EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, I did not directly raise that with the Prime Minister, but during my preamble and our discussions, I did bring that up.
Another one of the issues that we have discussed in detail in the House is the need for the federal government to do more to support accessibility and affordability of air travel for Nunavummiut, especially in our most remote communities.
As has been pointed out on many occasions, this support would help to assert Canadian sovereignty.
Again, indirectly, as these meetings are scheduled according to the Prime Minister’s scheduling, it’s very difficult to get direct discussions happening one on one.
I did again mention, through our discussions at the table to mention these things that the member has raised, the high cost of living up north, the cost of transportation, and the high cost of a regular food basket that other jurisdictions in Canada take for granted.
We have the highest in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have statistics there for a food basket.
The Kitikmeot has the highest average with five communities.
That is one of the things that I talk about during our discussions, not just with the Prime Minister but all my colleagues throughout Canada’s jurisdictions.
They fully understand that the high cost of air transportation is one of the things that impede development.
It impedes better quality of life for northerners.
Again, that’s one of the things that we continually mention and bring to the table during our discussions with the Prime Minister and all our southern colleagues down south.
Question 230 – 4(3): Amending Eligibility Criteria for Senior Fuel Subsidy (Joanasie)
My question today is for the Acting Minister of Family Services.
Mr. Speaker, the government recently announced an increase in the senior fuel subsidy.
This is a very good thing as we all know that the cost of fuel as well as other household costs are very high in Nunavut.
However, under the current eligibility criteria, many seniors do not qualify for the full subsidy.
Can the minister provide an update on what consideration has been given to amending the eligibility criteria to permit more seniors to take advantage of this important benefit?
As to which particular issue you are asking about, if you are referring to fuel or whatnot, I didn’t quite hear the question. Perhaps it was related to the senior fuel subsidy.
Mr. Joanasie, please clarify your question.
I’m referring to the senior fuel subsidy.
There’s a senior fuel subsidy through the Department of Family Services.
My question is with regard to the current eligibility criteria or amending it to permit more seniors to take advantage of this subsidy.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The Acting Minister for Family Services, Mr. Mike.
I do apologize for not understanding clearly.
Since this is a very important subsidy provided to the elders, we have made amendments so that we can provide fuel subsidies to the seniors.
There would an income ceiling of $75,000. This would give them a full subsidy on 3,500 litres.
For income above $75,000 to $100,000, the senior would receive half the fuel subsidy.
If the senior makes over $100,000, they would not be eligible under the eligibility criteria.
Every year, a specific budget is allocated for the Senior Fuel Subsidy Program.
I would like to ask the minister: can he confirm whether or not the full budget is expended every year and, if not, why not?
I’m going to make a supplement to the first question regarding the Senior Fuel Subsidy Program.
We are currently reviewing the benefits, including the Senior Fuel Subsidy Program.
We are looking at the needs of Nunavummiut and that’s one of the reasons why we are doing a review.
With regard to the other question, I cannot tell you at this time if the full budget is expended every year or not. Once I get the information, I will make sure to respond to your question, Mr. Speaker.
It has come to my attention that a number of seniors do not qualify for the senior fuel subsidy because their income is just a little bit over the threshold.
As he stated, it’s set at $75,000.
I would like to ask the minister if he will commit to reviewing the eligibility criteria for the senior fuel subsidy and amending it to allow more seniors to receive this important benefit and make their lives more comfortable.
It is very important that we provide such benefits to our seniors.
I do apologize that there are some seniors missing out, but I will make sure that we review this further.
On December 31, 2015, 108 seniors were provided the senior fuel subsidy. That’s up to December 31, 2015.
As I indicated earlier, this program is under the Department of Family Services.
Since we’re doing a review of our programs, we are including this program as part of the review. We have factored in all the issues that my colleague has brought up and I’m sure that there will be an amendment to the eligibility criteria.
Oral Questions. Member for Netsilik, Emiliano Qirngnuq.
Question 231 – 4(3): Infrastructure Funding Announcement (Qirngnuq)
Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends)  My questions today are for the Minister of Education.
The infrastructure funding announcement that the Minister of Community and Government Services recently made indicated that new funding for the replacement of playgrounds is being provided to the Department of Education.
Can the Minister of Education clarify if both district education authorities and municipal councils are eligible to submit applications for funding?
Hon. Paul Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank my colleague for his question on that matter.
Indeed, playgrounds are a critical component of our schools, and I can state unequivocally that the majority of the playground equipment is quite antiquated now.
I can also state that to date, we have received 11 requests from local DEAs for funding.
