EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would like to ask him to explain what the levels were here in Iqaluit for government contracts.
There were a number of different contracts, bigger projects here in Iqaluit depending on the number of those projects and the size of those projects.
There have been impacts on the requirements under the Inuit employment plan.
So, there have been some effects on the type of projects and the types of projects that were being undertaken.
Speaker (interpretation): Your supplementary, Mr. Tootoo.
I will use a specific example of a contract that is out there right now.
I noticed that there was a request for proposals or a tender out for tenant improvement for a new building down behind the Iqaluit Housing Authority.
I understand that the requirement for Inuit employment under that contract is 25 percent.
I am just wondering if the minister can say if that is normal, 25 percent, or is it usually higher for that type of contract.
As I indicated, I have seen requirements much higher than 25 percent.
I will just give an example. In the community, if there is no other construction taking place except for one or two projects, that will indicate already that there are a lot more Inuit in the community that can possibly take advantage of the employment opportunities and thus the Inuit employment numbers will be increased. I was looking at the availability of Inuit employees.
And on to the specific contract that my colleague is referring to, I would have to check on the circumstances surrounding the setting of the Inuit employment plan numbers at 25 percent on that contract.
I know that tender is out right now and the minister has indicated, depending on the number of projects that are going on the community, the availability of work would determine what the levels of Inuit employment should be, given the timing of this tender that is out right now on this contract.
If all the other projects that are going on in communities are shut down for the year… .
So, I am just wondering if you are going to look into that and determine exactly how and why only a 25 percent target was set for that particular contract.
It’s a point well taken.
I will definitely look at the reasons for it being set at 25 percent but I’ll also look into at the same time, if it is because of commitments of possible employees that may not have been able to take advantage of this project.
I totally agree with the member and I will, in my consultation with staff, get the reasoning behind that.
Member for Uqqummiut, Mr. Arreak.
Question 167 – 2(2): Seal Skin Prices for Harvesters
As he stated earlier in regards to seal skin prices that people are buying more seal skins and the harvesters who sell seal skins are quite happy about that, I would like to ask the minister about how he indicated the average price was $70 per skin. Some of them might be even higher or lower.
I would like to ask him how much the harvesters will be paid when they send out their seal skins.
When we first started selling sealskins we would see small increases in the prices they received at auction.
At that time, prices were around $30 per skin.
In recent years, those prices have increased and we have increased the first payment to hunters.
In the past year they reached $40, $50, $60 with the minimum price being $30.
The price differences are based on the quality of the skins which currently ranges between $30 and $60.
Speaker (interpretation): First supplementary, Mr. Arreak.
I’m sorry; maybe he didn’t understand my question.
Usually, $60 is the maximum that is paid out to the harvesters.
Will the harvesters be paid more than $60?
The auction prices vary from year to year.
The December 2004 auction prices were the highest since we started selling sealskins.
Looking at the next year, we can’t really predict how much buyers will pay at the auction in North Bay but if it keeps going up, we would have to review how we as a government can make this more beneficial to the harvesters.
For example, down the road if prices keep going up, we could look at a $10 per skin increase.
In some years, we lose money and we have to dip into our revolving fund.
Maybe in the New Year depending how it goes, we can re-examine the situation.
Speaker (interpretation): Second supplementary, Mr. Arreak.
Presently, when harvesters sell seal skins they get paid right on the spot.
Should they be expecting an increase in the future?
They will be expecting a $10 a skin increase as a second payment but like I said, we will be looking into the payment grid further, depending on how well they do in the auctions this year.
If they are bought for a higher price in North Bay, then we would look at raising prices in the foreseeable future.
Harp sealskins are not presently being bought.
Will they start buying harp sealskins?
If we can get good quality sealskins, I am pretty sure that we would promote to the buyers.
In Greenland, they deal a lot with harp sealskins but in Nunavut, people are more in demand of ringed sealskins.
So, we will have to check into the buying of harp sealskins.
The Department of Environment will keep marketing and promoting the selling of skins at higher prices especially when it benefits Inuit in Nunavut.
Question 168 – 2(2): Client Travel Policy
I indicated that I was going to address the Minister of Health and Social Services.
Back in November, the minister indicated that she would direct her staff in regard to escorts for people who have to go on medical evacuations.
Has this been looked into by the minister?
In regard to his question yes, all of the health centers have been given policies directly on the matter of people leaving to go to hospitals.
Can the minister provide an update on what specific activities her department has done to date to clearly explain the client travel policy to Nunavutmiut?
There have been brochures and pamphlets made available throughout Nunavut and at all of the health centers.
Can the minister direct her staff to inform especially my constituents in Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk, because I am sure there are a lot of people who want clarification?
