EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The first one, we have heard a lot of talk about the price stabilization fund and I would like to go to a different fund now, the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund that we approved in the Main Estimates of 60 million dollars.
From that fund is where the money comes from that we use to buy our fuel and pay to get it delivered to the communities.
I would just like to ask the minister how much of that did we spend this year on the resupply and if possible, if they have last year's numbers as well.
This year I don't have the details of how much we spent but I know that they had to spend an extra 14 million, but I don't have the details of how much we have spent this year.
But we are aware that we are able to spend 60 million, but presently we have had to spend another 14 million.
I don't mind knowing just on average over the past two years at least what we have spent out of that revolving fund to purchase our fuel.
I would appreciate it if the minister could commit to getting us that information.
My other question, on the 2000/2001 Main Estimates that we approved this spring, there was roughly a 600 thousand dollar amount that was to be going to Local Housing Organizations across Nunavut to increase their funding based on the five cent per litre increase that we all got last year.
I believe that amount was just for the last quarter and I am just wondering, I heard the President of the Housing Corporation on the radio earlier this week and she was indicating that they were going to be looking for required increased funding to offset the fuel increase to the LHO’s in the communities.
I was just wondering if the minister knows how much they are looking at in that area.
The item he refers to is not in the Minister’s Statement.
We are dealing with the Minister’s statement but I will respond to his question.
We approved 600 thousand for fuel for Housing Authorities in communities for the increase of 13.9 cents.
We will have to increase it by about 900 thousand.
Before we get started on this item, I wanted to make a comment to help the members that they should just stay on this topic on the items that are on the Minister’s Statement.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to look at the subsidies or the increased costs that have been faced as a result of fuel price increases, which is the idea we are dealing with.
The minister indicated that they will be increasing the funding to the local housing organizations.
I believe, you will also probably be hearing about increases in funding for the Municipalities and Hamlets, as well.
So, in a way, we are subsidizing, the government is going to be subsidizing those organizations to offset the costs incurred by this increase.
I was just wondering where the subsidy offsets were going.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask another question.
I would just like to know, or ask, in order to affect a 50% cut in the increase of the price of gasoline and home-heating fuel, what type of actions would your department and the government have to take to do something like that.
Hon. Manitok Thompson: Mr. Chair, the actions can be through this committee by recommendation to the government.
Then the minister is saying that it is possible to do something like that, I was just asking.
I know that the department put together and analyzed the different options in order to come up with the option they approved.
I was asking, if they were told to implement that 50% decrease in those two areas, if they were told to do that, what would they have to do.
What specifically would they have to do in order to implement that.
We have nine products that we sell to the communities.
Is he saying that all those nine products should be cut by 50%. Can the member clarify that please.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you Mr. Chairman. No, Mr. Chairman I indicated the first time I raised the question just in the area of gasoline and home heating fuel alone. That is it.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.  Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Tootoo.
Madame Minister.  Hon. Manitok Thompson: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I know that Mr. Green and his staff did analysis of all the numbers.
If we were to lower the heating and gasoline fuel together, let us say by 3 cents, the deficit in the PPD stabilization account would be as follows.
If we decrease by 3 cents for those two products March 31, 2001, the stabilization fund would be up to 1.7 million dollars.
By March 31, 2002, the stabilization fund would be up to 4.1 million dollars.
Based on the current price to purchase fuel next year the government would have to increase retail prices again next year if we were to do both those fuel products but we can look at one if the members wanted to go that route.
We have said that we do not want to raise the fuel again for the next year.
To stay within the stabilization fund we felt that 13.9 was the best number to work with to increase fuel.
It is nice to see that there were other options sitting there but what I asked was for a 50% reduction in the increase that's a 7 cent reduction in the increase for gasoline and home heating fuel.
What specific action would have to be taken by the government in order to meet that.
I guess that is exactly what I am asking.
Whether, what effect it would have, what would have to change, depending on the change, what would have to happen if that was the decision that came down.
What would we have to do in order to implement that.
If there were to be any change to the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund Act, that is governed by the following legislation and regulations; one Financial Administration Act of Nunavut, two Revolving Fund Act, three Petroleum Products Stabilization Fund Act.
These would have to be approved through legislation if there were any changes because the way the fuel prices are going we already know that when we purchased the fuel in July it has gone up by 9 million already so that is a 300% increase on the world market. So if there were any changes to be made they would have to be taken into consideration in those three acts through the legislation.
If we did not increase the price of fuel at all by March 31, 2001 we would be in a deficit of 9.7 million dollars which would be way over our limit for the stabilization fund and then 13.2 the following year.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that two out of the three I caught, of the regulations the minister mentioned, one was the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund and the other was the Stabilization Fund.
