EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
They absolutely know the area.
They were providing for the last few years, fuel for the Nunavut Power Corporation in many places in Nunavut.
They are quite familiar with the marine operations.
They have the ships which will be able to go to Baker Lake.
I understand from that point they need a minimum of 10 feet of the draft to go to the river to go to Baker Lake.
They are fully responsible for the contract.
They are knowledgeable and we have full confidence that they will be able to do the job.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, was there an effort made for NTCL to provide fuel delivery to Kivalliq through negotiations by reducing their rate to the Kivalliq similar to your savings of $19 million bucks over a three period.
The Baffin has a population of twice as much as the Kivalliq.
Can you calculate how much is being saved in the Kivalliq and how much of that $19 million dollars is being saved in the Baffin?
Was there any effort made to see if the companies, the NTCL delivery service, in Kivalliq, did they refuse to reduce their price in order to give the delivery program.
What effort was made?
There were no negotiations for the simple reason because the price difference was so huge, that it didn’t warrant any progress.
Mr. Arvaluk: With this savings, we know that the, I don’t know what they call it, the over lapping of costs and the savings is around 5 million bucks for petroleum products.
Would this $19 million dollar savings buy us a million dollar lot in Kitikmeot, will you be introducing the price reduction at the pump then?
We’re looking at the next year re-supply season and as you may know, the new development energy corporation would be in position to make that decision at that point in time.
Anything else. Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk: Are there plans, I don’t know if that’s the right department but, for the services that we received from different southern companies, from southern Canada, or elsewhere for that matter, who carry out business in Nunavut.
We are perfectly aware that income taxes are paid to that particular jurisdiction and as Mr. McLean said before, are there any plans, is the government making plans to introduce some kind of taxes to those companies that are making money out of Nunavut?
Normally if you’re a resident of Nunavut, whether you are a company or individual, that you pay taxes.
But other companies that are reaping the small money that we have, especially with the government, they’re not paying taxes.
Are there any plans to introduce some form of tax so that this government collects revenue for infrastructure programs and what not?
I cannot answer the question by the member, because we have not talked about what plans we have for paying taxes to Nunavut by this company.
Correct me if I am wrong, I am not really sure whether I should ask this question to you or not.
This is the first time I have heard about Woodward getting a contract.
Is that a Nunavut company?
This company is not from Nunavut.
We represent the people of Nunavut and we want the people of Nunavut to prosper.
But what are we doing?
It’s not very good business.
What the government is doing is giving to companies that bid the lowest and leaving behind the people that we represent just because of the value of the contract.
Every year, we always talk about supplementary funding that the government will be providing.
The first one was I think $12 million that’s the first year and the second year it was about $19 million because of the cost overruns of the contractor.
And then now, we’re saying that there’s $19 million saved over the next three years and if they’re going to ask for more money, then we have to pay out to supplementaries again.
It seems like we have to pay supplementaries every year.
And I just wondered if that has been looked into?
What we are talking about is the money that will be paid out to those contractors for resupply.
We said that we will be saving $19 million over the next three years and I just want to let the member know that this has to do with resupply savings of $19 million.
Will the $19 million be used for the benefit of the people of Nunavut?
As long as that $19 million is in the hands of the government, it’ll be used towards the resupply.
Looking at the $19 million savings is there any way it could be used for other programs?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): That $19 million savings will be, what it means is that we will be saving $19 million because of using Woodward Oil Limited for resupply to Baffin and Kivalliq.
That’s what it means.
That’s the only answer that I can give you.
But if it has to be that the price of the petroleum goes up, then we would be using some money out of that $19 million dollars.
This is the amount of money that we could use instead of raising the gas prices or petroleum prices.
We know that the $19 million dollars will be saved, but how much money are we paying the Woodward Oil Limited?
Is there a figure?
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the member; if he could clarify his question.
Mr. Iqaqrialu, could you please rephrase your question.
There’s $19 million dollars that will be saved by the Government of Nunavut, but how much money will Woodward Oil Limited be using?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): Under the Minister’s Statement today, I stated that the transportation contract with Woodward would save the Government of Nunavut over $19 million dollars over the next three years as compared to the 2002 re-supply rates for Baffin and Kivalliq.
That’s for 2002 which is going to be a savings of $19 million dollars because we have Woodward Oil as contractors.
Mr. Chairperson, I’d like to ask another question.
When NTCL had, when we were using NTCL, how much money were they using over three years?
Why is there a $19 million dollar savings?
Like I said, this is compared to the 2002 re-supply because we had awarded the contract to Woodward’s Oil Limited. That’s why we will have a $19 million dollar savings over three years.
Perhaps I’m not making myself clear but, what I’m saying, we expect to save $19 million dollars over the next three years.
How much money were you spending when we still had NTCL?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): It’s about, we used to use $19 million savings.
