EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Effective April 1, 2007, the amount of the fuel rider on everyone’s bills across Nunavut, whether in the north, south, east, or west, is 6.65 cents. On each person’s bill for the winter months, the six months of the winter months, you receive a subsidy up to, and including, the first 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity used.
So we won’t be reviewing that amount.
What we have done is asked the URRC to look at the amount that we have put in place on April 1, 2007, which is the 6.65 cents, to see if that is a good amount or not.
If the Power Corporation recoups more money than it should in the fuel stabilization fund, then they have to rebate or give back that money to the customer.
Yes, I understand that’s the way it is because the smaller communities are paying a lot more, and if they don’t pay their bill right away, especially the elders, they tend to get cut off.
Will the smaller communities be given information about the fuel rider costs?
Will you be going into the communities to explain this to them, rather than not getting any information; will we be getting some information on that?
Every time the price of fuel goes up one cent on the world market, it costs Nunavummiut $400,000 when we buy that fuel. So a once cent increase equates to a $400,000 cost to us, to the Government of Nunavut, to the people of Nunavut.
That’s why we have a check and balance in place when we bring forward rates. That process is a public process and interested stakeholders and so on have an opportunity to address the URRC on what they believe the rider or rate should be.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, on everyone’s bill the rider is spelled out in Inuktitut and English. We have a 1-800 number that is available in Inuktitut and English for clarification.
No, I will not be on the road with the Power Corporation explaining the rider.
The rider is a temporary measure that is put in place to reconcile the extra fuel costs that are in place because of an increase in fuel.
I understand what the minister is talking about.
If you have your own house, then you know how much fuel you use. You pay 6 cents, and we all pay that equally, but when we get our power bill and we have to pay, how are you going to scale that?
Originally, when we put the fuel riser in place effective November 1, 2006, a little over six months ago, we had asked for 7.87 cents. As the members know, when we reviewed those numbers in March we actually decreased the fuel rider from 7.87 cents to 6.65 cents.
Another application has gone into the Utility Rates Review Council to review that amount. They will report back to me and then that information goes to all the hamlets and so on.
So when the member asks how we get information out to the communities; all hamlets, all MLAs, interested stakeholders and businesses, and so on, receive copies of that report. It is mailed out to inform of the amounts.
So the amount has decreased. It is a temporary measure that is put on the bill and we understand the cost implications and that is why per kilowatt hour on the rate, we put the subsidy in place, which the members thought that was a good move there of 1,000 kilowatt hour subsidy increase last spring.
Question 185 – 2(4): Senior Citizens Fuel Subsidy Program (Curley)
My question is to the Minister for Income Support, and he knows exactly what I am talking about concerning the senior citizens for the fuel subsidy program.
Last year and this fall has been rectified a bit.
I gave applications for the people and they were denied even though they qualified.
Why do the income support people deny their applications?
I appreciate the member corresponding with me over the last several weeks on issues and I know we have helped out these constituents with this regard.
The Senior Fuel Subsidy Program is an excellent program. It is in place to better protect and help our senior citizens.
Those senior citizens are people who own their own home and have a family income threshold of $50,000 or less. We have increased that threshold from $35,000 to $50,000 in the last year to make it more eligible for clients.
Like any program, there are eligibility requirements. People come in and apply or the income support worker will look at that program detail and see if the qualifications are met and then the person would be able to be eligible or ineligible for the program.
66 Nunavummiut were helped on this program last year.
I thank the minister for the guideline that he just read. It seems pretty easy and accessible.
Like I said earlier, for those who qualified from the program and they had a $39,000 level of income. The elders only get their Old Age Pension and they qualify under that today, and their applications were rejected.
I received a letter and that person was going to be helped for two months this year, but how come the minister did not help those people when they qualified?
Can you look into that case particularly and review the program? Maybe you could put in the corrective measures for those kinds of people. Some of them are being ignored and that person is over 80 years old.
For the record, I’ll just read the qualifications the member is talking about. In the member’s case we were able to help out those elderly people in the member’s constituency.
To be eligible for the reimbursement for the Senior Fuel Subsidy Program, you have to live in Nunavut, you have to be alive, you have to 60 years of age or older, you have to own your own home that you live in, and you’re not supposed to be on income support, because if you’re on income support, the fuel subsidy is covered for you anyway, and you need to be able to meet the maximum allowable income, which is $50,000.
No one is disagreeing with the guidelines of the policy. They qualified then and they qualified again this year. The problem is that they were unfairly treated.