How would implementing a change like that effect, or necessitate a change in the Revolving Fund itself.
I am just wondering because based on all the questions and answers that we have heard over the last four days I guess and looking at it my understanding was that the only place that would require a change in the Act is the Stabilization Fund Act to increase that amount because right now it states that it is 5 million if that were done they would have to change that Act.
So I don't know if you could explain the other two pieces of legislation, with the Revolving Fund I am going to ask her to repeat that.
Why would those have to change.
What I said was that there are three Acts that would have to be changed if you want to make any major changes.
The first one is the Financial Administration Act of the Nunavut Government because the Revolving Fund Act connects to that.
The Petroleum Products Stabilization Fund Act connects to the Revolving Fund.
I think I can say that I am not an expert in this area and I apologize for that.
I am a minister that makes decisions that are the best that can be made by this department.
I can say that the Stabilization fund is part of the Revolving fund, however when the stabilization fund is in a deficit position it is recorded as a loss in the Revolving Fund.
Losses in the Revolving Fund form part of the Government of Nunavut deficit position in the financial statements.
The stabilization fund is not actually zeroed out each year, it is accumulated through the year and must be paid down through the funds recovered through the pricing.
It is legislated as we know at a maximum of 5 million dollars.
It is a debt and it is part of the Government of Nunavut's deficit position.
That is the bottom line, it is part of the Government of Nunavut's deficit position.
Mr. Chairman, I can see the relation but the only Act that would really impact on any broad change would be the Stabilization Fund Act and there would be consequential amendments necessary in those other two pieces of legislation.
It was my understanding in meeting with and questioning Mr. Green, and when I inquired to officials from the Auditor Generals' Office, that any loss in the fund within the specified limits of the fund only showed as a liability or an asset if you have a positive balance in there on the balance sheet.
As long as it is within those limits it wouldn't have an impact on the operating budget of the government.
It would just show up as a liability or an asset on the balance sheet.
I guess, if a decision were made to increase or cut the price increase in half like that, how long would it take for the department to take the necessary steps to implement those changes and I appreciate what the minister said about the change would have to be an amendment to the price stabilization fund and consequential amendments to those other Acts.
I was just wondering how long it would take if that were the decision that was reached, how long would it take to implement.
The decision has already been made by cabinet and the only room that I said I could consider after the MLA for Nanulik was talking about home heating yesterday, was that we may be able to have some room to move just for heating fuel.
The decision has been made already by cabinet but there is that option I can look at just for heating fuel.
We do not know what the status of the stabilization fund will be but we are hoping we will not have to increase it for the next two years.
If we do not do that, if we do not increase enough we will be above the stabilization fund the way the crude market is going.
That is what we are concerned about as a department.
Usually we ask the same questions and some questions are redundant so let us be careful and ask not too many redundant questions.
Also it is nice if we get proper answers and I asked if a decision was made to do that how long would it take to implement those changes.
I said if, I just want to know, if that decision was to cut those two areas in half how long would it take the department to implement the changes as a result of that.
The decision as I said, has been made by looking at all the options already.
So we would just have to repeat the whole process again and we would come to this same conclusion that a 13.9 increase is the option.
I still never got an answer to my question.
I asked if that were implemented how long would it take to implement it.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Your question was brief.
It would depend on how fast we repeat the same process because we would just be repeating the same process as we have already looked at all the options that are being offered today.
I guess I am not going to get an answer for my question Mr. Chairman.
I think in light of what the minister has said, to me it seems like they made their decision already and they have offered to say oh we can look at this but only this.
I am wondering if that was a decision that was made prior to this decision being made so that would be, prior to us discussing it here in committee of the whole.
I am just wondering if the decision to look at a reduction in one area was previously made prior to us coming to committee of the whole because it seems like any time we ask if we want to change this and this, they say no, no we can only change this.
I am just wondering if that was a decision that was made before and that's why it keeps coming back to we have only one product.
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Was that a question.
As I was saying we looked at all the options on the increase of the stabilization fund, we chose a 13.9 cent increase.
Some members have had concerns about the price, so we analyzed the costs but we can get back to it. That's what I am saying.
It is just before that, because the hunters we will look for harvesters' subsidies and we are also reviewing the home heating subsidy.
Therefore we have already established 10 million dollars for subsidy programs.
As usual we are doing the same thing.
Talking days about it and really not a lot of action has come out of the talking yet.
We have to live within our means I guess.
I find that who this is going to hurt is the hunters and the fishermen and things like that, that we all have in our communities.
So far it seems like we can't do a lot to help them.
