EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
This concern is amplified by the uncertainty currently being experienced as a result of the federal election campaign.
As I mentioned earlier, a significant portion of the department’s budget has been allocated for paying commercial leases for the GN in 2004-05.
Over $10 million has been allocated for this purpose.
Serious concerns have been expressed in the past about issues of transparency related to the government’s leasing practices, and the committee urges the department, as a central agency, to ensure greater disclosure in this area.
It remains unclear, for example, as to whether the government will lease or buy the three new multi-million dollar health facilities in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay.
Leasing is another area in which the Auditor General has identified significant concerns regarding the government’s performance in achieving value for public money.
The government’s continued refusal to table a comprehensive list of its leased properties, including the value of the leases, is unacceptable and disturbing, considering that every penny of these leases is paid for with public money.
The committee sincerely hopes that the new Minister of Finance will demonstrate leadership in changing the way the department does business and moves towards greater transparency in government.
The committee urges the government to honour its commitment to provide its new leasing policy to members.
This commitment was made in 2003 but has not yet been honoured.
The existence of this new policy was first revealed during 2003 hearings on the Auditor General’s report.
The committee would also wish to see the government honour its past commitments to make available the Nunavut Development Corporation’s investment and divestment guidelines, and to prepare annual inventories of RFP and tender awards.
There can be no justification for keeping such information secret.
Members were pleased that the new Minister of Finance acted quickly to provide a copy of the terms of reference for the GN’s new Crown Agency Council.
Members look forward to this entity achieving progress in addressing the numerous issues that have been identified with respect to Crown corporation governance in Nunavut.
Members expect the minister to keep the House fully informed of its work.
However, members are not pleased with the government’s attitude concerning the disclosure and tabling of ministerial directives made to crown corporations.
Although the government went on the public record last year as stating that no such directives had been issued since April 1, 1999, the report of the Auditor General and the Business Credit Corporation’s own annual report prove otherwise.
These directives should not be considered secrets.
Members of the Legislative Assembly and the constituents whom we represent have a right to know what instructions ministers are issuing to Nunavut’s publicly-owned Crown corporations.
The committee is very concerned about the proposed $10 million item in the department’s budget for subsidies related to the Qulliq Energy Corporation’s fuel rider.
This single item, which receives a mere 17 words’ worth of explanation and justification in the main estimates, is itself larger than the entire budget of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Members remain unclear, for example, as to whether or not the government is fully in compliance with the law governing the role of the Utility Rate Review Council in making recommendations concerning the imposition of such rates or tariffs as a fuel rider.
Members are aware of the significant tax cuts that were considered and passed by the Legislative Assembly in 2002 and urge the department to closely monitor, and subsequently report on, their actual success in achieving such policy goals as attracting more businesses to establish operations in Nunavut.
Members also remain curious about the department’s success in determining whether the revenue collected from the Government of Nunavut’s one-percent payroll tax, which was inherited from the government of the Northwest Territories, is raised primarily from permanent residents of Nunavut or from transient workers.
Members note with interest that the department’s business plan indicates that proposals to revise the Government of Nunavut’s capital planning process have apparently been developed and that recommendations to the Financial Management Board will be made.
Given the importance of capital planning to our communities, members would wish to see the government clarify what changes are being made in this area.
In the past, members have noted with concern the apparently uncontrollable growth of information technology expenditures across government.
Members note with interest the transfer of certain functions in this area to the Department of Community and Government Services.
Members also noted with concern a 320 percent increase from 2003-04 in the Department of Finance’s budget for applications support for its financial systems.
Members are aware that the activities of the Nunavut Liquor Commission fall under the responsibility of the department, and members look forward to being made aware of the timetable for the repatriation to Nunavut of the commission’s functions, which members understand to be moving to Rankin Inlet.
Members also note with interest the relatively static projections for revenue from liquor import permits, despite changes made in 2001 to reduce their cost.
Members would be interested to learn if the department has been able to identify, in co-operation with law enforcement authorities, whether these changes have had an impact on reducing the incidence of illegal bootlegging, as a result of making legal importation less expensive for consumers.
The committee would also note with concern that although the residents of Chesterfield Inlet voted in a plebiscite, held over two years ago on January 28, 2002, to establish an alcohol education committee, the regulations to establish this body have not yet been published in the Nunavut Gazette.
I am sure individual members may raise their own questions or comments on the issues as we proceed.
I am sure you are aware that you have ten minutes for general comments.
Just a comment from the minister’s opening comments.
