecting for this year, and I don’t have the final figure, it would be about $33.7 million.
One of the reasons for that was the stronger Canadian dollar.
Question 360 – 2(4): Request for Proposal – Medical Travel (Tootoo)
Mr. Speaker, I know in the fall the government put out an RFP for a new medical travel contract, and I would like to ask the minister if she can indicate the start and finish dates of the current contract that’s in place right now.
Those contracts expire March 31, 2008 and have been in place for three years.
My next question for the minister is: in the contract that’s in place right now, were there any extension options that were available?
There was an option to extend for a year.
My question is that if we had another opportunity to extend the current contract on a three-year-old price for another year, why has the Department of Health and Social Services decided to not take that option and use the three-year-old price on the contract, then put out an RFP for a new contract immediately after they increased the fuel costs to the airlines and things like that?
I’m just wondering if I could get a rationale as to why they decided to do that and not use the extension option that was there that one would assume would be cheaper than a three-year-old price than the current one.
The member will recall that he introduced the motion in this House for us to do an RFP and not sole source any contracts. The decision to proceed with an RFP was to comply with the motion that was introduced in this House.
I think she missed the point on that; she got some bad advice from down the row.
My point was that it wasn’t required or necessary to go out to an RFP.
There was an option to extend that contract for a year and one would assume that it would have been cheaper for the government to extend the contract on a three-year-old price than to go out to a new contract just after they increased the cost of aviation fuel to the airlines.
So my question was: why did the government choose to go to an RFP when there were still extension options there, that one would think would have been a cheaper option for the government to go with; to go with that extension or use a three-year-old price for another year prior to going to an RFP for a new contract?
As I mentioned earlier, the option was there but the motion in the House that was introduced was to also go out for tender to make the process public and to allow other competitors in the organizations in Nunavut to also bid on those contracts.
As I mentioned earlier, it was to comply with a motion introduced in this House; when we had the similar issue with an extension of another contract in Nunavut, that was debated in the House for two or three days. A motion was introduced and at that time, our Premier and this government made a commitment to go through the public process and the decision from the government to go out to an RFP process as it relates to the medical travel contract was to comply with that.
Question 361 – 2(4): Fuel Subsidies to Municipalities (Barnabas)
Mr. Speaker, recently, as we are all aware, we are now paying $99 per barrel of oil.
It goes close to $100 per barrel and it’s obvious now that the Government of Nunavut will be buying fuel again in the near future for the communities in the beginning of April.
For that reason, some of the small businesses in sectors that aren’t commercially oriented are going to have to pay very high costs for fuel following the criteria and the rate.
The government will be buying fuel in April for the communities.
So once they buy the fuel, they will have to follow it along to the communities.
Mr. Speaker, what will happen to the situation for those that are not commercially oriented in the communities?
How will they be affected with the new price of fuel at $99 per barrel?
Minister of Finance, Minister Tapardjuk.
I thank you for your question and I welcome you all to the House.
It’s dealt with by the Department of Community and Government Services and we follow the policy.
If we are going to buy the fuel and the rates are increasing, and if we didn’t have a subsidy, all of the communities would not be able to afford it if they’re not commercially oriented.
We would have to increase the cost of the fuel to each homeowner and we will have to increase it in the near future.
I cannot tell you now how it will be but we will fix the rate. We are not sure how we’re going to fix the rate but we are in the process of working on that concerning the fuel that will be sent out to the communities at true cost.
The cost of the groceries is very expensive because everything is flown in by airlines, paricularly for my constituents in the High Arctic. When you try to buy groceries in the community, there’s also a subsidy for groceries.
When the cost per barrel of oil is going to cost about $100, individuals without regular wages in the communities are not able to keep up.
Even in the middle of the month, the stores are empty and the airplanes are sometimes unable to come into the communities because they’re following the increasing cost of the fuel.
The subsidy programs that are run by the government and the hamlet council are behind because of the rising costs of everything in the communities.
Will the minister inform the communities when they are going to buy $100 per barrel of oil and when will you deliver these forecasts to the communities?
Just to remind the members, please keep your preambles short.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For this coming summer during the shipping season, I think that’s what you’re asking for, the fuel prices; I’ll have to look into that for sure.
The subsidy that we provide for harvesters is the Gas Tax Rebate Program, which we had informed the public or the hunters that they can get a rebate through that avenue.
The paperwork was quite gruesome, so therefore, we had simplified the application and I will announce the Gas Tax Rebate Program in the House.
That’s the only response I could give you at this time, Mr. Speaker.
During this session, we will have to review the main estimates of the departments of the government.
