EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that voluntary groups and non-profit societies are the key to operating successful and credible programs in Health & Social Services in our communities.
There is no way the services they offer would be done as effectively or efficiently by government departments, yet many dedicated community groups seem to be in a perpetual state of financial anxiety.
Our homeless shelter in Iqaluit is feeling extreme pressures with the surge of population growth in Iqaluit.
They seem to be suffering from one financial crisis after another.
Our women’s shelter too is facing tremendous pressures.
I want to commend another strong, new community organization, which has been established this past year and is now meeting some important community needs in Iqaluit.
The John Howard Society have been instrumental in re-opening the Sailivik Centre, they have established a breakfast and lunch program for kids and adults and they provide opportunities for people to do community service, fine options and alternatives to jail.
Fortunately, organizations like the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation and NTI are expressing their concern and their social conscience.
They are backing up their concerns with dollars and other forms of real support.
I think we should welcome these partnerships with Inuit Organizations.
The Baffin Larga facility in Ottawa was a major commitment of QC and Nunasi in providing greatly improved services for Baffin residents who must travel to Ottawa for medical care.
I am pleased to see that we are finally making progress in getting Baffin residents access to this excellent facility which I had the opportunity to visit last year.
I was pleased that the regular members worked together during our session to emphasize to our Minister of Health & Social Services and to the people of Nunavut the importance of taking a holistic community based approach to addictions.
We must see alcohol, drug and substance abuse as symptoms of the need for healing and wellness.
They cannot be treated in isolation, they must be dealt with in the context of the whole person.
We must take immediate steps to develop integrated community based programs building on the strengths we already have in our communities, committed, caring people who are from the community and who are often in the best position of all to help their peers.
We know what does not work.
We understand why it was necessary to close the only alcohol and drug treatment centre in Nunavut.
Now we have to design programs which work for the immediate needs of our people.
The need to do things differently.
Mr. Speaker, a word about my home community of Iqaluit.
Our community is dealing with the pressures of rapid growth and change.
We are also doing our best to meet our responsibilities as the Capital of Nunavut.
I see our Town Council is dealing with this crushing burden.
It seems like a number of serious issues are facing our community all at once.
I think that in the run up to division the GNWT put off dealing with a number of crucial issues in our community.
The sewage, water, land development should have all been in hand.
Now Council is working very hard to deal with these tough issues like the utilidor hook up costs in the lower base which are effecting some of my constituents.
These issues, like those in other communities are arising at a time when we don’t seem to have as much public money as we had in the past.
The cost of living is rising at every turn.
We can’t cut services further without real risks to people.
There are no immediate prospects for new revenue from Ottawa.
Our developing economy can’t afford tax increases.
I think the only thing we can do is ask some hard questions about the way that we do business as a government.
Are government departments as efficient as they might be.
Can the service departments of our government be organized differently.
Can we find ways to do things differently so as to be more effective and efficient.
Can we manage our human resources in a way which promotes more productivity and improved morale.
Can we make better use of our abundant natural resources to create employment and wealth in our communities.
Can we identify fundamental values of Inuit and apply those values to make our new government different.
Can our government change so that it can adapt and survive in a harsh physical climate, the way Inuit adapted and survived for thousands of years in an unforgiving Arctic environment.
As we focus last on the transition from the NWT and look to the future of Nunavut, the Cabinet under the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Finance will be asked these fundamental questions.
The Bathurst Inlet mandate sets out important goals and objectives, its fundamental task is to put people first in examining whether there are ways of doing things differently.
I urge our Cabinet to be creative and innovative.
Question the old approaches.
Question the old models.
Question the old way of doing things.
I know that the Standing Committees of this Legislative Assembly are resources Cabinet can rely on.
Provided you approach us in a spirit of partnership, open communication and mutual respect.
If we are to put flesh to the bones of the Bathurst Inlet mandate, we have to first ensure that we are as efficient and effective as we can be.
This can only be done by re-examining and if necessary, challenging every assumption that has gone into the design and operation of our new government.
Now as we approach the end of the first year of our new government, it is time to ask these tough questions, which I think need to be asked.
In closing Mr. Speaker, I wish to say in reply to the Throne Speech, that the Bathurst Inlet mandate contains many noble goals and commitments.
Since the vision we have had time to settle in, time to get on our feet as a new government.
Now we have to take the Bathurst Inlet mandate and make it real.
The time for talk is over, we need action, now we have to get to work. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Item 12. Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills.
Tabled Document 33 - 1(3): Inuit Employment Statistics
I would like to table a report of statistics for the Inuit Employment Strategy.
There have been quite a lot of people in Nunavut questioned.