Maybe I’m not making myself clear, but perhaps if I can get my deputy to respond to the question Mr. Chairperson to make it clear.
Chairperson (interpretation): The member is asking, when you still had NTCL as contractors for the re-supply, say for example, for one year, how much money have you saved using NTCL at that time?
Not looking at the $19 million dollars, but how much money was saved.
I will try to answer that question.
I don’t have the figures with me but for this resupply year, 2002, I believe the total bill to NTCL will be in the neighbourhood of about 57-58, maybe even 60 million dollars, which will cover the fuel and transportation.
Don’t quote me exactly on it, I don’t have the complete figures with me.
I wonder if the Minister will be able to provide us with those figures to the House, with a statement saying when we used NTCL and because this contractor is not Nunavut-owned.
I think that we are going to have to get the figures from the previous years when NTCL had the contract.
We had always talked about the Nunavut-owned companies to be awarded contracts.
If would be good if Woodwards Oil Limited goes ahead and succeed, but we would have preferred a Nunavut-owned company to continue to resupply the communities.
I would also like to know how many Inuit employees are employed by NTCL.
I just wondered, I think that there were about 400 people employed.
How many will be lost?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): The first question of the Member about the question that the Member asked about the figures of when we still had NTCL re-supplying the communities.
We will be able to provide that information in the House.
The question that he had about staff at NTCL, I am sorry that I cannot provide that answer.
Once you have given the contract to Woodwards Oil Limited, did you provide to them or give them information about how many people that they should employ from Nunavut.
Thank you. Mr. Chairperson.
Part of the contract is calling for the necessary requirement for Inuit training.
That was a part of the evaluation and that Woodwards is complying with that.
I don’t have the figures with me, but that is definitely a state of the contract when Inuit employment has to be followed.
Can you give us a written response on the criteria that you included in this contract?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): Yes, Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson, I’m not sure if the question was asked earlier or not but I’d just like to ask the Minister if NNI was applied to this contract.
Hon. Peter Kattuk: No it wasn’t.
Mr. Chairperson, can the minister indicate why it wasn’t?
I’ll have my Deputy Minister respond to that question.
This situation, NNI wasn’t applied to the RFP for the fuel and for the transportation simply for the reason that there were no resources being made in Nunavut as far as the fuel.
We don’t do that, yet.
And also nobody from Nunavut has the transportation equipment available to do this job.
Mr. Chairperson, I’d just like to ask the minister or deputy hasn’t an Inuit owned business been doing this contract for twenty five years?
He just says that no one has the capacity to do it and you know for the last twenty five years we’ve had an Inuit firm doing it so maybe if he could just explain that?
I’m having difficulty understanding that.
In this situation during the evaluation process even if NNI was applicable to only one company there will be no change in the evaluation criteria because of the significant and humongous difference in the pricing.
Mr. Chairperson, that wasn’t my question.
My question was you know the deputy just said that there’s no business or no one up here that can offer that service and we’ve had an Inuit owned business doing it for 25 years.
It’s like I have a hard time understanding that and that’s what I was looking for, for some clarification and not whether it would have made a difference or not.
In hindsight, doesn’t matter now.
But I’d like to ask for some clarification on the rationale.
Why it wasn’t applied.
We’ve got to have some consistency in how that policy’s applied.
We can’t just pick and choose where they want to use it.
But I’d like to hear you know an explanation from the Deputy Minister on those comments.
Deputy Minister Mrazek.
Mr. Mrazek: The NNI was excluded in this contract because this contract represents perhaps one of the biggest expenditures of the Government of Nunavut for the year as far as the contract.
They’re looking for sixty to seventy million dollars spent every year on the fuel and therefore NNI was excluded.
Mr. Chairperson, if that was the reason that the deputy just stated that why the NNI wasn’t applied and it contradicts what he said a few responses ago when he said because he said there was no Inuit firm and no business up here that was capable of doing that, so you know what is it?
Does it seem like any time that we’re going to pick and choose and say whatever we want, when we don’t want to apply things or not and we need to have some consistency.
Whether it would have made a difference or not is irrelevant.
We still need to have some consistency in the way government policies are operated and applied.
Under the provisions of NNI there are provisions being there for the cabinets to exempts, specific awarding of contracts from NNI.
In this instance, cabinet felt that it was best to open the market as we spend a lot of money on fuel and there’s always people complaining about the price of the fuel.
We have felt, as the cabinet, we should try and open it up and get the best price for the customer.
In this instance, NTCL has provided that service for a very long time and they fall under NNI, the grandfather provision.
As we have decided, we will no longer use the grandfathering clause for so called Inuit companies that are based out of Nunavut and don’t fall under the criteria of Inuit firms under the Land Claim Agreement.
In that instance, they will not be Inuit owned companies under the Land Claim Agreement.
