EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
From time to time, Health and Social Services staff in communities have advocated on behalf of clients, but this is the extent of our involvement.
Return to OQ 102 – 2(2): Clarification of Newspaper Article
The question was asked by Hunter Tootoo on November 29.
I rise today to respond to a question you raised in the House on November 29 regarding the contents of a letter that was sent to an individual that stated in part: “we are a representative government and have an obligation to hire on the basis of fairness and equity and if the community feels….this process is not fair, then we are obliged to ensure fairness and equity”.
Since this is an internal matter between the individual and the employer, I cannot comment on the specific reference at this time.
However, I would like to outline the Government of Nunavut’s obligations related to the hiring of staff. All hiring in the Government of Nunavut is guided by the Priority Hiring Policy that has been in place since 2000. The Department of Human Resources has developed guidelines and processes to ensure consistency and fairness.
Managers in departments are required to comply with these staffing policies and procedures.  The Deputy Minister of Human Resources has delegated authority to appoint, through the competitive process, indeterminate, term and casual positions.
There is an appeal process for current Government of Nunavut employees and all beneficiaries who apply for NEU positions.
The Deputy Minister of Human Resources has the authority to terminate an employee on the recommendation of the hiring department.
The Department of Human Resources administers the processing of casual staffing actions with the exception of teachers, Nunavut Arctic College and specialized health positions.
Deputy Ministers in departments have authority to request a casual hire and forward it to the respective Human Resource office.
Human Resources evaluates the job and provides a pay range.
Individuals wishing to be considered for casual employment register with the Department of Human Resources by providing a resume. Resumes are separated by Beneficiary and Non-Beneficiary status.
Managers requiring casual staff must consider Inuit beneficiary applicants already on file or they must post the vacancy.
If no qualified Inuit beneficiaries are found through this process, then others can be considered.
If the department has selected a non-beneficiary, they are expected to explain in writing, the reasons why a non-beneficiary is being hired, before Human Resources will approve the casual staffing action.
Deputy Ministers of hiring departments can terminate a casual employee. Casual employees may be terminated per the terms of the NEU collective agreement and may exercise their rights to the grievances process.
The Department of Human Resources will be conducting a review of delegated authorities in 2005 to ensure compliance with the Priority Hiring Policy. This policy continues to be a priority with the Government of Nunavut and supports our obligations under Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tapardjuk.
If you can provide a copy of your Return to the Oral Question, because the table officers don’t have a copy.
Could you please send a copy to the table officers?
I would like to move that the returns to an oral question that the minister provided, which we don’t have a copy of, and the return to oral question 084-2(2), be moved to the Committee of the Whole.
Speaker (interpretation): Returns to oral questions can’t be referred to the Committee of the Whole, but ministers’ statements can be referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Item 5 in the orders of the day.
I would like to recognize my friend who has been a life-long friend of mine: Bill Lyall.
Although he is from the Kitikmeot, I know that he has helped a lot of people.
He tries to help everyone with their every need, so I want everyone to recognize him and welcome him to the gallery. Thank you.
I would like to also recognize Bill Lyall because we have been on the board of KIA.
Also, he has been the Member of the Legislative Assembly for the Northwest Territories and also for the Coop Federation.
He has been a very good representative for our people in the Northwest Territories and as well in our territory.
He has been a very good friend.
When I go into the community of Cambridge Bay, he’s always been a very good friend and welcomes us all.
I guess I didn’t have my hand up fast enough.
I too, would like to welcome Mr. Lyall to the gallery.
Bill is president of the local co-op. He brought a lot of Christmas cheer to the coop members of Cambridge Bay.
On November 10, they declared $247 thousand, which helped out a lot folks this year.
Also, Bill had a co-op resolution on the table earlier in this session on the GRA.
The co-op has taken a leadership role on the GRA rate application.
Welcome Bill.
I’m going to make a brief comment.
I support Mr. Alagalak to welcome and recognize Bill Lyall because I’m very appreciative and I’m very proud that you are one of the uncles.
And also I would like to recognize Manitok Thompson from my home riding.
I would like to welcome her.
Manitok, you’re very capable and welcome to the gallery.
I would also like to recognize my wife’s older sister, Manitok.
As younger people, don’t practice traditional kinship.
I too would like to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Bill Lyall to the gallery.
Not like Mr. Alagalak, I haven’t known Bill all my life, but all my life back in North River, 10 years now, I’ve known Bill.
I’ve worked with him.
I’ve learned a lot from him over the years in my involvement with the cooperative movement.