We have 6,299 who were asked in the whole of Nunavut.
This is a compilation of that information. There are unemployment rates and which communities have the most unemployment. There are statistics compiled in this report, and we have learned that there was approximately 20.5% unemployment in 1999 compared to 23.9% previously.
This report has very good information, with all the statistics provided in regard to employment and unemployment in the Nunavut communities.
Tabled Document 34 - 1(3): Baffin Leaders Summit Resolutions
Mr. Speaker, these are resolutions, 23 resolutions that were tabled at the Baffin Regional Summit that was held in my community.
Tabled Document 35 - 1(3): List of Consultants
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the listing of government consultants contracted between April 1, 1999 and October 31, 1999.
Continuing tabling of documents.
Tabled Document 36 - 1(3): Inuit Employment Plan
Tabled Document 37 - 1(3): Towards a Representative Public Service
Mr. Ng: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to table two documents Mr. Speaker.
First is the Inuit Employment Plan. The IEP will serve as a plan that will give the Government of Nunavut guidance in its efforts to enhance Inuit employment.
The second document I would like to table Mr. Speaker, is a document entitled “Towards a Representative Public Service”. This is the staffing statistics as of January 4, 2000 for the Government of Nunavut and its boards and agencies.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Ng. Tabling of documents.
Item 14. Notices of motions.
Item 15.
Notices of motions for first reading of bills. Notices of motions for first reading of bills.
Item 17. First reading of bills.
Item 18. Second reading of bills.
Item 19. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters.
Minister's Statements 50-1(3), 51-1(3).
Tabled documents 24-1(3), 25-1(3), 26-1(3) with Mr. Puqiqnak in the chair.
For correction of Hansard, Tabled Document 27-1(3).
Sargent at Arms.
Chairperson (Mr. Puqiqnak) (interpretation): Good afternoon all of you who are getting homesick and thinking of home.
We are going to be going into committee of the whole.
We discussed Minister’s statements, 50-1(3).
Fuel price increases.
Did you want to go ahead with the discussion.
I didn’t hear you.
Did you want to go ahead with the fuel price increase debate.
Comments to the discussion at hand.
Mr. Chairman, maybe in this discussion we would ask if the Minister responsible for Petroleum Products would like to take the witness table with her staff for further questions.
Chairman (interpretation): You are a little bit ahead Mr. Tootoo.
Madame Minister and her officials can go up to the witness table at this time.
Welcome to the committee of the whole.
We would like you to introduce your officials.
The person beside me is Roy Green with finance, or who deals with finance and is very knowledgeable about fuel issues.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Ms. Thompson.
Any questions.
Mr. Chairman, if we could kind of pick up where we left off on Friday, we were talking about the Revolving Fund, or the Price Stabilisation Fund of 5 million dollars.
And, maybe if, I can’t remember if I was given the answer last week, I was just wondering if this year if we have used up to, if we have used the whole 5 million dollars or are we, have we used it all up or not.
I guess that is just the result of the differences, result in the increase in the fuel prices.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Green will be responding to the questions
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Green.
The Stabilisation Fund opening balance was 2.2 with a forecast for 11 months. For the year-to-date we’re still living within the 5 million dollar limit.
At this point in time it looks like the balance should be around 4.5 at the end of this current fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, in light of that I will just ask the Minister or Mr. Green what would happen or what will happen if the price of the world oil increases over the next year prior to us ordering our fuel for next year, if we are sitting at 4.5 million dollars right now and it is going to cost us more for next year.
Basically, then if I understand it correctly, you can correct me if I’m wrong, we have half a million dollars to play with, otherwise, the price of fuel is going to be increased again.
Mr. Green.
As part of the long term liability of PPD during the latest 5 cent increase by the financial management board, we were instructed to develop a long term strategy to have this completed by June 30, 2000, which would address the long term plans for fuel price adjustments.
So, we are in the process now of accumulating this data so once we pull this report together we will be looking at what options are available to us.
One may be looking for some surplus revenue being placed back in the Stabilisation Fund.
Another option may be to look at the limit for the short term and I can’t say at this point in time if there would be any further recommendations for retail price increases.
But that would be part of the report that we will be submitting to the Financial Management Board regarding fuel prices.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Green.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Green for his answer.
I believe then he is saying basically looking at three options, either pay down the Revolving Fund out of some revenue or budgeted amount from the department, increase the Stabilisation Fund or increase the prices to the consumer.
Given the prices have already gone up, and again, I appreciate the fact that there hasn’t been a price increase for quite a number of years, what would be the process that would have to be followed, whatever option was chosen or looked at, what would be the process for picking or setting, if it was decided that the consumer couldn’t pay any more for fuel.