They qualified but their applications were rejected.
So will the minister review that case and explain to them why their applications last year or previous years were rejected?
They are now under opinion that the department is biased against them.
So they qualified this year, and your officials have now given them two months of reimbursement.
That’s the months of April and March; they cannot be reimbursed beyond that.
And that is what they want you to inquire why they could not be given assistance last year when they qualified for all these months and this year.
So I ask the minister: will you review the case and report that to the House?
Minister for Education, Ed Picco.
Again, I want to say that, I want to thank the member for being proactive; he did bring the information to me.
We did review it as a department; I reviewed it as a minister. I went through the information that was brought to us. I think we are being very expedient in addressing the needs.
There are other issues with applications and the application process. It’s not appropriate for me to commit to the House to come back on a specific case and inform. What I will do, and what I will commit to doing is to contact the member by writing and Minister Brown, who is also a member for the community, and explain what has occurred on the file, and so on.
I think, if my memory serves me correctly, a letter has gone out from our office, from the income support worker in this case, who reviewed the file, and both members have been copied on it. And I will follow that up and I will make that commitment to the House and to the member.
The minister clearly indicated that he responded expediently, but I gave you the information last year as well with the same couple. As well as earlier this year during the session, you were sitting there, and you wanted the names. I gave you the names but nothing had happened.
Only about two weeks ago, a week or so ago, I gave you the names again.
That is the one that you alluded to, that you acted expediently on; not expedient last year when I gave you the names. They qualified then and they qualified today.
So why are they unfairly, the couple, treated, or any couple, if they are 80 years of age or over, if they qualified?
So not only should you look at why you did such a good job, or your officials, in promising them they will be reimbursed for two months of April and May this year, but not any other years. Why?
I will not rise to what the member has said.
What I will say is this: in any case it is different.
The reason why the reimbursement is ready for April and May is because that’s where we are, in the fiscal months of April and May, I can’t pay October, November, December, 2007; we’re not there yet.
I can say, unequivocally, any monies owed to the people in this regard, will be, or have been, paid.
I can commit to ensuring that that will occur.
There are other issues occurring here on the files that need to be clarified.
Again, I thank the member for being expedient and raising the issue; at least part of the issue.
Your time is up, Mr. Curley.
Written Question 006 – 2(4): Administration and Enforcement of the Liquor Act (Peterson)
My Written Question is for the Minister responsible for the administration of the Liquor Act.
On November 5, 2003, the Nunavut Liquor Act was amended to increase the fines for certain offences under the Act, including the illegal sale of alcohol. From November 1, 2005 to March 31, 2007, broken down category of offence and by community in which an offence occurred, how many fines were imposed for violations of the Act and what were the amounts of each fine?
What has been the total number of charges laid pursuant to the Liquor Act since November 1, 2005?
Tabled Document 088 – 2(4): Nunavut Association of Municipalities Annual General Meeting – 2007 Approved and Deleted Motions (Peterson)
I wish to table today a package of the approved motions and other items from the 2007 Annual General Meeting of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities.
I encourage all members to review these motions and I look forward to government’s full response to them.
Tabled Document 089 – 2(4): Letter to Minister of Finance & Minister Responsible for the Nunavut Liquor Commission Supporting Amendments to Nunavut’s Liquor Act re. Allocating Fine Revenue to Substance Abuse Programs (Peterson)
I wish to table today a copy of correspondence that I sent to the Minister of Finance earlier this month.
In my letter I raised the issue of allocating resources to substance abuse treatment programs.
I look forward to receiving the minister’s reply to my correspondence.
Minister responsible for Department of Community and Government Services, Ms. Brown.
Tabled Document 090 – 2(4): Leasing of Commercial Real Property – Consolidated Policy, May 10, 2007 (Brown)
I am pleased to table the following document: Leasing of Commercial Real Property – Consolidated Policy.
Bill 13 – Nunavut Energy Efficiency Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit West, that Bill 13, Nunavut Energy Efficiency Act, be read for the first time.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make comments on the principle of the motion.
First of all, when it’s on the first reading, you can’t make comments. On the second reading you can make comments to the motion.
Bill 10, Bill 11, and Tabled Document 49 – 2(4) with Mr. Barnabas in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:21 and Committee resumed at 15:48
Chairman (Mr. Barnabas)(interpretation): Good afternoon, Members.
In Committee of the Whole we will be dealing with Bill 10, Bill 11, and Tabled Document 49 – 2(4).
