EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Supposedly, this should result in large numbers of land claim beneficiaries working for the government, but that has not happened and thus, government hiring policy is broken. Why aren’t they following their own policies?
The government has a policy to give priority to beneficiaries when they are hiring for the government, following their skills and experiences.
We do provide training programs to employees who are beneficiaries, and in our policy and in giving priority to beneficiaries, we are doing all we can to follow those policies.
We also work together with the government departments to make sure that these policies are applied by all departments.
We follow Article 23 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and to my knowledge, we are making sure that these policies are adhered to by the departments.
It is a directive that has been sent to all departments.
I sincerely want to believe what the minister is saying, that this should be a representative workforce and that Nunavut beneficiaries will be given priority.
In the Keewatin, few truly believe in the government.
In October, there was an opening for a shipper-receiver and it required a minimum of grade 10.
People applied, and even though they could speak Inuktitut and they had their diploma, and there was another candidate who had the education too, now they are going to re-advertise the job because there were no “suitable candidates”.
Maybe because no one applied from down South.
I understand your question in regards to job advertisements.
They are looking for people who have experience, and all those things are taken into consideration.
But the specific question that you are asking about is why those candidates weren’t interviewed.
I could look into this further and find out exactly what the status is, because they definitely have to be considered, especially if they are Nunavut beneficiaries.
Maybe they didn’t have enough experience for what the job entails.
A lot of times you need specific training for some positions, but we are constantly looking at the jobs descriptions because a lot of the times these positions require too much experience for the position.
We are trying to adhere to our policy and regulations in regards to hiring, and we are very much interested in hearing concerns about why they were not hired.
He is welcoming concerns about those candidates who were not interviewed.
I want them to speak to their MLAs, to the ministers.
Another question: you should not just go by those applicants, you do have to go with what you put in the ad.
A lot of times, people who first come up have no experience in working up North and a lot of times they are hired anyway.
Another question: how many applicants were there for the receiver-shipper-clerk in Rankin Inlet?
If you can respond to that, I will be happy.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I don’t have the figures right in front of me, especially on any one specific job.
I will be able to inform you, maybe through correspondence.
For the applicants who had applied for the job, and there is a toll-free number and I can make it available to all the members. Those people who apply for jobs, if they want to appeal that, we are very much interested in hearing about it. There are numbers where they can call.
We have to understand that the Department of Human Resources is responsible for this. It’s usually the departments who do the hiring.
Yes, I agree that I will provide the member with this toll-free number for if people wish to appeal.
So, all this information will be available to those people who are unhappy about the selection process.
Question 085 – 2(2): Status of the General Rate Application
I know, as been indicated here in the House before, that the minister is our learning minister, and since he has taken on the portfolio of Energy I would assume that he would have gone over the General Rate Application put forward by the Power Corporation to the URRC.
Can the minister indicate if he is familiar with and if he has gone through the General Rate Application that is currently before the URRC?
I had an opportunity to go through the General Rate Application and I would concur with what Mr. Curley was saying earlier in his member’s statement, that it is very confusing.
There is a lot of information and analytical data within the document.
I think there are over 200 pages within the application itself.
Given the minister’s eye for detail and wanting to make sure that things are done properly, is the minister confident that the information within the GRA is accurate?
Hon. Ed Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The information within the GRA application has been put forward by the Power Corporation.
Again, as we said earlier, it’s a submission by the Power Corporation to deal with the issue around the shortfall in revenue funding based on the rates.
I have no reason to question the veracity of the information within the report, but if there are errors within the information that’s being brought forward, then I’m sure if the member or any member of the public has information that anything within that application is wrong, then they could make that information known, because the Utility Rate Review Council would need that information when they’re making their final evaluation of the proposal.
Within the General Rate Application I found some very interesting numbers, and although I had thought that this information was secret, I found out that Appendix F does have a fiscal forecast for the Qulliq Energy Corporation for 2004 and 2005.
As the minister indicated yesterday in this House, and I understand it was a ball park figure that he was talking about, it was 11 or $12 million.
I just wonder how big the ball park is because on Appendix F it’s forecasting about a $20 million deficit.
I’m just wondering if the minister could explain the variation, the difference in there.
Is the ball park that big, or are there some numbers that aren’t right in there.
Again, under the expectations of any general rate application, the corporation has put together what they believe is a cash flow requirement.
Again, they had to be balanced off, based on actual figures and numbers.
