EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
As of November 8, 2016, broken down by Government of Nunavut department, territorial corporation, and Crown agency, how many positions have been filled with indeterminate and/or term employees as a result of restricted job competitions that were open only to beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement within the meaning of Section 518 of the Government of Nunavut’s Human Resources Manual?
As of November 8, 2016, broken down by Government of Nunavut department, territorial corporation, and Crown agency, how many positions which are currently filled on an indeterminate and/or term basis by non-beneficiary employees have had formal succession plans developed that are designed to promote the filling of the positions by beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement?
I would like to go back to Item 5 if it’s possible.
Speaker (interpretation): The Member for Iqaluit-Sinaa is asking to return to Item 5, Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
Mr. Okalik, please proceed.
Mr. Okalik: I already recognized.
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. George Hickes, please proceed.
Mr. Okalik, I was ready to raise my hand to request the same motion.
Mr. Speaker, last night some members from Iqaluit were able to meet with the mayor and council last night until fairly long into the evening. We had some good discussions.
I would just like to take this opportunity to formally recognize our Mayor of Iqaluit, Her Worship Madeline Redfern.
Speaker: Welcome to the gallery. (interpretation) Going back to the orders of the day.
Item 11. (interpretation ends) Responses to Petitions.
Tabled Document 229 – 4(3): Legal Services Board Annual Report 2015-2016 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 230 – 4(3): Government of Nunavut and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Shared Directional Statement 2016-2018 (Peterson)
Tabled Document 231 – 4(3): 2015-2016 Annual Report for the Division of Corrections (Peterson)
I have three documents I would like to table.
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the 2015-16 Annual Report of the Legal Services Board of Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the Government of Nunavut’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police Directional Statement 2016-18.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first shared directional statement since the 2014 statement expired.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the 2015-16 Annual Report for the Division of Corrections.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Tabling of Documents. The Hon. Minister of Finance, Mr. Keith Peterson.
Tabled Document 232 – 4(3): Taking Steps to Reduce Alcohol-related Harm in Nunavut Action Plan (Peterson)
Tabled Document 233 – 4(3): 2015-2016 Public Service Annual Report (Peterson)
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the Taking Steps to Reduce Alcohol-related Harm in Nunavut Action Plan.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important step in the path to opening a beer and wine store in Iqaluit.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the 2015-16 Public Service Annual Report. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time ever it has been tabled in the first sitting after the fiscal year-end.
Tabled Document 234 – 4(3): 2015-2016 NBCC Annual Report (Ell-Kanayuk)
I am pleased to table today the 2015-16 Annual Report for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation.
The Hon. Minister for the Nunavut Housing Corporation, Mr. George Kuksuk.
Tabled Document 235 – 4(3): 2015-2016 Nunavut Housing Corporation Annual Report – Correction (Kuksuk)
On October 25, 2016 I tabled the 2015-16 Annual Report for the Nunavut Housing Corporation and there were some errors in the Inuktitut report. The corrections are now outlined on the page attached to the report and I am re-tabling this report today.
I have one. (interpretation) I’m sorry. (interpretation ends) I have two documents to table today.
Tabled Document 236 – 4(3): Speaker’s List of Outstanding Statutory Tabling Requirements (Speaker)
Tabled Document 237 – 4(3): Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut’s Report on the Privacy Audit of the Qikiqtani General Hospital (Speaker)
The first item is the list of outstanding statutory tabling requirements and the second item is the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s report on the privacy audit of the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
Bill 29 – An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Aggu, that Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be read for the second time.
To the principle of Bill 29.
The motion is carried and Bill 29 is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Bill 31 – An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Arviat South, that Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination and to provide specific protection for transgendered individuals.
Bill 30 – An Act to Amend the Fire Prevention Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member of Cambridge Bay, that Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Fire Prevention Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Fire Prevention Act by renaming it the Fire Safety Act, providing for additional power for the fire marshal, providing for the making of fire protection plans in every municipality, and harmonizing its appeal and review mechanism with the Building Code Act.
The motion is carried and Bill 30 is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
I would like consent to return to No. 7 on the agenda.
Speaker (interpretation): The Member for Iqaluit-Niaqunnguu would like to return to Written Questions.
Written Question 021 – 4(3): Western Canada Lottery Act (Angnakak)
Mr. Speaker, my written questions today are for the Minister of Community and Government Services and they concern the Western Canada Lottery Act.
Section 4 of the Western Canada Lottery Act provides that “The profits accruing to the Government of Nunavut from the Western Canada Lottery shall be used for the purpose of promoting sport and recreational opportunities for Nunavummiut.”