Either, one, we pay down the Stabilisation Fund to allow some more flexibility or else we increase it.
In those options, what would be the process that things would have to go through in order for that to happen.
The process used is the ministry is given recommendations then the minister informs the members. Like we said, we asked for a review to be done to decrease fuel prices and we wanted to get some input, so once the review is done, we will decide what options we are going to be using, and they would be presented to the Ministers or to the Standing Committees that I work with who would be informed.
Mr. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Minister.
I guess as I stated on Friday, I don’t know if the Stabilisation Fund is, I think you mentioned last week, was something that was set within the budget and approved by this Legislative Assembly, and I would imagine any money, either of those options involve money, so those would then have to come through the Standing Committee into the House either in a budget or in a supplementary appropriation.
I am wondering if there would be a process set up in the event that we ran into this time around, when it comes next time around, next year or the year after, where all of a sudden we have a big increase in fuel prices right around the time when we have to buy our fuel, that either a supplementary appropriation or something would have to be done for approval at that time.
I am just wondering if that would be the process that would have to be followed on that, that it would come here for our approval.
Mr. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Tootoo.
The process that is in place now for fuel price increases, the recommendation is done by the finance department in Petroleum Products, and what we do then is we send the analysis along with our recommendations to the Minister’s department, to approve or come back to us for some alternative action.
If the Minister is in agreement with the proposal that has been submitted by the Petroleum Products, then we had the decision whether to increase, approve the recommendation or otherwise they could reject it.
But basically that’s the process that we are using now.
The only thing different about this report is that this report is being prepared for the Financial Management Board and this report will cover what we think needs to be done for the long term, not necessarily in the short term.
Unfortunately at this point in time there is not a whole lot that we can do in terms of the re-supply simply because 90% of our budget is for, I’m sorry 80% of our budget is for transportation costs and the cost of fuel, the other 11% is for the fuel delivery contractors to provide the fuel on behalf of petroleum products and those contracts don’t expire, for the transportation contract it doesn’t expire until October 15th, 2001.
The commissions that we pay for the fuel delivery contracts don’t expire until August 31st, 2001.
So basically we have no control over those cost components.
The remaining 9% is basically the operating and maintenance expense, which include the repair and maintenance to the tank farms plus the evaporation …. But we do want to look at this long term strategy and we will probably be looking at something that extends beyond those contracts and see what we can do in the long term to try and get the price of the fuel down because we realize the economic implications that those prices are having on the various consumer groups.
The members are aware, but I would just like to clarify that we are dealing with 51 - 1(3), fuel price increases, Minister’s Statement.
Just so that we could proceed smoothly.
Mr. Chairman, if that’s the process and I understand it’s in the works, if we are looking at options that do effect the price that consumers pay, if the Minister will commit to doing some consultation with the public, the people that have to pay that increase prior to anything being submitted for final approval to Cabinet.
The work that we are doing, we will be consulting with the public as we go along.
I just have a few questions, Chairman, for the Minister and her staff.
In reference to the subsidy that is looked after by the Minister’s department, it is in excess of 9 million dollars for the Petroleum Products Division.
Under commercial it indicates that there is 1.61 million dollars in subsidy under commercial.
That breaks down into jet A-1 at 425 thousand, and also AV gas at 162 thousand.
Can the minister and her staff explain this type of subsidy as to actually who it is going to and stuff.
I guess I should probably try to explain this 9.6 million dollar subsidy that has been talked about for the past week.
Basically what that 9.6 million dollars includes is the total costs of delivering the service to Nunavut.
What I should clarify here is that Petroleum Products acts through the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund Act that was established in 1972.
That fund is used to finance the inventory and the accounts receivable and this is where the O&M expenses are paid.
So it is applied through this particular fund.
PPD’s mandate is to recover all of it’s operating costs, not the full costs, not all the costs are passed through the revolving fund.
PPD’s mandate is to recover the actual product costs, the actual transportation costs, the commissions for local fuel deliveries, dispensing and delivery services, operating & maintenance, common evaporation services and taxes.
So the retail prices are based on those components and based on a 5 cent increase and the costs of those components, right now the total subsidy in that fund is 1.8 million dollars, not 9.6.
The 9.6 is not 1999/2000 figures, they are based on 1998/99 figures and they include, the 9.6 includes inventory carrying charges and it also includes the interest costs and the amortisation expense and the interest costs of the fixed assets for the tank farms.
So of that 9.6 million dollars that we’re talking about, for the last fiscal year, 9.1 million dollars of that is the fixed cost component, it is the total true costs of delivering the services to Nunavut.