What I’ve been trying to say in the House is that the actual numbers that we have are the first audited financial statement which indicates a little over a $5 million loss.
The second audited financial statement shows a $7 million loss.
And now, we will have in the next couple of weeks, a third financial statement which will show the current loss for this year.
And that’s why I said I’m not sure exactly what that amount is until the Auditor General signs it off, so there are no changes in those financial statements.
It may be 10 or $11 million, it may be less that that.
That would be for the first three years of the corporation.
The projection until March 31, 2005 is part of what makes up the GRA application, because they’re taking the guesstimate or estimate of what is available.
In September they didn’t have the audited financial statements for the third year of operation, because we don’t have them yet, and this is almost December.
So, Mr. Speaker, I can say that the amount of $20 million forecast for a loss, an operating year loss, for the fourth year would seem to be very high, based on 5, 7, and what the amount would be for this year.
Then this begs the question: are the numbers in there high?
If that is way high, then how do we know that the other numbers in there aren’t high as well?
Is this something that the minister can commit to: pulling back and taking a look at and making sure that the Utility Rate Review Council has accurate information on which to base it’s decision.
As he had indicated, that number is extremely high.
And that’s what has been submitted to the Utility Rate Review Council to take a look at in evaluating and determining what the rates should be for the corporation.
So, will the minister commit to pulling it back and analyzing and making sure that all the numbers in that application aren’t high?
The member referred to Appendix F. Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to go through Appendix F while the member was speaking.
The appendix F in the GRA, the member says, has a deficit of $20 million; a revenue deficiency is what they’re calling it.
They made an appropriate assumption, I guess, of $19,712,000 as what they forecast as their deficiency up to and including March 31, 2005.
Mr. Speaker, the URRC... . That’s why you have an independent body review the application; it’s not rubber stamped.
The URRC has with it the expertise of a utility rate expert who will go through these numbers and see if they jive with the expected forecast and the amounts that are in the application.
Mr. Speaker, it’s important to point out that when the third financial statement is available in the next couple of weeks, that will help them balance out what the projections are, up to and including March 31, 2005 and beyond.
The GRA process is to look at balancing the power corporation and having a revenue stream, so that after April 1, 2005 and onward the corporation will be able to balance its books and hopefully generate a little bit of profit.
That’s what the GRA is for: it’s for 2005 outward.
Appendix F... . It is my understanding that the forecast is up to and including the period where there is no statement available.
And it is a forecast; that’s why you have the independent process of the URRC to look at those figures and see what the veracity of them are.
Oral questions, Mr. Netser.
Question 086 – 2(2): Chesterfield Inlet Request for Zamboni Parking Bay
Perhaps if you get a rear view mirror you could see me quicker when I raise my hand.
Last fall (interpretation ends) the minister gave a second call for capital projects and the hamlet of Chesterfield Inlet applied to make a zamboni room for the arena.
However, the minister has said that he has not received the application.
(interpretation) I would like to get clarification or an update on the application from the Chesterfield Inlet that was sent to your department.
The application for a grant or contribution has been received by our department, but the application was a bit late for 2004-05 fiscal year funds, because those funds were depleted.
I was told that my staff will keep the application from the recreation committee and that once there is more funding in the new fiscal year, that application will still be considered.
I will be writing a letter to the applicant to explain this to him, and the Member for Chesterfield Inlet will be sent a copy of the letter.
I want to get clarification.
When I spoke with the SAO in Chesterfield Inlet, he said that he was going to send the application right away.
Although he said that he sent the application, we have heard that your department did not receive any applications from our community.
So, we want clarification as to what has happened to the application.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, we now have the applications.
I don’t have any further responses to that question.
Our department didn’t have a copy of the application, but I can look or do a follow-up to find out where it had gone.
We now have the second application and that application is going to be kept in our files so that once there is funding for recreation, the application will still be considered.
To this date, for this fiscal year, that funding has been depleted.
Can we get a clarification of who received the second call?
Speaker (interpretation): Hon. Louis Tapardjuk.  Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Although I don’t have that information in front of me, I think I understand.
I think he is asking me who was given some funding assistance. Is that correct?
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to get a clarification as to who received the second call for capital projects after the minister had tabled the information.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Hon. Louis Tapardjuk.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I don’t have the information for the second call and as to who was given some funding at the first call, but I can inform the member through a letter as to who was given financial assistance for they are now confidential.
Question 087 – 2(2): Conditional Sentences/Mental Health Assessments
Mr. Barnabas: My question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Earlier, in my member’s statement, I said that I would ask questions to the minister on the conditions judges apply to offenders.