Within the meaning of section 4 of the Western Canada Lottery Act, what were the profits accruing to the Government of Nunavut for the following fiscal years:
2015-16;
2014-15;
2013-14;
2012-13; and
2011-12?
Within the meaning of section 4 of the Western Canada Lottery Act, how were the profits accruing to the Government of Nunavut specifically used for the purpose of promoting sport and recreational opportunities for Nunavummiut for the following fiscal years:
Bill 21 with Mr. Akoak in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:52 and Committee resumed at 16:22
Chairman (Mr. Akoak): Good afternoon. Welcome.
In Committee of the Whole we have the following item to deal with: Bill 21.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to continue with the review of Bill 21.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with Bill 21?
I would now like to ask the Minister of Finance: do you have officials that you would like to appear before the committee?
I do have some witnesses.
Does the committee agree to let the minister and his officials go to the witness table?
We will commence with the review of Bill 21.
Yesterday we completed the opening comments.
I will now open the floor for members’ questions.
My questions are going to be around the Petroleum Products Division.
I know that every year we have this issue with variances between one year and the other. There’s never consistency.
For example, last year petroleum products had a variance of only $1,480 in Pangnirtung and this year it is $108,000.
There are many examples of this throughout the document.
I’m just wondering, for the record, if the minister can explain the reasons why there are such variances in the counts every year each year.
With your permission, I would like to bring in a witness who is an expert in this area.
Does the committee agree to let the official in?
For the record, Minister Peterson, please introduce your official.
My new witness is Deputy Minister Lori Kimball with the Department of Community and Government Services.
Welcome to Ms. Kimball.
Do you want the member to repeat his question?
No, we don’t need the question to be repeated.
There are a number of factors that play into the annual inventories that are done. Some of the things that we’re looking into are to better understand some of the causes of these swings.
Every litre of fuel that comes off the resupply ship is tracked, every litre of fuel that comes out of the storage tanks is tracked, and every litre that’s spilled is tracked.
We’re currently undertaking a review of reconciling that and changing some of our processes to be more in-depth to make sure that we can account for that.
The difference year over year, we take a dip. It’s adjusted for the temperature to evaluate how much fuel is in the tanks and based on the math of what should be in the fuel, this is the difference.
We’re working through better understanding that.
I was going to ask for the process that occurs from the time that it’s shipped from the shipping company to the point it gets to the consumers.
I know it goes through a metering system all the way. She just mentioned that they do dips in the tank.
Can you explain how they do the dips in the tanks?
I’ll have Ms. Kimball answer that question.
Ms. Kimball: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my understanding that they have a measuring device that goes in. It reads how many metres of fuel there is.
There is a whole mathematical formula that goes into the diameter of the tank that calculates how many litres of fuel. There’s an adjustment factor given the temperature. If the temperature changes, the amount of fuel can expand and contract.
That’s all factored in when you do the calculation of how much fuel is in the tank.
On this device that you’re talking about for dipping tanks, do you know exactly what it is?
Is it like a fixed item like a piece of pipe or is it like a piece of rope with measurements on it? What type of equipment is that?
It’s along the lines of questioning, so I will go to Ms. Kimball.
I don’t have the exact information, but I can definitely get it for the member.
I was going to say the same thing. We don’t have that technical information here with us.
We can commit to providing that information.
The reason I’m asking that is I think part of our problem for getting consistent counts is the way the tanks are dipped.
I think it is nothing more than a piece of rope, probably the way did it for decades.
I think we need look at new technologies in order to do more accurate dips in the tanks and that’s why I was asking that question.
When this shrinkage occurs, how do you determine how much is the responsibility of the contractor and how much is the responsibility of evaporation and the government takes care of that part?
Ms. Kimball will answer that question.
As you know, we have contractors that are delivery agents and for each product that they resell for us, there’s actually a maximum amount of shrinkage factor. If any volume of fuel is missing beyond that, it’s actually the contractor that incurs that cost.
That protects the GN from products going missing and kind of creates an incentive for the contractor to make sure that product is being properly accounted for.
A different question on a different line item, under QEC’s write-off there’s a line item that says, “Sanikiluaq, Generator, Stamford, $129,000; Depreciation, $70,000; Net Book Value, [$59,000]; Obsolete, non-functioning.”
I know the Minister of QEC is here and you may have to defer that question to him, but I’m wondering: what is the disposal policy?
These engines are like basically as big as a van, and I’m just wondering what QEC’s disposal policy is once they take a generator out of service.
Does the committee agree to let a witness in?
Minister Peterson, for the record, please introduce your official.
My new witness is Bruno Pereira.