I do not know if it was a slip or an intentional miss, but when she was reading her opening comments, she mentioned the $10 million special fuel subsidy in the handout that we got. The minister’s comments says “…special fuel rider subsidies… .” I am just wondering if it is actually a fuel rider subsidy or a fuel subsidy.
Chairman: Ms. Minister.
It’s as presented.
Verbally or written?
Chairman: It seems to be written; could you confirm it, Ms. Minister.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Written.
We’re on page C-5, Finance grant summary.
Directorate. Total, operations and maintenance is $2,797,000. Agreed?
We’re on page C-6.
I just asked… . Under the directorate here, it indicates that the deputy minister here serves as a secretary of the Financial Management Board and as the comptroller for the Government of Nunavut.
I’m just wondering, if a request comes to the Financial Management Board for something, are there any mechanisms or things that are in place to ensure that the request has gone through the proper channels or not?
Any request that is made by any department goes through proper channels of the department, and the department reviews any submission and completes an analysis before it goes forward to the Financial Management Board.
I’d just like to ask who’s responsible for making sure that all the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed on any request.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: That’s the idea, yes.
My question was who is responsible to do it, not, is that the idea. Who is responsible to do it: is it the deputy minister or the minister-comptroller whose task is actually doing that and making sure that it is done right.
Chairman: Madam Aglukkaq.
I was responding to the earlier part of his comment.
Secretary to the Financial Management Board and the Director of Expenditure Management.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I was concerned about the same issue. I wanted to ask a question in regards to the requests that are made from your department.
My question was, who does the managing before it goes to the Financial Management Board.
When we were on the Qudliq Energy Corporation there was the fuel stabilization rider, the whole time we were reviewing it.
We have questions on the issue. The president of Nunavut Power Corporation was there and we asked, how are you going to go about it.
We were told that it would eventually be paid off by the consumers, in the amounts that were being paid by the consumers.
So, which policy or program is used?
We want to get the proper information out there so that confusion is not created. We were getting a little confused here earlier on.
Technically speaking, if it is a fuel rider, a power rider, if it is a fuel stabilization rider, and there is a request made to your department, it would have to go through the Utility Rate Review Council.
With that, we are not the ones who are confused about all of the information. It is the Department of Finance and Financial Management Board who are creating the confusion because of the way that they approve the whole thing.
We are going to be approving your budget. Is it possible for you to give us the accurate information? If you will be going through the regular or the usual process, I think we would not be confused.
I would like to ask the minister if improvements will be made on this.
The last question is if we are going to look into that.
There are a number of things that he said in his statement.
One thing I would like to follow up on is the item that he is referring to under Section C-10.
I think it has caused some confusion. It makes up into a QEC fuel stabilization rider, when it’s a bunch of subsidies, where I think that is the confusion. But, these are good questions; I am not sure he wants me to interrupt him with his last question.
It is a question to his statement, he wants. I want to ask if he can clarify that.
Mr. Curley: I am not sure whether or not the information that was regularly provided to the Financial Management Board secretariat… . When asking for $10 million, was it a fuel stabilization rider?
Maybe that will give the deputy minister of Finance some spark in his mind.
The information that went to the Financial Management Board in regards to the $10 million, it was not a fuel stabilization rider.
Mr. Curley: My second question would be then: if it was not a fuel stabilization rider as presented in your business plan and the main estimates, what was it then?
In the main estimates, as presented, the definition is correct.
The heading, “Qulliq Energy Corporation Stabilization Rider,” I think, is where the confusion is.
It is a domestic and commercial power subsidy to consumers of electricity, specific to the implementation of a fuel rider.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I will ask my question when we reach that page.
And welcome, Minister of Finance, Paul Reddy, and Mr. Vardy.
The Formula Finance Agreement seems to be a key instrument for flowing funds to the North. We have all heard about it over the years and many of us lobbied the federal government to change it and improve it.
I remember talking to the Minister of Finance one time in Ottawa, and he told me that Nunavut’s unique circumstances are being met by the Formula Financing Agreement. I disagree, as did many of the mayors of Nunavut.
I am wondering if the minister could update us on the efforts they are making to convince the government in Ottawa that the Formula Financing Agreement, as it is written, is not meeting Nunavut’s unique circumstances.
I think we all agree in this room that the current funding we receive under the formula is not meeting Nunavut’s needs.
We argue on the basis that per capita is not sufficient in addressing the shortfalls in formula funding for Nunavut.
We are in need of additional finances to address the immediate infrastructure development requirements of the territory, which I also stated in my budget address.
Generally speaking, those concerns, I think, are shared around this table.