The main concerns that my constituents have is when a judge orders an offender to seek counselling from a mental health worker; in most small communities there are no mental health workers.
Are judges aware of what services can be provided in the smaller communities and are they kept informed on the availability of these services?
There have been a lot of expenses incurred by justice on mental health assessments.
To my knowledge, we have had to get a supplementary appropriation last year just to handle mental health assessments, court-ordered assessments.
So, it is something that we have been working on, and hopefully we can work something out with Health so that we can make it a bit more affordable for all of our communities in Nunavut.
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. Barnabas.  Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What alternatives does the department offer if no mental health worker is available in the community?
The Department of Health and Social Services will be working with our department on how we can make mental health workers more available in the communities.
The department of health is now working towards closer-to-home treatments and through that we are able to use telehealth.
We have used telehealth to provide mental health services, according to my knowledge.
Therefore, we will have to work further on this.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the minister for giving me a response and clarification.
Some individuals would like to be counseled face to face, and in the smaller communities that I represent, mental health workers have not gone into the communities.
I was wondering why mental health workers have not visited those communities.
I’ll have to work closely with the Department of Health and Social Services, for that department is more responsible for this.
So, I could look into that issue.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Oral questions. Mr. Peterson.
Question 088 – 2(2): Update on Qulliq Energy Corporation's Corporate Controls
My question is for the minister responsible for the Energy Corporation.
The Auditor General of Canada told the standing committee last summer that QEC was in bad shape financially.
I’ve got 1,000 pages of minutes to that effect on the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
Our standing committee concluded, among other things, that the Qulliq Energy Corporation was poorly managed and that huge inefficiencies exist in management, accounting, billing, and general operating systems.
I would like to ask a question to the minister.
The Auditor General’s audit took place in 2003.
Can the minister tell us what, in terms of financial controls, needs to be instituted in order to improve the financial health of QEC since 2003?
The Auditor General’s report for 2003, and the member is correct, was brought forward, and we got a draft copy of it, I believe, in the spring of this year, 2004, and it reflected the previous 12 months which, now, is 16 months ago.
In that time many of the recommendations that were made by the Auditor General of Canada have been implemented.
A good example is the Crown Agency Council that reviews all Crown agencies of the government.
Mr. Speaker, extra accountants and financial administration people were hired by the Corporation, the Corporation adopted the excluded handbook for employees to bring those costs in line with the Government of Nunavut, and there are many other similar occurrences that have occurred on that file since the audit.
Two years ago when I was mayor at the hamlet of Cambridge Bay, the Power Corporation tried to invoice hamlets for under-billed charges, due to incompetence from previous fiscal years.
We flat-out refused to pay those bills.
Would the minister explain to the House if this practice is still occurring, the practice of invoicing customers for services that QEC forgot to invoice, stretching back for one or two previous fiscal years?
As of April, 2004, a new billing system was put into place by the corporation to deal with the issues around the late billings and so on that the member has talked about.  So, it is my understanding from the corporation that the new billing service that was put into place in April of 2004 has had the desired effect.
I hope that helps clarify the question to the member.
It helps clarify a little bit, but most of the customers in my riding have been receiving form letters from Qulliq Energy Corporation in the past month.
It’s right here.
I’d read the whole thing but it’s a bit long.
It’s telling them that Qulliq Energy Corporation has under-billed them on base charges for years.
The base charges are $40 per meter and the period of under-billing goes back at least 17 months, maybe longer.
Some commercial customers, including the local housing organizations, have been asked to pay up to $15,000 for under-billings, and that effect could be in the millions, depending on if it’s just in Cambridge Bay or right across Nunavut.
So, my question for the minister is how many commercial customers and meters in Nunavut are affected by this under-billing?
The member has raised some interesting observations from the hamlet of Cambridge Bay.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the member to provide a copy of that to me, as the minister, so that we can actually follow it up.
I’m not aware of how many cases of this type of billing occurred.
My understanding is that the corporation issues thousands of invoices on a monthly basis, and the billing service that they put in place in April has been having the desired effect.
But at the same time, I’m sure that there’s room for improvement, so if the member would make the information known to me... . If he wants to table it or whatever, I would be able to follow up directly with the corporation and see what the issue is.