So we had allowed them to be Inuit owned companies for the purposes of continuing that service but in this instance, we’re looking for the best price, the best for our constituents.
Mr. Chairperson, I should’ve asked the premier long time ago that question about the inadequate answer.
I mean, there, that’s the reason why they chose not to, and there it is, you know what I mean.
You don’t need to go around and make all kinds of other excuses when in fact that’s not really the case.
But it’s always the same indication of a lot of the things that we hear and look at and try to deal with in this government and the departments, that’s just too bad.
Another question I have Mr. Chairperson, and I think the deputy had indicated a rough area of where it was. But can the minister indicate what the annual value of that contract is?
Mr. Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you.
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Chairperson.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Tootoo, please clarify your question.
What is the annual value of the contract that was awarded to Woodward?
I don’t have the information in front of me at this point.
Thank you, Mr, Chairperson.
It’s frustrating, Mr. Chairperson.
You know this is an issue that has been in the media for the last week and the minister did a Minister’s Statement on it today and we had the deputy minister here with them.
And they don’t know how much the contract’s worth?
I find that a little difficult to comprehend that they have no idea what the value of this contract is.
It’s something that’s been a hot issue.
They just finished looking at an awarding and they don’t know?
To me, that’s not acceptable.
Chairperson (interpretation): Is there going to be a response, Mr. Mrazek
Mr. Mrazek: Yes, Mr. Chairperson.
The contract has fixed costs on the quantity of the fuel to be delivered.
Contract doesn’t have the value and fixed value for the year or anything that nature so therefore I don’t have the information with me to tell you that a litre of fuel will cost half, three cents or whatever it is.
So, therefore there is no such thing as fixed costs because these will vary based on the consumption, based on the delivery point and a few other things.
Can the minister commit to providing that information to members as soon as possible?
Hon. Peter Kattuk: Yes we can do that.
Very briefly, Mr. Tootoo.
Hopefully we won’t have to wait weeks for that information.
It will be fresh information.
Mr. Chairperson, another question I have and I don’t know if Mr. Mrazek has been around for a while and involved with the PPD for a number of years, but Woodward’s Oil, did they use to provide re-supply fuel to communities in the Baffin and I understand that they used to provide fuel to Resolute Bay up until 1999 and at that point they had lost that contract.
I’m just wondering if the minister’s staff is aware of that and why they lost that contract back then.
I don’t recall the details, but Woodward’s has been a reliable supplier mainly for a few years doing the work for the Power Corporation and also supplying Northern Quebec, Labrador and a few other places.
I hate to ask the same question again but my question was, did Woodward’s used to provide fuel re-supply to I believe it was Resolute Bay or not and if they did, I understand it was up until 1999 and at that time they lost it.
I’m just wondering if there are any circumstances as to why they lost that contract.
I have no personal knowledge of Woodward’s losing the contract in Resolute.
Can the minister commit to looking into that to see if it was in fact a contract that used to be held by Woodward’s up until 1999 and then why, was it just strictly pricing or whatever and inform members of the house for that information?
Hon. Peter Kattuk: Thank you.
I have just a few very short questions.
This contract has been awarded already to this Woodward’s Oil Limited.
Where is Woodward’s Oil Limited based?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): Woodward’s Oil Limited is based in Newfoundland.
As I said before, this contract has been awarded already.
I think we all understand now, when these kinds of contracts, I think the information to all the communities has to be relayed so the communities are not surprised by these kinds of things.
My next question is the concern from Kivalliq. Are they going to be able to deliver the fuel in a timely manner to all the communities?
Can the minister confirm that right now?
Yes, we’ll do so and we will make sure the fuel is distributed to the communities in a timely manner.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
My next question is in regards to the company that was awarded this contract.
Are they going to be hiring Nunavut employees like NTCL does?
It is specified in the contract that they should be sensitive to the needs of the people of Nunavut but I can’t respond to your question at this point.
There is a need to be sensitive to the needs of the people of Nunavut.
There will be a huge cost savings.
My question, and as the minister stated that they will meet the needs of the people of Nunavut; are you saying that they are going to be Inuit hired through this contract?
The contract has to be adhered to.
They will have to consider the Inuit.
I’m not saying that they’ll be employed but they will have to be sensitive to the needs of the people of Nunavut.
In the Nunavut area and especially in the Baffin and the smaller communities, a lot of Newfoundlanders work in the Baffin area who hires few, if any Inuit.
Is there any specified in the contract and is there going to be an assessment done after a year or so to see the number of percentages of Inuit hired or others?
Will the fuel and dry goods that are transported to the communities, will they be cheaper?
Chairperson (interpretation): We apologize. We are on the wrong channel. Who is going to respond?
Today I cannot tell you whether the fuel is going to be cheaper than today.
But there will be cost savings for the delivery of fuel in the future.
That is where the impact is going to be on the cost savings.