Furthermore, this summer, actually within this fiscal year, we plan to refurbish two playgrounds and new equipment installed therein.
However, we have to be aware that there are many standards applicable to playgrounds and we can only install equipment to code, which includes qualified personnel overseeing the work. We work with CG&S to enforce safety codes and various criteria.
With respect to local playgrounds, the DEAs are the only ones that can submit requests for this work primarily due to the safety codes we have to follow.
In addition, this includes the layout as it has to be a safe environment and due to these stringent rules, we have to ensure that they meet all codes within the context of school playgrounds.
The government’s announcement indicated that a total of $1.7 million has been allocated for the replacement of playgrounds.
Can the minister clarify what the maximum funding amount will be for each individual project?
I know that most of the playgrounds that we put up in our schools are usually over $100,000 to install or to put in place for our schools across Nunavut.
That is an average price of putting up playgrounds in all our schools. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister clarify if only equipment located at elementary and secondary school facilities will be eligible for funding or will other types of recreational infrastructure also be eligible?
At this time, school playgrounds are the only ones that are eligible.
They are just for our schools and we are not talking about any other educational facilities.
As I indicated, we are looking for applications from the communities.
School playgrounds are the only ones that we’re talking about.
Member Iqaluit-Sinaa, Mr. Paul Okalik.
Question 232 – 4(3): LED Lighting for Nunavummiut (Okalik)
It’s great that I am able to ask questions now.
Mr. Speaker, the first question I would like to ask is for the Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation. He’s the minister for all of Nunavut and I would like to ask him a question.
I really liked his announcement about the LED lights.
That’s going to save a lot of electrical power. However, looking at Cape Dorset, the community has used up all their land lots and their power plant has reached its maximum capacity.
I would first like to ask why the LED lighting was placed in Iqaluit instead.
Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation, Mr. George Hickes.
When it was recognized some years back that Cape Dorset was going to need a new power plant, there were some measures taken into consideration in the meantime to put in emergency generators in the community.
Those generators are there to cover the need and anticipated need until such time as we can break ground on the new power plant in Cape Dorset.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am a very strong proponent of LED lighting. I actually use it and it really makes a difference. It reduces the consumption of energy and I would love to see it one day for all the territory.
In looking at the overall picture of our territory, Cape Dorset is one community where it’s tapped out. They don’t have any more capacity.
They could use some LED lighting to reduce the consumption use and allow them to grow or allow them to at least get some housing.
They haven’t had that for a while because the capacity has been met for energy in that community.
Can the minister commit to providing at least some LED lighting for that community?
The member is kind of forcing me to switch hats partway through a question.
I understand that it is a strong desire for me that I have always brought to this legislature since I got elected on exploring all ways to identify efficiencies within the power system.
The Qulliq Energy Corporation does have staff that works every day to explore different opportunities, different options, and different funding availability to explore more options to access efficiencies and alternative energy.
With regard to providing LED lights, it’s something that I have spoken to my staff at Qulliq Energy and as well as the Nunavut Housing Corporation, and I’ve had some discussions with Community and Government Services.
Although I totally understand where the member is coming from on the efficiency of power, we still have to make sure it’s a cost-effective way to alleviate pressures on the infrastructure within the community for energy generation.
At the same time, we also have to make sure that it’s cost effective for our residents going forward.
Those bulbs are not cheap and I can speak for myself personally.
I have just retrofitted my own house with LED light bulbs, so I do understand where the member is coming from and it’s something that we’re looking into.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) The Minister’s Statement was there was $30,000 for LED street lighting, from what I understand, so I believe that’s a good investment and I would love to see some for all of Nunavut, but as we see it today, there are no real prospects of immediate construction of increasing capacity for Cape Dorset.
Perhaps the minister can commit to introducing street lighting at least for Cape Dorset to help in reducing the burden on their power generation capacity. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister responsible for the Energy Corporation, Mr. Hickes.
The LED street lighting project here in Iqaluit is something I’m very proud of.
When I did make the announcement last week, I spoke specifically to… . As the minister alluded to earlier, I’m the Minister of Qulliq Energy for the entire territory of Nunavut and this is a project that we are looking at rolling out in phases over the entire territory to maximize efficiencies.
I will commit to the member that I will take a look at the prioritization of that project to see which communities are in most need for the continued rollout of that program.
Question 233 – 4(3): Fuel Tax Rebate Program (Enook)
As the minister is very much aware, mining companies that enter into development partnership agreements with the Government of Nunavut are eligible to participate in the government’s Fuel Tax Rebate Program.