He is the president of the Qulliq Energy Corporation. I thought it would be an opportunity for him to appear today to introduce himself and answer some questions.
Welcome to the meeting.
Minister Peterson, does the member need to repeat the question?
We don’t need the question repeated.
Chairman: Mr. Pereira.
Mr. Pereira: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In terms of disposing of items, when we have an asset that’s being decommissioned, we have an internal process that’s detailed where the asset is quantified, meaning we look at what the potential value of that asset is, and we look for means to recovering that asset.
For example, we will look at selling that asset to parties that may interested in scrap metal in the case of where there’s metal that may be useful or we may be looking at other parties that have an interest in that product.
We have different assets. Depending on what the asset is, if it’s metal, if it’s old transformers, we will look to recover that cost as best as we can. In those instances where we cannot do that for whatever reason, we look writing off the value of that asset.
I apologize for the minister having to play musical chairs up there. Maybe we need a witness box to fit more people up there.
You were very general about your disposal policy, but I was talking about in particular what is being written off at the moment for the Qulliq Energy Corporation. It’s one generator. Like I stated before, these generators are quite large.
What procedure do you use to get rid of your generators? I know you mentioned about internal process and potential value. Let’s say it has no value and there’s no other use for it.
What is the disposal policy for that generator?
Mr. Pereira will answer that question.
Mr. Pereira: Mr. Chairman, if the assets do not have value, in the past... . My apologies.
If I talk specifically about this particular item, I will have to get back to the member in terms of the specific item.
I apologize for not having the information readily available.
I can commit to providing that information on this item.
In terms of the general items where there is a new value associated, in terms of physically what we do with that asset, in the past the process wasn’t as defined as we’re going through now.
The asset may end up in the local dump.
What we do in implementing it on a go-forward basis is we’re incorporating the whole lifecycle of those assets into the project management.
Going forward, as part of our projects, we would look at those assets that we would need as part of some projects and managing that. Depending on the asset, we will take the asset from that community and able to be recycled or disposed at some other location.
We’re looking at that, as I said, incorporating it into the whole lifecycle management and as part of specific projects, to change out old projects.
There are only a few line items in here for QEC and it’s too bad they don’t come prepared to answer the questions that we have on these particular items, especially when it comes to written-off items. Again, you talk very generally about the disposal methods.
My whole reason for this questioning is, because when that generator was taken out of service in Sanikiluaq, it was taken to the local dump.
That’s why I was asking what the process was and he’s explaining a detailed process they have and to me that’s a very simple process. It’s taken to the dump.
Why is QEC doing that?
As minister I understand where he’s coming from.
Most communities have dumpsites or receptacles for a lot of metal waste, vehicles, generators, and other such things.
It’s no different in Cambridge Bay. I have seen that. It happened for 50 years before we reclaimed the dump, but still there have to be mechanisms to deal with the metal waste that goes into our dumps.
I know Mr. Pereira just started, as I said, in July.
He’s pretty busy getting up to speed on a number of issues that have afflicted the territory and our municipal dumps. It’s no different in Sanikiluaq.
Unfortunately, I apologize he didn’t have the specific details about Sanikiluaq today, but I do know that talking to him over the last couple of months on the opportunities I’ve had, he is working very hard with the board of directors and officials to come up with proper disposal processes and policies to address those concerns that Mr. Rumbolt has raised.
I’ll let Mr. Pereira say a few words, if he wants to add to that.
Mr. Pereira.
Perhaps I can expand on my answer for Sanikiluaq.
I didn’t quite fully understand the question. The specific generator that we’re talking about, the large generator, I have followed up on that and that generator is being removed from that dump.
I spoke with some of my staff today because the issue was brought up to me previously.
I assumed that how we treat it financially was the question and my apologies for that misunderstanding.
Our staff will actually be moving that generator from the site in Sanikiluaq and we’re going to be moving it to one of our local contractors, specifically speaking, Wajax, looking at what we can do with that specific generator.
The next name on my list, Mr. Enook.
Good afternoon, minister.
We can ask questions on your opening comments.
I would like clarification on the write-off procedures for Qulliq equipment.
It states here as well that after the Pangnirtung power plant fire, damages totalled over $1.2 million as a result.
It made me think perhaps an old generator was in that area to generate electricity. What happened to those generators?
If they are deemed unusable, are they dumped outside, adding to the unsightliness of the site?
I believe, similar to what Mr. Pereira said earlier to Mr. Rumbolt, the assets that were destroyed in the fire will be properly disposed of. In other words, they’re not going to be taken to the dump and left there. They will be removed out of the community.
In the same paragraph, I want to ask about this reference. This Bill 21 that we are currently reviewing, I believe it is Bill 21.