I wonder if she can direct her staff to go into those communities and explain this policy.
Yes, I can check into this and see how our department can assist the communities of Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk.
The Member for Hudson Bay, Mr. Kattuk.
Question 169 – 2(2): Update on Polar Bear Quota in Sanikiluaq
I will be directing my question to the Minister of Environment in regard to the polar bear memorandum of understanding that was signed by the minister and Nunavut Tunngavik.
In my riding, there has been no change in the polar bear quota.
I had a meeting with the hunters and trappers organizations in January.
The minister at that time said that he will look at the situation in Sanikiluaq.
Could the minister give us an update on what is happening with this issue?
The issue of polar bears is very important in Nunavut.
There was some agreement as well as disagreement with the decision that was made by the government. Then again, we can’t please everyone at the same time.
There have been a few communities that are still waiting to see some kind of improvement in their communities.
In regards to Sanikiluaq, the government will have to have a meeting with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board who we work with on the issue of polar bears.
On the issue of polar bear quotas, we will have to look at zones that are set for Nunavut.
But, I would like to tell the member that I will be having a meeting on this issue at the earliest possible date.
Speaker (interpretation): First supplementary, Mr. Kattuk.
On the quota that has been proposed around the Hudson Bay area, could the minister tell me when that is going to take place?
I don’t have it in front of me, but I will inform the member when we are going to conduct the polar bear population study in that area.
Once I have the information, I will get together with the member.
He has taken the question as notice.
Question 170 – 2(2): Fuel Stabilization Rider Increase
My question is for the minister responsible for keeping our lights on, the Minister of Energy.
Earlier in the minister’s response to my colleague’s question about the rider being affected, that is going to kick into place, and that was in reference to the fuel stabilization rider.
Does the minister have any idea what and how many dollars are going to be needed for the other stabilization rider that was also approved by the government?
The Utility Rates Review Council did recommend and accept the process for two riders for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, one being the capital stabilization rider and then the fuel stabilization rider.
We have asked the Qulliq Energy Corporation to come back within 90 days with the proposal on the capital stabilization rider so I don’t know at this time, what that amount is or what the proposal is.
So we have to wait to receive that.
Again, they’ve been given a very tight timeframe to do that based on the URRC recommendations.
Maybe the minister should get a hold of the capital plan that he said he would provide to the House earlier this week. That might give us an indication of how much the corporation is going to need for capital for the year.
Is he indicating that they don’t know how much capital requirement that they’re going to be looking for in the next year?
The capital stabilization rider is to compensate for the higher costs.
Right now, we have community-based rates in Nunavut.
I gave the example because that’s the last plant we’ve actually built, also with the Baker Lake one but Clyde River is a good example.
We built a brand new plant. It cost $4 million.
Under community-based rates, the people of Clyde River are supposed to pay the costs of that $4 million plant.
The URRC reviewed that and said that is not equitable, it is not fair.
You can’t expect a small customer base in Clyde River, over 20 years on an amortization scale to pay back that $4 million.
So, they said one way of accomplishing the same thing is to have a capital rider in place. What form that takes we will know within the next 90 days.
If there is a new plant being built and if that rider is applied, it would be applied in a pot of funds that would be drawn down by the corporation for these types of capital expenditures so that you would not have rate shock in a given community.
So Pond or Clyde River or Coral or any of the small communities wouldn’t have to pay the full costs of capital improvements in their community.
That’s a good news story for Nunavut especially in our smaller communities.
The capital plan that is being approached right now has already been budgeted for in the budget of the corporation.
The member just said the minister said earlier this week that I would make the capital budget available to the House.
I said it yesterday.
So, they’re actually getting that information right now and I would hope to be in the position in the next 48 hours to table that in the House as requested.
I won’t argue with the minister saying that it is a good news story and I would like to thank him again for the wonderful story on how it is supposed to work.
What I was asking for is, the minister doesn’t have an idea, and the corporation doesn’t have an idea how much capital they are going to be spending this year.
Thus, they should know how much money they’re going to need to come up with in that rider to cover off that capital.
He says it’s been approved already.
If it’s been approved already, they should know what they’re going to need.
So again, I ask the minister, how much money the corporation is going to need to come up with that rider, and how much are consumers going to be asked to pay for that?
When I said that the amounts have been approved, the capital expenditures for the corporation and the budget for the corporation have to be approved by the board of directors of the corporation.
They met last week. I believe it was here in Iqaluit.
They approved the upcoming budget for 2005-06, which includes of course, a capital component.
So, that’s why the amount was approved.
I don’t have the amount with the exact dollar values here. That is why I won’t be saying what they are but, I will make the capital budget and everything available to the members.