During last Thursday’s sitting, the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation stated that, and I’ll quote from the Hansard for March 3, 2016 which I know is not the final version, “the departments of EDT and Finance have come to the consensus that the Fuel Tax Rebate Program should be cancelled, at least for operating mines.”
Can the minister provide a clear explanation for why the government has made this decision?
I have an ice cube in my mouth here.
Mr. Speaker, the whole Fuel Tax Rebate Program goes way back to 2006-07.
At the time, I think there was only one new mine on the horizon and that was Cumberland Resources, subsequently acquired by Agnico Eagle Mines.
Since then, there have been a few more mines coming on board. The Tahera mine in the Kitikmeot started, but then it became insolvent. Now we have the Baffinland mine.
Mr. Speaker, at the time, the companies were lobbying for tax breaks from the Government of Nunavut.
In exchange for tax breaks, the Government of Nunavut of the day decided that, “Well, let’s put in place a development partnership agreement similar to the Inuit impact and benefit agreements under Article 26 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.”
It’s basically duplicating what was already in place for the most part, but the DPA requires the mining companies to provide the numbers and tangible benefits.
We know that once mines get into production, they will create significant long-term employment, but one of the issues with the DPA is: are we getting the benefits from the DPA that the mine originally agreed to?
There’s only one DPA in existence for a producing mine.
The question is: do you rebate the taxes for mining exploration in the mine in production and the mine in its reclamation phase?
In a sense, right through from the beginning to the end of the project, it could be five years, it could be 20 years, or it could be longer and you’re rebating a significant amount of fuel taxes.
Our internal discussions are, perhaps, that the fuel tax rebate should assist the mines that are in exploration and in development, and once they reach the point where they’re in production, they’re on their own.
That’s the internal discussions we’re having.
A part of my question was responded to, but I have another question.
During last Thursday’s sitting, the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation also stated that the government, and I quote from the Hansard which I know is not the final version, “hope[s] to come up with an agreement in the future where only mineral exploration companies or junior partners starting up would qualify for these rebates.”
That’s the end of the quote, Mr. Speaker.
My question is: if these changes are made, how would they benefit Nunavummiut?
Mr. Speaker, Nunavut encourages mining investment in Nunavut. We’ve got to compete with other jurisdictions in Canada, there are 13 provinces and territories, and we’ve got to compete with the rest of the world.
There are huge mining conferences in January, for example, in Vancouver, attracting companies from Canada and attracting companies from around the world. The biggest, maybe in the world, I think is underway right now in Toronto. It’s called the prospectors and developers conference.
The junior miners are looking for investors and the governments are looking to attract investments to their community.
Like we say, “Come to our territory,” so we offer all kinds of incentives.
One of the ones would be especially for the junior miners.
In this global environment, it’s very difficult to raise capital to explore.
The government would be saying, for example, “We will rebate your fuel taxes if you’re in exploration,” and that will help them out.
You will go through your whole process, you identify a project and it looks good, and if you can get the other financing, then you get into development, and then we could rebate as well.
Once you get into production and you’re pulling significant resources out of the ground, perhaps it’s time to cut off the fuel tax rebate and they’re on their own.
On October 28, 2014, the minister tabled his department’s 2012-13 and 2013-14 annual reports on the administration of the Fuel Tax Rebate Program.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for MLAs and the public to know whether or not the government’s programs are meeting their goals if we are not provided with up-to-date information.
Will the minister commit to tabling the 2014-15 annual report before the end of the winter sitting, yes or no?
I can’t make that commitment, but I will check to see what the status is on that. Mr. Speaker, it has been asked elsewhere and other times over the years about this report.
The whole Fuel Tax Rebate Program is intended to support harvesters and mining companies.
Probably 95 or maybe 98 percent of the [entire] fuel tax rebate goes to the mining companies.
One company in particular has received about 80 percent of the $19 million the Government of Nunavut has paid out through the Fuel Tax Rebate Program since it was implemented in 2007.
There’s quite a significant amount of money paid out and this is money that could go into programs and services. It could go into an elders facility. It could go into a treatment centre.
It could go into all kinds of things. This is one reason we collect fuel taxes from companies, so we can reinvest them in infrastructure and programs in Nunavut.
Oral Questions. Member for Hudson Bay, Mr. Allan Rumbolt.
Question 234 – 4(3): Transboundary Management of the Southern Hudson Bay Polar Bear Population (Rumbolt)
As the minister is well aware, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is currently holding a public written hearing to consider the government’s proposed polar bear management plan.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this plan has not yet been approved and finalized. However, this plan does include important statistics and priorities related to the management of polar bear populations in Nunavut.