You are requesting approval to write off funds or equipment that can be written off.
It includes a reference to this matter which I want Nunavummiut to understand, whether they are watching or listening, about the fact that Qulliq is looking to write off over $10 million previously expended. That is a large sum of money, at least from my perception.
Let me ask about this matter prior to approving your request.
Qulliq has expended large sums on some projects. This particular project named is the hydroelectric dam feasibility study located near Iqaluit.
It states that the study, which cost over $10 million, led to the corporation determining that the project would be placed on permanent hold. (interpretation) That is what I read in Inuktitut, which the corresponding English states it is on (interpretation ends) permanent hold. (interpretation) I am unsure whether my understanding of English is the cause of this, but I take it to mean that this project will be on permanent hold but could be restarted.
What does this term mean?
This entire project had its beginnings back in 2005.
Yes, it was mentioned in four annual reports over four fiscal years, maybe five fiscal years’ annual reports.
There was a decision at the time by the decision-makers at QEC and I guess in the government to move forward with this project.
There was an idea or feeling that this was an initiative that would reduce the cost of power to Iqaluit and the demand on diesel in Iqaluit.
They had to do a lot of consultations, engineering work, and studies. That cost money. They invested in that.
It became apparent over time that it was going to be a very costly project in the range of $300 million to $500 million. Of course the Government of Nunavut doesn’t have that type of money neither does the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
There was a determination at some point in 2013-14 that the project should be put on hold. We already incurred, let’s say, $10 million.
The Office of the Auditor General of Canada, who audits the Government of Nunavut and audits the Qulliq Energy Corporation, talked to us at Finance and also the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
There were two things they mentioned. It was a work in progress, so it was capitalized, but then they looked closer and they said, “Maybe some of these expenses should not be capitalized; they should have been in an expense account.”
This is an accounting treatment. We’re moving this work in progress from the capital to expenses to reflect that there is no progress being made on it.
It’s not to say that the project initiative could not commence again in the future.
There would have to be a decision made by the Qulliq Energy Corporation and then coming from the cabinet or the Government of Nunavut to proceed.
Permanent hold basically means no more work on that until a political decision is made at a future time.
When that occurs, we’re hopeful the economics look better and there could be private sector or federal investors to support the initiative in Nunavut.
Let me try to comprehend it further. If that is the definition used here, the studies are on permanent hold, what would trigger the project to restart?
What has to happen that would result in restarting this project? What would cause this project to be restarted that the corporation wants to complete?
Yes, but again it would be a policy decision there. Some of the work that has been done over the years, the studies, the engineering work, and other research that has gone into this the $10 million and change has paid for, may be usable in the future towards that project.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Minister, can you refresh my memory and tell me, when you say it’s a policy decision, who makes that policy decision?
I’ll just correct myself. I think I meant political decision. The Qulliq Energy Corporation is an entity of the Government of Nunavut, one of our territorial corporations, so they have their board of directors and the president, and they have a minister who is a member of the cabinet.
It may be that in the future the political direction would come from cabinet to look at hydro energy in Nunavut or in Iqaluit. It may direct the Qulliq Energy Corporation to look at solar energy, tidal energy, wind energy, all matters of energy.
That’s why I meant there would probably be a political part of a mandate that would govern how to proceed in the future.
Let me turn to you Mr. Chairman and ask the question. The response was it would have to be a political decision of the government.
Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, since the Minister responsible for the Qulliq Energy Corporation is present in the House, to go through your role to get my question answered by the Minister responsible for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, if you will allow it.
Minister Peterson, it would be up to you.
I have no concerns if Minister Mike wants to respond on behalf of the Qulliq Energy Corporation. I know he’s quite well versed in this area and has actually sat on the board of directors over the years and so he probably knows more about this than I do.
Minister Mike, are you prepared to answer the question?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Yes, I am.
I would just like clarification on his question to determine what exactly he is asking about.
Chairman: Mr. Enook, please repeat your question.
My earlier question was pertaining to this English version, that this project is on (interpretation ends) permanent hold, (interpretation) that it will stay in limbo in perpetuity.
My question relates to the fact that there is nothing written down that this project is permanently on the shelf, only that it is on permanent hold. How can that be?
It states it is on permanent hold and the context seems to be that it is on hold in perpetuity.
What I was trying to ask about is: what would need to happen that would cause this project to be reopened?
What criterion triggers the restart?
It isn’t written that this project is cancelled or that it will never be restarted.
It only states that it is on (interpretation ends) permanent hold. (interpretation) It leads me to ask: what has to happen that would trigger a restart of this project?
Would something have to happen to Qulliq that would trigger that?