I know that I am going to have to put up with a lot of questions from my constituency regarding these fuel price increases and the private homeowners who were encouraged to get into homeownership by the old GNWT and now we seem to be taking it away from them.
My question today to the minister is, will she commit to this House, to working with somebody in her department to help the private homeowners with some kind of fuel subsidy at a certain level like the ones that I would like to see targeted are the lower low income people.
I wonder if the minister would, the elders, the pensioners, the fixed incomes, if she would commit to working with her other departments on trying to find some kind of fuel subsidy program for the homeowners.
Hon. Manitok Thompson: Yes I can do that.
Do you have any additional questions Mr. McLean.
That will help tremendously in my community and I am sure I can probably speak for some other communities, not all of them.
But the minister when, I am getting off topic here a bit, but I want to get to a point.
The minister when the Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti policy came up, some of the questions we asked was would she work with NTI.
Because we are partners in Nunavut.
I think so far we have worked together, I know the cabinet and the Premier have worked with NTI in this partnership in Nunavut.
The Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti policy I thought was well done with working with NTI in developing a made in Nunavut policy for business.
I know there are some problems with it but I think policies were made to change, and I think down the road it will be a policy that works well for all of us.
The point I am getting to here, is I know NTI have a hunters' support program out there and we have all heard the good side of it and we have all heard the bad side of it.
Sometimes people say to me Glenn, you know is the Nunavut Government getting too close to NTI and I say certainly not they are a partner in Nunavut.
Which brings me to this point.
Would the minister commit her officials to work with NTI on trying to bring forward some kind of gasoline rebate or subsidy for subsistence hunters and fishermen and things like that.
Those types of people that really need it.
I keep saying the people that are in need.
Can the minister commit to working with NTI on trying to deliver or work on some sort of rebate or subsidy for the hunters and fishers and people like that.
Yes we have already started talks with NTI.
My staff is providing technical support and I do know that Sustainable Development is involved in that also so we are working towards that already.
Anything further Mr. McLean.
If there are no further comments or questions, what is the wish of the committee.
I would like to make a motion.
Because I wanted to raise some questions and my colleagues can't seem to get any definite answers, maybe through a motion.
Committee Motion 066 – 1(4): Reduction of 50% in Fuel Price Increase
Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee recommend that the Government of Nunavut take any and all actions necessary to implement an immediate 50% reduction in the price increase of gasoline and home heating fuel.
Maybe you can re-read it because not all the members have a copy of the motion.
Just so that all the members have a full, clear understanding.
I move that the committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut take any and all actions necessary to implement an immediate 50% reduction in the price increase of gasoline and home heating fuel.
Are there any questions or comments. There is a motion on the floor.
Committee Motion 067 – 1(4): Subsidy Programs for Fuel
I move that the committee recommends that the Government of Nunavut be vigorous in pursuing co-operation with NTI where appropriate, in the development and implementation of fuel subsidy programs for low income residents…
Hon. Paul Okalik: Mr. Chairman.
I just want to inform the members that we do not have a quorum …but we do now as I speak.
Maybe you can inform the members when we are dealing with a motion, to encourage the members to be here.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Premier that was a very good point.
We have a quorum. Mr. Alakannuark re-read your motion.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): I move that the committee recommend that the Government of Nunavut vigorously pursue, in co-operation with NTI where appropriate, in the development and implementation of fuel subsidy programs for low income residents, homeowners and subsistence hunters and that such a program be implemented by the end of calendar year 2000.
Committee Motion 068 – 1(4): Petroleum Products Review to be Made Public
Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion as well.
I move that the committee recommend that the Government of Nunavut make public the results of the review of the operations of the Petroleum Products Division of the Department of Public Works, Telecommunications & Technical Services within the next 90 days.
Make sure you hand out the copy of the motion to all the members.
The minister at the witness table is included also.
Committee Motion 069 – 1(4): Alternate Energy Sources
I move that the committee recommend that the government continue to work towards a long term solution in the area of expanding the use of alternative energy sources and reducing Nunavut's present dependence on fossil fuels as its primary source of energy.
Are there any more motions or comments.
If there are no other comments I believe we can go on to Bill 7.
I would like to thank the minister and her witnesses, you have been sitting there for about four days and even though this was very important and very delicate and will effect us all, I know you have a large work load ahead of you and for that reason I would like to thank both of you, the Minister for Petroleum Products and Mr. Mrazek, the Deputy Minister.
Thank you for appearing before the committee.
So the minister's statement 007 – 1(4) is finished.
It is completed.
Bill 7.
We will be dealing with Bill 7.
Mr. Okalik do you have any opening remarks.
Bill 7 - Legislative Assembly Members Removal and Disqualification Act – Consideration in Committee of the Whole
Using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit I don't have any presentation planned.