Mr. Lyall has been an excellent advocate for Inuit throughout the territory in the Coop movement.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, he is here in our fine capital and made a presentation as an intervenor to the Utility Rate Review Council’s public hearing last night on behalf of all of the member Coops throughout the territory and I’d like to just very formally welcome him to the gallery and I appreciate the work that he’s done on behalf of Nunavummiut across the territory.
I too would like to recognize Manitok Thompson.
She’s been very supportive during the division of Nunavut.
And also, she has been very supportive of the Inuit Womens’ Association so that they could be up and running in Nunavut.
I also would like to recognize Bill Lyall.
During the Northwest Territories sessions, he was very instrumental in the division.
I would like to welcome to the gallery Ms. Manitok Thompson.
When Ms. Thompson was a minister in the Northwest Territories Government in 1995 to 1999, she remembers very well that on many, many occasions this member used to get up and ask for all copies of sole sourced negotiated contracts to be tabled.
Over the last couple days I am having a déjà vu with some of the other comments from other members.
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Thompson is now going to working as the Legislative Coordinator for Department of Education, facilitating the new Education Act, so we would like to take this opportunity and welcome Ms. Thompson in the House.
I am sure that Nunavummiut will see much of Ms. Thompson over the coming months.
Also Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lyall has been introduced several times and he has been complimented with glowing returns.
I just want to say to Mr. Bill Lyall, whom I have known for about 21 years, that his presentation at the Utility Rate Review Council did go over quite well.
My understanding that it was probably one of the better presentations, as usual, when a Lyall says something it usually turns out to be true.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we welcome that at the Utility Rate Review Council hearings.
Today I would like to recognize the interpreter/translators that have been working with us the last few weeks, and to thank them for their service and to also wish them a Merry Christmas.
They are all sitting in the back, Blandina, Mary, Mikle.
I also want to recognize Bill Lyall, he is from the Kitikmeot and well known to many individuals in the north, at the same time I also want to wish everyone in this House, a very Merry Christmas.
(interpretation) I also want to recognize my constituency, since this is our last day, Merry Christmas to all.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize, I have worked with Bill Lyall for a long time, as the population was growing and there were more capable Inuit.
He has been involved.
I was fortunate enough to work with Arctic Co-ops.
I can say that Ms. Thompson already knows that there were very few Inuit who worked for the government, but nowadays there are a lot of capable Inuit and this has helped the people and a lot of us started off with Coops.
That is where we learned our experience.
I want to recognize both Bill Lyall and Manitok Thompson for their help.
Speaker (interpretation): Welcome to the Gallery, Mr. Lyall and Ms. Thompson.
Question 124 – 2(2): Proposed General Rate Application
I have a question for the Minister of Energy.
Mr. Speaker, my constituencies of Arctic Bay and Resolute Bay were some of the first communities that were visited by the panel of Qulliq Energy Corporation.
My question is: at that hearing in November about the proposal for the General Rate Application, was the information presented true or not true?
This has been discussed in this House over the last day.
Some information that was provided by the power corporation under the GRA proposal did contain errors.
It was picked up, and I guess the good news is the municipalities will be asked to pay slightly, marginally, less than what the original proposal was putting in case.
It’s my understanding, again, from the information provided to me by the analysts at the corporation, that the difference will be 19 cents.
So, Mr. Speaker, we’re talking about an amount, here, of less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour.
I would take this opportunity to say an apology from me, as Minister of Energy, responsible for the corporation, that the information that was provided in the original GRA was wrong.
They should have caught it earlier, Mr. Speaker, but this is a process.
It’s no different than the environmental process, for example, that mines go through.
They go forward and they say, “This is what our mine is going to do.”
Environmentalists will come forward and say, “Based on our information that is not correct.”And the information goes back and forth.
That’s the process of the Utility Rate Review Council.
That’s why you have that check and balance.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intervenors... .
I think Mr. Harper was one of them, and we thank him for his good work, that he did find that there was a mistake.
Now we move forward.
All that information has to be collated and that’s what the recommendations will be based on.
So, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the record, the change results in a 19 cents for a commercial customer, for example, here in Iqaluit.
I have looked at the first set of figures done by the corporation and the revised set which was revealed on November 29.
In the first set of figures, Arctic Bay is listed as having the residency rate increased by 8.5 percent.
According to the revised figures, the increase is listed as being 12.4 percent.
My question is this: what message does the minister have for the residents in Arctic Bay in light of this change?
We’ve said over the last couple of weeks in this House that when we proposed the rate for the 2003, we asked the power corporation to bring forward a GRA application in 2004.
That’s what they have done.
The government has not endorsed the proposals made by the power corporation.
It is their proposal as a board of directors and as a corporation, as an entity, to come forward; this is their proposal.