We wish to commence the review of Bill 10, and the supporting budget detail document, followed by Bill 11.
Does the committee agree that we deal with Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2007-2008? Does everybody agree?
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, Minister Simailak if he has opening comments.
If it’s okay with you, I would like to make opening comments on both Bills 10 and 11, (interpretation ends) if I may, I’d like to speak to both Bills 10 and 11.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Simailak. You can proceed on Bill 10 and 11, with your opening remarks.
Bill 10 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2007-2008 – Consideration in Committee
Bill 11 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2007-2008 – Consideration in Committee
The Supplementary Appropriation Bills 10 and 11, Mr. Chairman, Bill 10 appropriates supplementary capital monies in 2007-08 in the amount of $88,215,000 for the following departmental 2006-07 capital carryovers, and also, replacement of, and new purchase of diagnostic, medical, and dental equipment.
Over the past two years, Mr. Chairman, capital carryovers have increased significantly. This is primarily due to not cash flowing multi-year projects to reflect project timelines.
We have begun, however, to take steps to improve the cash flowing of multi-year capital projects with the support of the technical division of CGS.
So starting with the 2008-09 capital planning process, the technical division of CGS will review all substantiation sheets for all multi-year capital projects to determine the following:
reasonability of annual cash flow requirements;
community capacity issues; and,
the ability of project management staff to oversee project delivery.
In the short term, the Department of Finance will work with departments to re-profile shortfalls in multi-year projects from existing capital carryovers.
This, Mr. Chairman, can be achieved by re-profiling funds from capital projects, where the funds are not required until later years of the five-year capital plan.
Bill 11 appropriates supplementary operations and maintenance monies in 2007-08, in the amount of $45,382,000.
This supplementary appropriation will provide funding for such items as the following:
departmental forced growth requirements;
Family Abuse Intervention Act; and,
funding for Eco Trust projects.
Departmental forced growth requirements were prioritized based on increased costs for the delivery of existing programs and services, resulting from the uncontrollable impacts of population growth, inflation, rate increases, or demographics.
Departments will absorb some of their forced growth within the existing budgetary resources.
As a result, departmental internal budgets will be realigned to more accurately reflect the actually spending patterns of expenditures that occur during the course of the fiscal year.
Departments, Mr. Chair, have also been instructed to maintain expenditures at the levels that were approved by the Legislative Assembly for the 2007-08 main estimates until the federal budget Bill C-52 receives Royal Assent.
I look forward to answering questions from my colleagues.
Do you wish to bring your officials to the witness table?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Yes, I’d like to.
Does the committee agree that the minister go to the witness table along with his officials?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, can you escort the officials to the witness table.
Minister Simailak, can you introduce your officials for the record?
On my left is Peter Ma, and to my right is Mr. Roy Green.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. (interpretation ends) Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
(interpretation) Any general comments?
We’ll proceed with page-by-page of supplementary appropriation.
We’ll start with page 4. (interpretation ends) Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #1, 2007-08.
Registries and Court Services. $67,000.
Total Registries and Court Services. $67,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): [Thank you.] (interpretation ends) Total Registries and Court Services. $67,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Not previously authorized.
Corrections. $2,227,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Total Corrections. $2,227,000.
I see something in here that I’m very happy to see. Unfortunately, I’m happy to see it, but it’s something that’s been long overdue and it’s dealing with a women’s correctional facility.
I remember when I was the chair in the First Assembly of Ajauqtiit, that was something that was raised in reports that was needed and there is some funding here for it. I’m glad to see it’s coming there.
But I’m just wondering if we can get an idea of when that facility will be operational.
To the Premier please.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Simailak. Minister of Justice, Mr. Premier.
Currently we are using a trailer that was originally dedicated for delivering programs at the BCC.
It hasn’t been working to our expectations, so we’ve made the decision to start constructing this. I will require the legislature’s approval to start the detailed work, and hopefully we can get this done fairly quickly.
It’s not a big facility but it will alleviate some of the stresses that we are experiencing right now at the current facility. So, hopefully, in the next year or two we can get this done.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) Not Previously Authorized.
Total Corrections. $2,227,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $2,344,000.
Now go to page 5. (interpretation ends) Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #1, 2007-08.
Culture, Language, Elders and Youth. Capital.
Directorate. $3,382,000.
Just a question I had and it deals with the recreation facilities; there’s $207,000.
The substantiation sheet indicates that that is the capital grants and contributions program.
I am just wondering if that carryover is tied to any specific project, what they are, and where they are.