I cannot tell you whether the price of the fuel will go down, but if we need to, I am sure that we will announce it.
I cannot say whether the price of fuel is going to decrease.
This $19 million dollar cost saving. Have you already considered what this $19 million dollars will be used for or have you already committed this $19 million dollars for its use.
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): We have never considered how this $19 million dollars will be utilized.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. The $19 million dollars, since he did not consider what it is going to be expended for, I have already suggested a unique office in Grise Fiord and a Government office in Arctic Bay and a staff house in Arctic Bay and tank farms are already changed up in Resolute Bay, or a gathering place in Arctic Bay.
So this $19 million dollars can be utilized in Arctic Bay.
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): I did not hear a question.
I know that we all want to expend those cost savings.
Chairperson (interpretation): Ms. Williams are you finished?
In the Ministers’ Statements, I will read it briefly. I know that it has been asked before but I would like to ask it again.
Cost savings for the Nunavut Government over $19 million dollars over the next three years, when compared to the 2002 re-supply read for the Baffin and the Kivalliq.
Did they expend $19 million dollars within the three years in the past years?
Did you use $19 million dollars more in the previous years?
So are you saying we are not going to use the $19 million dollars for the upcoming transport of the fuel?
It does not state that we expended over $19 million dollars.
In the year 2002 of Fuel Transportation that will go for the next coming three years we will have saved over $19 million dollars compared to 2002.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I thought you wrote my name down.
The new fuel transportation contract, looking at it for a long term, it doesn’t seem good, but for daily operations, daily lives of Nunavummiut, for those of us that go out hunting, we need gasoline, like we don’t have dog teams anymore.
As we have stated earlier, we’d like to see the lowest price of fuel.
I’m sure all of us members in the year 2000, wanted to have cheaper fuel prices.
Because of the bad gasoline situation, we wanted to see the cost of fuel lowered.
Our engines broke, our small equipment broke down.
As an ordinary Nunavut citizen, if I’m going hunting and if that’s a part of my daily subsistence, at time I wondered where I could find cheaper priced gasoline.
I would like to congratulate your department but as I stated before, for the long term, for the awarding of the contract to Woodward’s, it doesn’t look to good because NTCL is a Nunavut beneficiary company.
But looking at the daily lives of Inuit hunters, it seems to be better in the long term.
But the question I do have, petroleum, aviation and heating fuel, looking at the three kinds of fuel, the prices set for these different kinds of fuel, do you expect to see the price of fuel increase prior to April?
No, it won’t.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Last question.
Although I know this has nothing to do with the department of finance but I know we have to reimburse the money for the skidoo owners who have broken down engines.
I know I talked about this during the Pangnirtung session, perhaps I was wondering if they could defer the deadline to put in claims for the bad gasoline.
If there was a snowmobile that broke down in November or December, and I know that the question is not directly directed to his department but that was my last question.
Although I can’t respond to his question, because the Minister responsible for Finance is responsible for that but in regards to his November 15th deadline because I don’t think the communities have bad gasoline now.
I’m sure they don’t.
His question in regards to putting late claims, but the bad gasoline has been gotten rid of from the communities.
We’re not too sure if there’s still some bad gas at the local level in the communities so therefore I cannot really respond to his question.
Mr. Tootoo, your last question.
I just have one last question, I thought of.
Mr. Chairperson, I had asked earlier about the value of the contract.
The minister said that he couldn’t tell us because he didn’t know what the value was but in his Minister’s Statement this afternoon, he said that they were going to save $19 million dollars.
If they don’t know the value of the contract, how do you come up with that number?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): I’ll get my Deputy Minister to respond to that question.
Mr. Mrazek: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. $19 million dollars is a projected estimate saving for transportation costs which was basically elaborated from the current 2002 resupply which is a connection to the new contract for the transportation costs.
We’re projecting it from what?
You have to know what the values of those costs are, and that’s what we’re asking.
What is the value of it?
You know you’re projecting $19 million dollars in savings.
When you say you don’t know what those numbers are, how do you come up with the $19 million dollars?
That’s what I’m saying. What’s the value of it?
If you say you don’t know, then how do you know it’s $19 million dollars?
I didn’t hear a question. Are you finished? Mr. Tootoo.
I’m very upset about this; very much.
Here we are trying to help Nunavummiut to develop themselves and we’re awarding contracts to companies outside of Nunavut when we have that opportunity to make money.
I’m very upset about it.
Even though we’re saving $19 million dollars, as long as it’s going to be used for Nunavummiut, there’s no danger of using it.
Perhaps our government will keep treating us like that continually to hinder Nunavummiut from developing, and on top of that we’re promoting to develop the Nunavummiut and enhance them.
Are we going to hinder them as we ask them to enhance and develop?
What else can we do here?
I have to bring something out because I’m very displeased with that.