In terms of negotiations, the member made reference to in his opening comments.
Yes, we haven’t renewed an agreement at this point.
But as it is now, we can continue to operate under that agreement until such time as we agree to a formula financing agreement.
In terms of what actually took place prior to me being appointed to this portfolio, I will ask the deputy minister to update the members on what negotiations took place prior to this year’s elections. I will pass it on to Mr. Vardy.
Chairman: Mr. Vardy.
The Formula Financing Agreement that’s in place in Nunavut is the same as is in place for the other two territories.
It was designed to allow Nunavut to continue with the same package of programs that existed previously when it was part of the Northwest Territories.
We’ve made the case on many occasions that we needed money for catch-up and start-up for all the activities required in starting up a government and also in starting up a new territory, including the building of all the infrastructure, like hospitals and transportation infrastructure that’s needed, the housing.
We’ve had some success over the course of the last five years in getting some extra dollars, but it hasn’t been enough to meet all the requirements of the territory.
We’ll continue to push for that recognition.
The federal government decides what money is transferred to each territory. It’s a tough process in making headway there, but we’ll continue pushing, as well, I am sure, as all other parties that are representing Nunavut interests.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Vardy.
I remember reading somewhere recently that we’ve been fortunate that we’ve been getting annual increases from the Formula Financing Agreement, and despite that, we’re incurring deficits.
If the formula were to work another way, in other words, give us less money every year in future years, how would that affect our finances in Nunavut?
It’s a good question, but it’s a difficult question to answer. It’s a bit hypothetical in that I can’t answer it based on what’s in place now.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that it’s a bit hypothetical. It’s a complicated formula, and it depends on a lot of variables across Canada, provincial and territorial and national variables.
But, there’s always that possibility that we could, in future years, receive less money under the Formula Financing Agreement than we’re accustomed to getting; in other words, annual increases, we could get less money.
That’s what we have to keep in mind, and that we have to lobby very hard in Ottawa with the Minister of Finance down there.
On a related subject, the per capita formula doesn’t work if we’re looking for funding for infrastructure and health.
The small population base in Nunavut and across the entire North is working against us.
I’m wondering if you could update us on your meetings; how did they go with the federal Minister of Finance in terms if convincing him that per capital doesn’t work for Nunavut?
Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Minister.
The per capita is not working, we all know that.
A dollar down south could be negative two dollars in the north in delivering a program, just as an example.
Yesterday, or this week sometime, I believe, our Premier demonstrated the efforts and the extent to which premiers in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut have gone in trying to lobby, educate, the federal bureaucracy that it does not work.
Using the health files as an example, the Premier walked out of the premier’s conference on health. This did result in some additional funding for the North.
Unfortunately, that was one file.
Currently under the formula, as it is, it is now per capita.
So, we have to continue to try and convince the federal system, along with the two other territorial ministers, that it does not work.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Minister.
I remember meeting the federal member of parliament, Paul Martin, in Whitehorse last year.
He seemed rather surprised when I told him that it costs $227 per square foot to build a house in Nunavut.
And the house didn’t have a basement.
It was much cheaper in the south.
I pointed out a few other cost factors up here that he seemed not to be aware of.
These are the kinds of numbers that these folks in Ottawa have be aware of. A dollar in Ottawa or a dollar in Edmonton is not the same as a dollar in Iqaluit or Cambridge Bay.
That is a fact of life; there is nothing we can do about that.
I am wondering if the minister could comment on when her department officials will be providing prior years’ actuals when they prepare the main estimates, so that the MLAs can compare how we did in the previous year to a projected year.
Just in terms of the comments and reference to Mr. Martin: the previous minister has met with Minister Martin, when he was finance minister, on many occasions on the issues around the funding.
Mr. Martin was also in Iqaluit to meet with the cabinet members.
Also, I believe he is well aware of some of these issues that we bring forward on a regular basis.
To answer your question, next year’s main estimate will include that information.
Anything else, Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson: On public accounts, I appreciate that you got them to us this session.
The requirement says that they have to be tabled by December 31.
I am wondering if the minister can commit that in future the public accounts will be tabled by December 31, as required by law that we created here in the Legislative Assembly.
I think it was in yesterday’s question period, I made reference to that issue, and it is reflected in the members’ comments today.
On his opening remarks, in that, we may have to look at the December deadline.
In the Auditor General’s report, on page 18, we have consistently tabled the report in May.
It has been very difficult for us to meet the December deadline, so we need to look at that.
As much as possible, we have tried to meet the December deadline, but since 1999 we have not been able to.