Mr. Minister, do you wish to respond or another minister? Minister Simailak.
Yes, to the Minister of CLEY, please.
We did not use the funding because we were short of staff, but at this time, this year, the funding that is being requested is a lot more than what we originally put out.
It was due to the fact that we had a shortage of employees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I understand correctly, it is not tied to any particular project.
The substantiation sheet indicated it’s driven by applications and that they didn’t get any applications to use up that funding.
Is that correct, or have applications been received and these funds are already going to be used towards any specific project?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it is true.
We used this funding to review the applications.
Also, this year the applications have been more numerous than the actual budget line item. So it’s evident this year that this funding for this line item for capital recreation facilities and others… I am sure that this line item will be depleted because there have been more applications than the actual funding.
The applications that he is talking about, this is last year’s money. The applications that he’s talking about are quite numerous.
Are they from last year or are they from this year?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have informed the people in the public to make application prior to March 30, 2007. We have notified the public starting in April.
They reviewed the applications. They totalled over $1 million but we can allocate to only some of the applications because we still have some leftover.
This is for 2007-08 applications.
We have none for last year’s applications, but we have applications for this upcoming year.
I’m not saying that I do not believe that these kinds of projects are needed and necessary, but I’m just looking at the process here. To my understanding, carryovers that are to be approved are funds already tied to a specific project and didn’t get completed in that time period, for whatever reason.
I guess I have a little bit of a concern. It seems like this is strange where you might have money that you didn’t spend under that money in a previous year and that you want to just add it to the budget for the next year.
My understanding is that’s not how the government operates in their budgeting process.
If there are funds that aren’t used are committed, they’re lapsed, and then go on to next year’s budget.
So I don’t know if I could just maybe from someone get an explanation on that because it just seems a little odd.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have an official, David Kolot, or David Akeeagok is here.
If either one of them can respond to that they can make that explanation.
I would like to ask the members if you would like the two officials to go to the witness table.
Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can escort the officials to the witness table.
First of all I would like to thank Minister Simailak and your officials. I know you’ll becoming back to the witness table.
Minister Tapardjuk if you can go to the witness table.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for coming down to the witness table.
Minister Tapardjuk, please introduce your officials for the record.
To my left, my Deputy Minister for Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth David Akeeagok, and also to my right, Finance Comptroller David Kolot.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Tapardjuk, and your officials.
If one of your officials can respond to the question that was posed.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Our finance comptroller will respond to the question that was posed, Mr. Chairman.
The $207,000 that’s been identified as a carryover for recreation facilities’ project is a result of funds that were unspent as of March 31 of 2007.
The Department of CLEY is asking for approval for these funds to be carried over for the 2007-08 fiscal year in anticipation that there will be sufficient demand to address these amounts.
So there’ll be sufficient applications to address with carryover amounts in the fiscal year.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Kolot.
I welcome the minister and his officials to the table.
One would assume that with any other year, as soon as there have been lapsed funding that you’re asking to get carried over, what budget amount do you have for that for this fiscal year?
So this would be on top of the approved budget amount that you were approved for this year. This is going to go on top of that. Is that my understanding, just so I can figure out what amount was approved for this year?
I will have my deputy minister respond to that.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you.
The 2007-08 fiscal year capital was $8,298,000 and that amount would be on top of $207,000 for the whole Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
I know I heard $8 million. I bet you wish that was right.
I just want to get a clarification on the amount for that particular grants and contributions program that were approved for this year.
I will have David Kolot respond.
The carry over is $207,000 and adding that to what has been approved in the 2007-08 capital for recreation facilities’ projects, we will have an excess of $875,000 for this budget category.
So I’m just hoping the amount that was approved in the budget for this year was on the substantiation sheet to be $668,000.
Like I said, I do not argue the need of that, but it is just from a financial management practice perspective I think that it is a dangerous precedent for the departments to carry over.
I do not mind right here, but I just want to have some assurances from the Minister of Finance that any other program that does not use it’s funding, it gets lapsed and it goes back into the general revenue.
All the ministers know very well that they sit around the table each year and come out with new targets for their budgets. I do not mind to approve this but I just do not want to see that practice happen.
To me it is very abnormal. I think that kind of goes against the budgeting process that the government uses. I am a little surprised by it.
My background is recreation so I know the need is out there and I have no problem of approving that but I want to see some assurances that that type of thing does not happen.
I am sure that any minister would lapse some funding in one area and say that, “Oh yeah, we need to carry it over,” and just top up your budget for the next year that has already been approved.