I would like to thank the minister for clarifying that they do know how much capital they are planning on spending next year.
Aside from providing the capital plans of the corporation, can the minister provide us with the information on how much consumers are going to be expected to pay on this rider, to cover off the capital that the board has already approved for the next fiscal year?
No, I can’t, because that process, the 90 day process that we just talked about that the Utility Rates Review Council recommended… .
So, we have within 90 days to come back down to me with what that capital rider should be and what the percentages would be and what the amounts would be.
So when that information comes back to me, that information will be made public.
The member for Rankin Inlet North, Mr. Curley.
Question 171 – 2(2): Funding to Qulliq Energy Corporation
Since yesterday’s announcement on the Qulliq Energy Corporation subsidy, the government over and above the Utility Rates Review Council has stated that they would make it available.
I would like to ask the minister for the Financial Management Board about a supplementary appropriation of $22 million.
This $22 million will be given to the Petroleum Products Division.
If it is going to be handed to the PPD, how is the government going to get that money back?
Yes, I did announce yesterday that an additional contribution of $22 million will be made available to the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
As in the past, I have explained that we have made contributions to the Qulliq Energy Corporation in lieu of the fuel rider.
The funding that has been distributed to the Qulliq Energy Corporation has been in the form of a contribution agreement and every single month the fuel corporation is required to produce the bills to receive that funding.
So once we have those financial records, we then distribute the funding on a monthly basis to the corporation.
I am not fully sure whether the public is fully aware that the Qulliq Energy Corporation is to be annually given a grant of some kind, whenever they appear to be having a shortfall in some areas.
What I understand is the $22 million is to be transferred from one account of the Government of Nunavut to another account.
I assumed that would be the PPD revolving fund.
Revolving funds are guided by the legislation of Nunavut, and the funds that the PPD revolving funds are to be recovered through the sales and so on.
How is the Qulliq Energy Corporation going to pay for this $22 million?
I think it is well known by all members that the Qulliq Energy Corporation has not been able to generate revenues for the corporation the last two years and in order to proceed with the rate process, we needed financial statements, at least of actual costs of operating a power corporation in Nunavut.
Prior to that, the corporation was a Northwest Territories operated organization.
So, the two years that it took for them to produce their statements, it was evident that they were short of funding because their rates were not actually reflective of the costs to operate a power corporation.
Having said that, they have not been able to pay for their fuel and we have been paying funding to the corporation in lieu of the fuel rider, repaying that to the Qulliq Energy Corporation and then Qulliq Energy Corporation would then pay the funding to Petroleum Products Division.
My understanding is that the Petroleum Products Division revolving fund is capped at $110 million to pay for the re-supply requirements from every public whether it would be Dick and Jane, and whatnot and what have you, including the aviation fuel and so on.
Is the $22 million additional funds for Petroleum Products Division… . So, that would mean, in my estimation that would raise the amount of $110 million to $132 million?
The supplementary appropriation that would be going forward, the $22 million, will outline the breakdown on how that distribution will be made.
The current information I have on that breakdown is that there are outstanding payments that the Qulliq Energy Corporation is required to pay from previous years. They haven’t paid the Petroleum Products Division fund.
There’s also some funding available for the necessary capital and additional costs of fuel in the last year.
So, it has been some previous expenses, and that information in more detail, will be available in the House in the supplementary appropriation bill.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation ends) It doesn’t seem how this $22 million is going to be paid, is going from the Financial Management Board to Petroleum Products Division.
What about the $110 million revolving fund that will have to be paid back by legislation so Qulliq Energy Corporation is not going to be returning this $22 million, then? (interpretation ends) We have to pay the supplier and the retailer.
Again, the funding will be paid to Qulliq Energy Corporation to pay the Petroleum Products Division funds.
Question 172 – 2(2): Assistance for Fish Plant in Chesterfield Inlet
In Chesterfield Inlet, there is a very small fish plant where they can catch fish up to 100,000 pounds but it has to go through the Rankin Inlet food processing plant.
The Rankin Inlet food processing plant can only receive 10,000 pounds and that 10,000 pound capacity is filled right away.
Can the minister give some assistance to the Hunters and Trappers Organization when they fill the capacity to 10,000 pounds, perhaps by sending the fish to Winnipeg or to Yellowknife if you can find interested customers?
Perhaps the minister is willing to assist the Chesterfield Inlet residents that way.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For his question, within the year we will complete the fisheries strategy policy. We are now working on that.
We are strategizing on how we can give more support to the communities in regard to fish plants so that there could be more economic opportunities for our people. But, we have to abide by federal regulations when it comes to dealing with food such as arctic char. We have to follow their regulations and we will have to carefully review these regulations and abide by their policies.