According to this polar bear management plan, one of the government’s priorities concerning the southern Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation is to, and I quote, “Help Quebec to develop a management plan and system to ensure that the Total Allowable Harvest is respected and followed and all harvesting is reported.”
Can the minister explain how he is working with his counterparts in Nunavik to ensure that the total allowable harvest is respected and that all harvesting of the southern Hudson Bay subpopulation of bears is being reported?
Actually, this government collaborates with all of their wildlife management partners within Nunavut and other jurisdictions.
Due to that reason, the polar bear management plan will be clarified as to how it would be managed.
Yes, at this time, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is reviewing the submission by the government and it is considering the decision on that zone.
With respect to the member’s question about southern Hudson Bay near Sanikiluaq and the polar bear management zone, it has been a complex issue primarily due to the polar bear management overlaps between Quebec and Ontario in particular.
We have worked in partnership with their wildlife departments on this matter. The complications have revolved around the polar bear management issues related to the Nunavut area.
The reasons for involving jurisdictions outside of Nunavut is because of the fact that polar bear populations are shared.
Yes, we encourage partnerships with other jurisdictions as a government, particularly related to polar bears, as some jurisdictions have shared populations and we don’t want a change in management between governments. Further, we work well with our colleagues from Quebec for the Nunavik region on polar bear issues.
The community of Sanikiluaq has a total allowable harvest of 20 polar bears from the southern Hudson Bay subpopulation. As of last week, the last of that 20 was caught in the community.
Can the minister indicate whether other jurisdictions that harvest from the southern Hudson Bay subpopulation have respected their total allowable harvest this year?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): According to my knowledge, yes, they work very closely. However, in regard to the member’s question, I will look into this to make sure they are following through with polar bear harvesting outside of Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, on October 10, 2014, the federal government announced that territorial and provincial governments as well as hunters, Inuit, Cree organizations, and wildlife management boards had reached an agreement to maintain the effective management and conservation of the southern Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation.
In that announcement, the federal government indicated that “In November 2016, the relevant parties will meet to review this agreement.”
Can the minister confirm that the Government of Nunavut and relevant HTOs will be meeting later this year with the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec to discuss the management of the southern Hudson Bay polar bear subpopulation?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the member for that question.
We cannot control jurisdictions outside of Nunavut. They have their own management, especially for southern Hudson Bay polar bear management.
That has been approved by the wildlife management board, along with Nunavik, Nunavut, and Ontario Cree Nation. They wanted to take part in the working of this and we’re working very closely together.
Today, as the minister, I’m very concerned about this issue, the new quota, and to make sure that the total allowable harvest is followed through because there’s international interest with polar bear management.
I believe that there will be good management from Ontario and Quebec. I expect to see a good agreement amongst all parties, along with the federal Minister of the Environment, as he’s also involved.
That’s why I expect to see a good management plan for all.
Question 235 – 4(3): Development Partnership Agreement Policy (Mikkungwak)
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Speakers.
On February 17, 2007, the Government of Nunavut entered into a development partnership agreement respecting the Meadowbank mine.
During last Thursday’s sitting of the Legislative Assembly, the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation stated that, and I quote, “the departments of EDT and Finance have come to the consensus that the Fuel Tax Rebate Program should be cancelled, at least for operating mines.”
Can the minister clearly explain what this decision will mean for the development partnership agreement that is currently in place for the Meadowbank mine?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) I didn’t quite understand the latter part of his question. Perhaps the member could rephrase his question. I didn’t understand when he said, “currently in place.”
So if he can ask the question again.
Mr. Mikkungwak, please clarify your question.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank my colleague for the questions regarding this issue.
The current agreement, at this time, even if it’s changed, the other contents of the agreement, for example, how they provide education and training, how they establish infrastructure, and how the private businesses should be supported in regard to development of the land, all this content will not change.
During last Thursday’s sitting of the Legislative Assembly, the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation also stated that the departments of EDT and Finance are, and I quote, “now working on developing a replacement for the development partnership agreement.”
Can the minister clearly describe what the key elements of this replacement would be?
At this time, it’s too early to tell.
On March 31, 2016, the Government of Nunavut’s Development Partnership Agreement Policy is scheduled to expire.
Can the minister clearly state whether or not this policy will still be in existence on April 1, 2016?
I’ll have to check into that and get back to the member.
The time for question period has expired. Moving on.
Petitions. Item 12.
Tabled Document 089 – 4(3): Study on Comparison of Approaches for Supporting, Protecting and Encouraging Remote Air Service (Mikkungwak)