The Utility Rate Review Council’s job is to look at it.
At the end of the day, the Utility Rate Review Council can reject the proposal, they can accept it, or they can modify it.
And then those recommendations come to me as Minister of Energy, and then we review it.
So, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the people of Arctic Bay, that again, this is a process.
There is a proposal on the board.
It’s not written in stone.
This is what they’d like to do.
This is what they’re saying.
And that’s why we have that check and balance, so the Utility Rate Review Council has the opportunity to review all that information.
I don’t think the people should feel panicked.
Again, that’s why the rate proposal application is out there.
And that’s why when information comes forward, whether it’s correct information or wrong information, the Utility Rates Review Council has an opportunity to review that.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, over the next couple of weeks before December 17, that there will be more information that will be coming forward that the URRC will have to take into account.
So, I don’t think that people should be panicking that the rates are going to go to 90 percent or 100 percent.
There’s a proposal out there.
As the minister responsible, I am not in a position, the government is not in a position, to say what the rates will be on April 1, 2005.
I do know there will be a change in the rates.
Everyone realizes that the rates have to change because they have not changed since 1998, and the fundamental issue with the Power Corporation is that the rates are too low.
However, what those amounts will be and what the increase will be, of the subsidy rates and so on, that has to be discussed between now and February 1 when the URRC makes their report known to us.
I have committed to the members of the House that I will come back and explain what has occurred, and so on, to the people of Nunavut.
So, I don’t think people should get overly stressed-out over a proposal being made by the corporation.
Anybody could misunderstand, if they can plan a change from 8 percent to 12 percent.
If we were to look at that figure, we would panic,
I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, is the minister in agreement that they go back to Arctic Bay to explain those changes?
Again, as I said earlier, the Power Corporation has made a proposal and I think the misconception is that somehow that the Utility Rates Review Council is going to rubber-stamp everything that they have asked for, and that’s not the case.
Mr. Speaker, if I allowed, and I am not the minister responsible for the Utility Rates Review Council, it’s the Premier, if I said go out and redo this again, then Mr. Speaker, you are three weeks away from Christmas; you probably would not get a report back until after April 1.
So, there is a timeline here under the legislation and so on, and the process needs to go forward.
People have until December 17 to make submissions.
If the URRC goes to more communities and the process continues by revisiting different locations and so on, then the process for the new rates to come forward could be in the spring sometime; it could be in May, it could be in June.
So, Mr. Speaker, that type of request has to be made to the URRC and then the URRC will look at the logistic as well as the administrative issues in making that type of trip.
As Inuit, we are not used to writing letters like this.
Christmas is approaching fast and we will have our other concerns.
Can this be delayed, if people had wanted to submit something for December 17?
Speaker (interpretation): Picco.
A lot of work has been put into the General Rate Application proposal by the Power Corporation.
The Auditor General has pointed out and the members have talked about it here that there is a need for a major revenue requirement of the corporation and that’s the process we bring forward.
I guess the concern would be, if we delay this process, what will happen on April 1 is that the corporation will still be in need of more resources and they will not be in a position to do that, because the application process has been slowed down.
So, Mr. Speaker, the URRC would have an opportunity to review all of the information and if they believe they need more time, they will be able to come back to us.
Mr. Speaker, the URRC is made up of people from Nunavut.
They are Northerners, they are long-term residents of Nunavut.
So, Mr. Speaker, they will have an opportunity to look at all the information, and then if there is a need for more time, they would make that request to the minister responsible, who is the Premier.
At this time, I can’t second guess what their proposal may be, but it is my understanding that they have visited several communities and they have written responses, and that’s why from December 17 onward they’ll have the opportunity to review that analytical information.
Question 125 – 2(2): Providing Accurate Information
My question is also for the Minister of Energy.
I’m sure he’s not surprised.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised and tabled the document that pointed out that there was inaccurate information provided throughout the community consultation tours.
I understand that it’s been reported that the accurate information was formulated at the beginning, I believe October 18, to be exact, by the Power Corporation.
My question to the minister is: why did the corporation not provide the accurate information to the general public and to the minister, as it appears the minister wasn’t even aware of it.
Minister of Energy, Mr. Picco.
It’s only in the last 24 hours that this information has come to light.
As I said yesterday in the House when I was made aware of it, I immediately called the acting president of the corporation to come and meet with me and discuss the issue around the information that had been provided.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, again, that this is a process: intervenors bring forth new information.
It’s either accurate, not accurate, inaccurate, correct, and in this case, there was a correction needed.
The corporation did not change its communications packages that they sent out to people.
They never kept up with that process where new information was coming forward. Mr. Speaker, again, as I said earlier, they should have been able to do that.