So, I think that is one area that we need to look into.
Perhaps it is not a realistic deadline date.
I recall the minister mentioning in the regular members caucus, when she talked to us, that there are some departments or some agencies that are rather slow in getting their financial information to the Department of Finance.
We suggested that the Department of Finance should exercise your authority and demand that this does get in, because we are getting information that is fairly late, a year later.
It is very late information and it doesn’t help us in our planning for future years.
So, I would encourage you to, if it is very hard to get that information to us by December 31.
Chairman: Was that a comment or is that a question?
Comment, okay. Thank you. We are on page C-5.
It is something I raised in my opening comments, and that was the Crown Agency Council. I would assume that would fall under the Directorate division of the department.
I am just wondering why in a pretty thorough business plan by the department there is next to nothing on the Crown Agency Council in any detail.
I am just wondering if I could get information as to why there is nothing in there about it.
The Crown Agency Council does exist.
We tabled the terms of reference to all the members.
The Crown Agency Council consists of ministers.
So, in terms of departments providing support to that committee, that is an ongoing initiative and task, but it is not reflected in the Department of Finance Directorate or department. But, the committee does exist and consists of three ministers.
What does the committee do?
The Crown Agency Council provides advice to cabinet and the Financial Management Board.
It provides recommendations to all of the ministers responsible regarding matters including statutory requirements, budget impacts, financial management, human resources, policies, legislation initiatives.
It also provides support and enhances the government’s capacity of board members of Crown agencies in Nunavut to carry out the Government of Nunavut mandate and policies, and to make access to support available and affordable to Crown agencies.
Would the request buy a utility, the Power Corporation, to put forth a stabilization rider on their thing… .
Would that request go to the Crown Agency Council?
The answer to his question is, no.
Any information related to required policy decision goes to cabinet.
Any information that has financial implications goes to the Financial Management Board.
This body is an advisory body to the Financial Management Board and to cabinet on Crown agencies.
Any more, Mr. Tootoo?
Just for the record, can the minister indicate what specific decisions the Crown Agency Council has taken to date and what it has accomplished.
The committee has been established for six months.
It was established to address a number of issues, but in particular, the committee had met on several occasions to start addressing the concerns that are raised with the Qulliq Energy Corporation, outlined in the Auditor General’s report.
That committee will be looking to oversee that those issues are addressed to the Crown Agency Council.
It has only been in place for six months and it is a means to address these concerns that have been raised.
Have there been any directives for this, that have come out of the Crown Agency Council to the minister responsible for the Corporation, and if so, what were they?
There have been no directives issued to any Crown agency.
There have been meetings, but no directives.
Have there been any policy decisions made on the policy directions or decisions that have affected Crown agencies?
Chairman (interpretation): Ms. Minister.
Yes, there have been some decisions.
Minister Simailak announced in the House some of these policies, administrative procedures that the QEC would be following.
That was a result of decisions made through the Crown Agency Council, and they were announced in the House for members’ information.
Mr. Curley: I also would like to ask a question.
Number one: I would like to know who the board members are.
How many members are there in the Crown agencies?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Ms. Minister.
As is in the terms of reference distributed, the Crown Agency Council consists of my staff, I chair that committee, and the Premier, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Human Resources.
Mr. Curley: Okay.
Financial viability: is that one of the factors that the Crown Agency Council normally handles when dealing with these newly founded Crown agencies?
The information related to finance for any Crown agency goes through the normal process of FMB.
What the Crown Agency Council provides is to review ongoing issues and to work with the corporations.
As an example, to try to address the information covered in the Auditor General’s report and to provide further detailed analysis of those for FMB or cabinet consideration.
Mr. Curley: When you are dealing with an independent Crown agency, you would think that they are responsible enough to really make the Crown corporation financially viable.
You also have a minister and his staff that would have a direct advisory role to provide direction to the Crown agency.
Now you have the Crown Agency Council, which is more or less, in my view, another cabinet committee.
Why in the world do you need all these different layers of agencies to micro-manage the management of these Crown agencies?
A Crown Agency Council is a cabinet committee, and I have stated that in the House. It provides support to cabinet or to the Crown agencies in strengthening corporate governance reporting, accountability.
One example I can share is that of getting information, like you say, to produce the public accounts.
The delays… . A number of agencies are behind.
The Auditor General’s report indicates a number of concerns of corporations.
This was an avenue for us to address those concerns.
It was needed at the time and I believe it’s still needed at this point, until such time as the issues related to the Auditor General’s report are addressed.