After we approve the main estimates, it will be evident what the increase will be on fuel prices.
Will there be any budget cutbacks such as on line items and on capital items because of the fuel prices?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): In regard to the fuel prices, we’re now working on the policy and we will be tabling it in the House and it will show how the prices are set up.
Mr. Speaker, during this session, I will be asking for support from the members when we start dealing with capital issues. Perhaps tomorrow, I will be able to provide more input when I deliver the Budget Address and we will be able to respond to some of those questions that were posed today.
Question 362 – 2(4): $242 Million Federal Funding (Alagalak)
I’m sure I could have asked the Minister of Finance but I would like to ask the Premier because my questions aren’t detailed.
Mr. Speaker, although you may have heard that this $242 million will be provided for Nunavut, the federal government minister had made that announcement here in Nunavut that this funding would be to help the infrastructure program.
Could you tell me if this will be a one-time funding, or will it be ongoing funding that will be allocated from the federal government?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This agreement is for seven years and it does not stop anyone from doing anything. If we want to get additional support, I’m sure we can.
Mr. Premier, we would appreciate it if we were given some additional funding.
It’s evident now that for many years, especially in my community, we haven’t seen any funding allocated there.
There are 25 communities within Nunavut and I’m sure all of the communities are interested in obtaining some of those funds for capital items. There are some very basic needs at the community level for infrastructure and we are unable to provide that funding to the communities.
There’s a lot of funding used for one side since you became a Premier.
I don’t want to state these things but there are 25 communities within Nunavut that will have to have some funding for infrastructure and capital items.
In view of that, how will this funding be divvied up to the communities? Will you allocate this funding that is coming from the federal government to the communities evenly, or will some communities not receive any funding?
I would like you to elaborate on that.
There are various needs in all the communities.
So therefore, I cannot respond to your question instantly how this funding will be allocated t to the communities.
Some communities require more needs than other communities, so we’ll use that guideline.
This funding is going to be allocated and we won’t be able to fund everything for the communities.
We’ll have to review it carefully. Although we know that the communities all have their requirements, we will make plans to the best of our abilities.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased and that’s why I’m smiling, Mr. Premier. I know that you have compassion for all of the people and that’s what you say to them. We feel your compassion as Nunavummiut.
It’s also evident that in looking at the seven-year agreement, if all of the communities are allocated funding equally, it would be in the millions - $8 million to $9 million - if it’s distributed evenly.
I do have another question. Will this funding be divvied up equally for seven years in total or will you be using it all in one shot? How will this funding be allocated for seven years and how will it be set up?
If I could remember correctly, it would be a little over $20 million per year for seven years but that’s on top of our additional capital budget.
This is in addition to our capital budget to provide support.
I wanted to clarify that and if we’re unable to get additional funding outside of this, then we’ll look for more ways to find funding.
I am very pleased now because $20 million is quite a huge sum of money annually and I am glad that it’s on top of our capital budget.
Now, I expect to see funding for next year and then for the next seven years, I expect to see some major infrastructure being developed in our communities, especially since some of our communities have been neglected and some of our communities do not even receive capital funding.
I want the Premier to know that we will appreciate him when he starts to provide funding to the communities, including details. I want you to know that we won’t be forgetting this funding that will be allocated to the communities that are in dire need.
I also would like you to know that this funding is quite a huge sum and looking at the mining sectors developing in our communities, it will require more consideration.
This is more a comment than a question.
Member for Baker Lake, Mr. Simailak, welcome.
Question 363 – 2(4): Process for Determining Number of Community Nurses (Simailak)
Mr. Simailak (interpretation): Thank you.
I would like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s more fun to ask questions than being on the receiving end.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to Minister of Health and Social Services and it’s with regards to how they allocate nurses to the communities and how many nurses we require in each community.
What’s your setup on this or your policy on that?
Currently, from 2004 to now, we have increased our staffing compliments for nurses the last few years. Basically, for an example, the three new health facilities that we had opened in Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay, and Iqaluit, using those as examples, we determined what kind of services would be needed in those three facilities with the establishment of the implementation plan of those facilities to determine the number of PYs that would be required to deliver these kind of services in those sectors.
At the same time, population growth in each community is also a factor in deciding the number of PYs that would be required in the communities for nursing positions.
Your first supplementary, Mr. Simailak.
In view of the population growth, what about Baker Lake, especially when the mining sector is developing in our community of Baker Lake and there are going to be over 300 employees at that mine outside of Baker Lake?
For that reason, what kind of considerations are you making in regard to the Baker Lake situation?