On fisheries diversification, I am sure this is going to assist our people once the estimates have been dealt with. There will be more assistance made available.
Right now, we want to work to develop fisheries.
When we were down in Boston, they were able to purchase approximately 5,000 pounds of fish.
So, we are going to market our fish in the United States when we can.
The HTO in Chesterfield Inlet, perhaps you can visit them and work with them because they have to be involved.
The Keewatin region has to be involved.
Yes, all the communities I am sure, would like to sell their arctic char if they can find the market, and improve their marketing of arctic char.
But we face challenges as we progress and develop the fisheries.
Question 173 – 2(2): Infrastructure Funding from the Federal Government
My question is for the Minister of Community Government and Services concerning infrastructure funding.
In a news release a few weeks ago, under a new deal with Canada, the minister announced that Nunavut will receive $37.5 million for 5 years.
The minister indicated in our November sitting that he will be seeking 1 percent or 1.5 percent under the new deal.
My question for the minister: $37.5 million is .75 percent; can the minister tell the House why he was unsuccessful in getting 1 to 1.5 percent?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: I can tell you right now Mr. Speaker that it was not due to lack on our part.
This was a joint effort with the federal government with the two other territories.
He is correct when the member uses the 1.5 figure, which was used by the federal government, to give out for the territories.
So, in discussions with Infrastructure Canada, at the end of the day .75 was even higher from some of the figures that we were hearing from them in the consultation process.
I can assure the House and the member that we had lobbied for 1.5 percent which would have seen $80 million over the first five years.
But, being unsuccessful was a result of other pressures from other jurisdictions and provinces.
That should highlight the problems we’re always going to have in Nunavut when we are looking for money from the federal government.
We’re competing with 2,000 other agencies, provinces, and territories for a limited amount of money.
It is no secret that Nunavut has a municipal infrastructure deficit that clearly needs $300 million.
Being in the Arctic, extreme weather conditions age infrastructure a lot faster than down south.
We need the money now and not in five years.
I am wondering how the minister will make $37.5 million for five years stretch to make a dent in our $300 million infrastructure crisis.
I should go into a little bit more detail as to what will follow after the first five years of the gas tax funding that we will receive from the federal government.
It is during the first five years, $37.5 million which will be allocated to Nunavut.
However, after the five years, each year until the program is cut off; we’re looking at an additional $15 million annually.
And that’s been a commitment by the federal government.
I would like to thank the minister for that explanation.
I did read that there is $15 million a year after five years, but that leads to my next question.
The new deal is back loaded.
We get less upfront. It’s like mutual funds.
There, you pay less up front and get more at the back.
What we get now is targeted at environmental infrastructure, but we know a lot of our infrastructure is not environmental.
We have community halls, ice arenas, airports, and other infrastructure so I’m wondering if the minister could tell the House where he’ll find the infrastructure funds for these other municipal infrastructure requirements.
In just trying to be too specific to the specific question, you don’t really get a chance to explain the other undertakings.
I’m glad to report that at this time, the MRIF and SIP programs are also being negotiated with the federal government.
And, as the member knows, these programs have been used very well by Nunavutmiut and received very well by Nunavutmiut.
So, we have other negotiations on top of the gas tax money.
I’m aware of those other programs and I’m aware that they can be cancelled at any time.
Reading some of the New Deal information, it’s a grant based program.
So, it could be there for five years, or it could be there for two years; we don’t know if the funding will be there for ever.
So, can the minister guarantee us, the House, today, that the federal government is going to give us this $37.5 million over five years and that the $15 million that they promised per year after that will continue to be received by the Government of Nunavut for our aging infrastructure?
The gas tax money for the first five years being at $37.5 million, and the additional $15 million annually thereafter, is a commitment by the federal government to the territory.
It is one that I’ve been assured which, as we heard, was mentioned in the federal government’s budget speech.
Those are committed dollars for those years and the $15 million annually.
On the other shorter programs that we’ve been successful in negotiating with the federal government because those are geared more towards a certain number of years and for certain types of projects, I cannot guarantee that at the conclusion of the program we will have that funding committed to us by the federal government.
However, I will assure the member that my department and I will pursue negotiating these contracts to try and lower the Nunavut infrastructure deficit that we find ourselves in today.
Question 174 – 2(2): Size of Sealskins
In regard to the environment minister’s statement: the second payment for sealskins, how large does the seal skin have to be?
The member is asking some questions that I don’t really know how to answer.
The HTO’s in the communities purchase sealskins and set their prices on the size of the skins and the quality of the skin.
That’s what they go by.