We have been working on this for quite a long time.
There are mainly two issues that we will be dealing with on this Bill.
One is to discipline members if they break the law.
That is very important, and if they do commit a serious crime they can automatically be removed.
This includes crimes under the Criminal Code of Canada and Acts of the Territorial Government as well.
These can be dealt with by the members by removal or suspension.
That is the first one.
The second item is, after that person resigns or is removed or suspended, whatever the case may be they cannot run again unless somebody else first replaces them.
So we are trying to amend those two because we all know what we went through and we learn from mistakes of ourselves or other people and we try and make amendments.
This is very different from anywhere else.
It mainly affects Nunavut because in other jurisdictions the political parties have the authority to remove because they have party politics but within Nunavut we have consensus government. If you belonged to a particular party down south and if you are removed, you would have no right to ask questions and you would no longer be involved by the procedures of the Legislative Assembly and that is how they deal with it.
They can also disqualify people to run again for their party.
In this Federal election, there is one of them who committed a crime and was dealt with by the courts and he can no longer run for the Federal party.
That is how they deal with them so because we do not have a party system, this mainly affects us and we are going to try and govern how we are going to deal with this and that is why this bill was introduced.
I believe some would have us go further than what is proposed but we have to keep in mind that we still have to follow the Constitution. That is why we have to put restrictions if any one wanted to run after committing a crime.
So we have to make limitations or restrictions as to how far they can go.
So those are the main contents and I wanted to point that out for the public to know.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Okalik, according to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit that was very clear and understandable.
Thank you for your presentation.
Will you have somebody to assist you. Are you going to the witness table.
Thank you for sitting at the witness table.
Are there any comments in regards to Bill 7.
If there are none, we will go onto Bill 7.
According to the pages there, page one.
Do you have it in front of you.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 7, everybody agreed.
Chairperson (interpretation): Do you agree that Bill 7 is ready for third reading.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Okalik for sitting at the witness table.
Bill 7 is ready for third reading, so what is the wish of the committee.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you.
I move that we report progress Mr. Chairman.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Arvaluk wishes to report progress.
The Speaker will be able to come in now and we will see you tomorrow.
I could not pronounce his (Mr. Chandler) name properly.
I wish to thank you for being able to come here sorry if I mispronounced your name.
Sometimes when you do not speak English it is very difficult to pronounce them.
Item 20. Report of the committee of the whole.
Chairman, Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Your committee has been considering Minister’s Statement 7-1(4) and bill 7 and would like to report progress that Minister’s Statement 7 - 1(4) is concluded and four motions were adopted.
Bill 7 is ready for third reading and I also move that the report of the committee of the whole be concurred with.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I second it.
Speaker (interpretation): Those in favour.
Meeting of the Standing Committee on Community Empowerment at 5.45 in the Nanuq Boardroom.
Orders of the Day for Thursday, November 2, 2000;
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow Thursday November 2, 2000 at 1.30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 5.11 p.m.
Thursday November 2, 2000
Pages 360 - 410
Opening Prayer 360
Ministers' Statements 360
Members' Statements 364
Returns to Oral Questions 368
Oral Questions 369
Point of Order 373
Petitions 387
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills 387
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 388
Report of the Committee of the Whole 408
Third Reading of Bills 408
Orders of the Day 409
Thursday November 2, 2000 360
030 – 1(4): Ministers' Absence from House (Okalik) 360
031 – 1(4): Eastern Arctic Sealift (Thompson) 360
032 – 1(4): Nunavut Mining Symposium & Nunavut Arts Festival (Kilabuk) 361
033 – 1(4): PW&S Representing Nunavut in the Development & Implementation of Mechanical & Electrical Safety Codes (Thompson) 362
034 – 1(4): Appointment of Kathy Okpik (Okalik) 363
068 – 1(4): Recognition for Volunteers (McLean) 364
069 – 1(4): Upgrading of Recreational Facilities (Nutarak) 364
070 – 1(4): Elders' Healing Abilities (Alakannuark) 365
071 – 1(4): Support for Alcohol Committees (Iqaqrialu) 365
072 – 1(4): Passing of Annie Palluq (Picco) 365
073 – 1(4): Recognition of Ugyuk, Ullulaaq and Takijuk (Puqiqnak) 366
074 - 1(4): Staffing Levels Inadequate (Tootoo) 366
075 - 1(4): Dustin McDonald at Training Camp (Thompson) 367
Return to OQ 43 - 1(4): Gjoa Haven Development Corporation Correspondence (Thompson) 368
070 - 1(4): New School for Clyde River (Iqaqrialu) 369
071 - 1(4): Update on Global Warming (Nutarak) 369