When we look at the issue around the housing corporation and the housing associations, as the member knows, almost 80 percent of all the revenue generated from those organizations comes directly from the Government of Nunavut, and it’s millions of dollars that are under-collected, then a majority, 80 percent, of the cases, would probably be the Government of Nunavut having to pay it.
So, that has issues for us as a government, not only on the customer side but on the accounts payable side.
I will table this letter for the information of the House later today.
Most of the commercial customers in my riding of Cambridge Bay are what we call “triple A.” They pay their bills every month, or when they get the bills.
So, you can imagine the surprise to get a letter saying you owe another $15,000.
My question for the minister is: what plans does the QEC have to penalize commercial customers in my riding and elsewhere in Nunavut if they refuse to pay the other billings that are a result of a system failure as described in the letter.
There are different remedies available under contractual law that are in place not only for the member’s riding, but for the residents of Nunavut.
I would assume that the issue would be dealt with by the board of directors, and they would have to look at each individual case.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I don’t have a copy of the letter so it’s very difficult for me to speak to that comment.
In general terms, I can say that if the corporation has failed to collect over a period of time and that money is owed, then the corporation will expect to receive that money.
It’s no different than if you owe X number of dollars for a service, such as your cable bill, and you haven’t been billed for it for six months and then you receive a bill: if you were receiving the service, you would be expected to pay.
That type of contractual obligation is in place in the law, so I would expect that the corporation, the board of directors, would look at the issue, administratively as well as logistically and financially, to see what is the best course of action.
I’m not in a position at this time to second guess what their action would be.
Question 089 – 2(2): Status of Recommendations in Ikuma I and II Reports
We would like to have clarification on Ikuma 1 and Ikuma II. I’m sure that the minister has read both of these reports, but I don’t understand what’s happening here.
I’m sure that a team of consultants wrote these reports.
My question is: are all the recommendations in these two reports approved by the cabinet?
A lot of effort and work went into the project called Ikuma 1and Ikuma II, which was to look at energy-related areas for the Government of Nunavut, the latest foundation, as it were, or where we were going to move after division of the corporation.
Mr. Speaker, some of the recommendations from that Ikuma 1 report followed up into Ikuma II, which was to come forward with an affordable energy fund and some other issues including the setting up of the Qulliq Energy Corporation and it’s subsidiary company, the Nunavut Power Corporation, as well as the Qulliq Fuel Corporation.
The Ikuma II report, Mr. Speaker, lays out pretty well the situation on what we are paying for energy in Nunavut.
So for example, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Ikuma II report, which was tabled almost two years ago in the Legislative Assembly, points out that over $120 million, at that time almost 25 percent of the total budget of Nunavut, went in the direction of providing fuel- and energy-cost related matters to the Government of Nunavut.
That is a huge sum of money.
Ikuma II pointed out some economies of scale, some initiatives that would be available to take care of the issues around the energy matter.
So, for example, bringing forth the QEC, looking at the integration of the Qulliq Fuel Corporation, that is, taking POL and putting it into a separate corporation, and making what the real cost of energy is in Nunavut visible to the communities.
I haven’t got a response to the question that I posed to the minister.
There are quite a lot of recommendations in these reports.
Were they just tabled here, or were they approved by the government to make sure that all these recommendations are implemented and not to worry about the cost?
My question is: have these recommendations been approved by the cabinet?
The recommendations were filed within the report.
The report itself was approved by the cabinet and the minister responsible at the time, me, when they tabled it, coming from the minister, which would have been the government.
But there were recommendations within the report itself.
We had tabled the report, the report was endorsed by the cabinet, and I mentioned some of the recommendations: the affordable energy fund that we are working on, the Qulliq Fuel Corporation, and so on; these were recommendations from the report that had been adopted and followed through by the government.
So, in that sense, the report was tabled by the government and was a report of the government.
It appears that the minister, when the matter of Ikuma II recommendation comes in, would just shut his eyes and put his finger on a particular part and say, “Oh, this one, this particular part does apply.”
It appears to be that way with respect to Kivalliq region, because the report does strongly recommend that the fuel and dry cargo not be split, due to the fact that there is limited business operating for the suppliers.
So my question is this: will the minister recommit himself, as a minister responsible for the major consumer, Nunavut Power Corporation, that the fuel contract be aligned and returned to dry cargo within the Kivalliq?
As I said earlier, the two reports were quite weighty volumes; I see the member has been holding the two reports up.
There were recommendations within the report.
The contract for fuel that was at length for the Kivalliq was done through government process.
There are some economies of scale, as the member has talked about.