Mr. Hawker was on the radio, for example, this morning saying that they should have kept up with that and they never.
So, the answer why... .
I guess it was a logistical or an administrative problem with the corporation.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, that information, now, is known and is out there and again, I think that the URRC will be, if nothing else, crossing their t’s and dotting their i’s in a bigger fashion to make sure that the information is accurate.
So, again, I publicly thank Mr. Harper and the intervenors for bringing this information forward and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Utility Rate Review Council will have this information and be able to use it.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, again, although the amounts are miniscule and it means that municipalities would pay marginally less, based on the proposal, it’s very important to remember that this is only a proposal from the corporation.
The minister makes a very good point that it is a proposal, and thank goodness for that.
The minister also pointed out earlier that the difference here was going to be a 0.19 cent increase because of that error.
I just wanted to pass some maybe-new information on to the minister.
I understand that the president and CEO of the Qulliq Energy Corporation had indicated publicly to the minister’s friend, Mr. Harper, that there was actually 1.5 cents as an increase.
So, he may want to double check those figures.
Mr. Speaker, my question to him is: why is it that the Power Corporation and you could say the government is the Crown corporation, why do they feel that it’s only necessary to give the URRC accurate information and not the public, had they known and they did know, well ahead of time, of the public hearings.
How hard would it have been to print off a one-page insert to stick into their public relations material that they were handing out?
That’s my question: why did they feel that the public and the members of this Assembly don't have a right to know the accurate information, yet an appointed board that is looking at it does?
It’s the public that is making, or wanted to and have made, numerous interventions based on that information.
I think that the corporation would want to ensure that people have all the information to make adequate interventions based on that information.
Usually in the House, the rules are that the minister is not supposed to comment on how someone feels, and may answer a hypothetical question what if and so on.
But I think the member has raised a point, so I will try to answer the question.
I don’t know why, when they received the information, it was not put into the communications packages, as I stated earlier.
I believe all concerned realized that it should have been.
If I were to take a guess, and I am not making a guess, I think when they looked at the amount of 0.019, less than two cents, that they probably felt it was not a big deal or a big issue.
I guess that’s the reason, when they saw that.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment on why they made that decision.
I can only say, as the member has pointed out, that it did happen.
And, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if they had their time back, they would have included the difference of less than 2 cents so that the public would have been aware.
Mr. Speaker, again, the good news was that the municipalities, indeed all municipalities, would be paying marginally less, based on a proposal.
Again, as the member said, it’s just a proposal.
It’s a proposal by the corporation.
It did not go to cabinet; we didn’t look at it.
It’s a proposal made independently by our corporation to the regulating bodies, so that’s why you have a check and balance.
I guess I am going to go back to my member’s statement on looking for the silver lining in a thunder cloud of bad storm weather.
The minister is doing very well at that, pointing out the little good thing that may have come out of this huge mistake made by the corporation.
But, Mr. Speaker, the minister had indicated that the management felt that a 6 percent variance in the rate was insignificant; it was not important.
Would the minister concur with that?
The only thing I can concur with is I think maybe now the member, and maybe some other people in Nunavut, would get the feeling that maybe some of these are things I was dealing with earlier as minister.
That’s the reason why in December of 2002 we didn’t put the rates up at that time; we froze it for one year because we wanted to make sure that we had verifiable information.
Mr. Speaker, at that time, we had to wait until we had the Auditor General’s audited financial statement for 2002.
Mr. Speaker, the information that the corporation is putting together... . They are trying to do it to the very best ability that they have.
I don’t know why they didn’t include it, and again, I would suggest to you that probably, and then again it’s just a hypothetical thing, that maybe they didn’t think the difference of less than two cents matters.
But, when you put percentages into it, it all depends. I could say six percent of 6,000 is two.
Is that a very big number?
I don’t know; it depends on how you do the analysis.
Again, as the member pointed out, it’s a proposal.
Mr. Speaker, they are saying this is what they would like to do.
This is their best guesstimate.
That’s why you have a check and balance in place, and again, the process is continuing.
I think the process is working in that information is being found and uncovered, and that process has to go forward.
That’s an honest process, and at the end of the day, we will have an opportunity, when the URRC reports back, to review and analyze it.
At the same time, the government will analyze all of the recommendations that are being made.
It has been stated by the Premier and by the finance minister and other members of the cabinet.
Again, another perfect example of evasive answering.
The minister still didn’t confirm whether he agreed that that was insignificant or not.
My final question for the minister, and it’s another thing that has come out through the pubic hearings, is that there seems to be some manipulation of the numbers and in the differences in the rates that are presented in the General Rate Application.