So when we look at our subsidies from the revolving fund, we look at it from two angles, because the price itself is based on recovering the operating costs, not the entire cost of the program.
That was quite a long dissertation and explanation of what I was looking for, and I’m still not sure whether you answered my question or not.
Going back to the my question, in reference to talking about commercial, and I see another category in the same column under Federal Government, 196 thousand 6 hundred and 91.
Can you explain why there would be a subsidy listed under the Federal Government.
Mr. Green: Once again the subsidy….
Could you please wait until you are recognized by the Chairperson, I don’t want you to forget that.
Thank you, Mr. Green you can go ahead.
All I can tell you in terms of PPD’s mandate, our mandate is to recover the operating costs from the retail prices.
So the subsidy that you are seeing for the Federal Government includes the fixed cost components, the portion of the inventory and the finance charges plus the…those are the long term, fixed cost components that don’t enter into the pricing component.
Under the revolving fund we are not subsidising the Federal Government, those are coming from the fixed assets that factor into the pricing components and they are basically they are outside of the revolving fund.
So I am not sure if I have given you the information that you are looking for.
I will go as far as to say that I think you did.
I think you answered my question.
Another question I have in following the same line of thought here, when contracts are awarded you have indicated that at the end of 2001 all of the fuel contracts, and correct me if I’m mistaken, will terminate or come up again for renewal or for tender.
Is that what you said.
Mr. O'Brien: What is the…
Chairperson: Mr. O'Brien I have to recognize you before you speak.
Minister what is the intention of your department in reference to these contracts coming to an end.
How do you plan on tendering these out again, what process do you intend on using and furthermore are all these contracts that we speak of, are these coming to an end under normal circumstances, in other words are all these contracts up at the same time at the end of 2001, or because this is Nunavut and the new government you are starting from square 1.
How, maybe you could elaborate on exactly what this means by the tendering process and all contracts, in reference to the delivery ending in 2001.
Mr. Green: With regard to the fuel delivery contracts, I believe they were 10 year contracts and they were signed prior to division, and they expire on August 31st 2001, so all the fuel delivery contracts will have to be renegotiated.
With regard to the NTCL contract for the purchase and transportation of the fuel, that was signed in the first week of April 1999, and most of the work, and the tendering and the evaluation were all done prior to division.
Those contracts there have been RFP’s issued again to tender those contracts after they expire for the fuel delivery contractors in August 31st, 2001 and for the transportation of fuel contract that will be October 15, 2001.
Minister in reference to any of these contracts that may have had five year options for continuation, are you saying that these options may not be considered now, that we will go straight to the tendering process and, I guess my earlier question was, what competitive type of tendering do you plan on carrying out here in reference to these contracts.
There is somebody with their hand up, Mr. Arvaluk, point of privilege.
Hon. James Arvaluk: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure this is the right place to ask questions on the tendering process and some other details that can be dealt with through full caucuses and a briefing on the procedure that the Minister is presenting.
Well the questions that are being asked, because I think we are using up a lot of peoples’ time on the details of the tendering process rather than having more substance that can be asked later in the House, like in this process.
I think we should get a briefing first in the caucus before we use up the public time in those questions, I don’t know, that’s my point of privilege.
As I have stated earlier on, we are dealing with 51 - 1(3), fuel price increases and that’s what we are dealing with.
So I think each and every person has a copy of that.
I am not going to respond in detail on the Minister’s point of privilege or order, or whichever it was but I take exception to it.
I certainly don’t want to get the impression that the members from the caucus or the executive are trying to lead the questions in the question period that the members on this side of the House may want to ask.
This is why we are here.
Mr. Chairman, back to the issue, trying to get to the bottom of why we are at the prices that we see with the fuel and home heating fuel and gasoline and so on.
In reference to these contracts, it is my understanding that if Charlie Sunbeam and Associates gets a contract to deliver fuel in a community and that contract was 1 million dollars, but if somebody in another community gets the same contract to deliver the same amount of fuel to the same number of homes and that contractor, his bid is accepted at 2 million dollars, and all things being equal, that cost must be passed on to the consumer, to the homeowner, to the guy that drives his ski-doo and is having to go out and harvest.
So this is where I am coming from, if these prices vary that much it must be reflected in the cost to the consumer, which could be a local hunter, it could be anybody in the community that is paying for his own fuel.
So this is where I am coming from and I guess that was my next question.
Is that price, the price of a per litre I guess, is that price not passed on to the consumer if there is a variance in what we pay to the various contractors for delivering this fuel or do we absorb that somehow.
Mr. O'Brien, at this time I will let the people at the witness table respond to you and I will get to the other members too because they have questions and then get back to you a little later on.