EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
At the same time, there was other information provided during that decision that lends itself to doing the proposal for the delivery of fuel, the way it was awarded.
So, the Ikuma report was brought forward, like many reports within the House, and tabled by the minister; a lot of the recommendations have been adopted.
Some might have been superseded by events in time.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, one of them may be the cargo.
I believe that the minister responsible has indicated before that at the end of that contract period, we will be able to look at the evaluation of the process and see what the economies of scale were, what the savings, and so on, were, and move forward.
That is my understanding of that process.
That is the understanding that I had.
If we were going to combine both the dry cargo and the fuel, then it would lower the costs associated with it to the consumers and to the construction companies.
That is what it says in the report.
Would the minister possibly look at the idea of putting those two together again, the dry goods and the fuel?
That process and project is not under the Minister of Energy, it is a different portfolio.
What I can say, and say very clearly, is there were other mitigating factors and circumstances when that contract was awarded.
One was the shipping distance and so on.
There were quite a few other contingent factors.
I believe the member is asking me to make a commitment that I am not able to make.
What I can say is that I know the process, and I know the members, here, will have an opportunity at the end of that contract period to be able to review and to do an analysis.
The member has raised, in this House, in the last few days, that he has concerns with the way the contract is actually being delivered, and is it cheaper?
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this government wants to get the best value for the dollar spent.
That will be part of the evaluation process that will be put in place for that contract.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the minister that would make that commitment because I am not the minister responsible for the cargo contract; however, I can say to the member of this House that I would believe that the appropriate minister would be bringing forward the evaluation of that process.
That will be a fully transparent process where the members will have their input, including the member.
Question 090 – 2(2): Utility Rate Review Council Receiving Monthly Updates
I am kind of lost.
I am wondering whether I should believe any of the information in the General Rate Application.
The minister responsible had indicated roughly a $10 million difference between the numbers they are projecting in the General Rate Application and what they are actually looking at this year.
Mr. Speaker, it worries me that inaccurate information has been given to a body to evaluate and determine rates that will effect every single person in Nunavut, including the government.
I think it is important that accurate information is there so that you can make the best informed decision possible.
The minister indicated that they are getting regular, it is supposed to be monthly, but regular updates of financial information from the corporation.
Is the Utility Rate Review Council getting that information as well, or is it something that the government is just keeping to itself?
I don’t think that the government is that strategic, on this side, that we are trying to hide things.
I think it is very important to say that the member has said that he has read the General Rate Application.
Part of the General Rate Application is a statutory declaration by the CEO. Mr. Robert Gunn, the CEO of the Power Corporation says, I will read it, “The 2004 General Rate Application, GRA, of the Energy Corporation and supporting documents will be provided to the Minister of Energy.
To the best of my knowledge, the statements and facts contained in these documents are true.
I make this sound declaration conscientiously...” and so on.
The declaration was signed on September 15.
As I said earlier, I have no reason to question the veracity of the information found within the General Rate Application.
If the member had pertinent information that he would like to bring forward, he has the right, again as does any other citizen in Nunavut, to do that, which is why the process of the General Rate Application goes forward.
The corporation makes their best case, the Utility Rate Review Council is providing that check and balance, and they review that information and verify it.
The member said that he needs verifiable information, Mr. Speaker, and I have said several times over the last two days that we only have two audited statements from the Auditor General for Canada; you can’t get any better statements than that.
The third statement should be available over the next couple of weeks, as I have said.
Once those are received, they will be available in February when the Utility Rate Review Council looks at it.
Three audited statements from the Auditor General for Canada.
The General Rate Application, however, as we have promised in 2003, would be delivered in 2004.
The Power Corporation has made its best estimates of what they believe the revenue requirement would be and that is what they are putting forward.
So, those checks and balances are in place.
The minister still never answered the question that I asked.
That current information, that’s regular, is supposed to be monthly; according to the government’s response to the Auditor General’s recommendation, it is supposed to be getting these regular updates of financial information from the corporation.
Is the URRC getting that same information?
It’s my understanding that the Utility Rate Review Council has the weighty volume of the application.
Mr. Speaker, if pertinent information comes forward during this process, then the URRC would look at it.
For example, if the member has some information that he would like to share, then the URRC will have an opportunity to look at that information.
At the same time, if something extraordinary is occurring within the corporation that they believe the Utility Rate Review Council should be made aware of, within their financial statements, for example, if they received an interim financial statement that was off 30 or 40 percent, they would also make that information known to URRC.
Because it would impact on that rate application and on the rates that would come forward in April 1, 2005.
So, that’s the way the process is set up.
My understanding is also, Mr. Speaker, that on a monthly basis, the Department of Finance is in contact with the Qulliq Energy Corporation, ascertaining the requirements of the corporation and so on.
So, those things are occurring.
I guess, as the minister indicated, if there was doubt that there was pertinent information that was out that the Utility Rate Review Council needed to know, I believe they used a figure of 20 percent or something like that... . If you look at almost $20 million, and roughly what the minister was ballparking yesterday was in around $11 million, that’s almost a 50 percent difference.
Would the minister not consider that pertinent information that URRC would need in order to properly evaluate the information that it has in time?
What I said in the House was this: I said we had the audited financial statements for the year one, which we received in December 2002.
It indicated an operating deficit of $5.2 million.
The second audited financial statement that we received last year, Mr. Speaker, indicated a loss of $7 million.
This year, the one I’m waiting for right now, I said in the House, may be a loss of 10 to $11 million or 10 to $12 million, within that ballpark.
I don’t have those audited financial statements signed off by the Auditor General of Canada. So, when I receive those statements, Mr. Speaker, then I would be able to show them.
I said I will have them to table, for sure, in February in the House, and we will be able to look at them and the member can see it.
Right now, the best guesstimate I have, and again we’ve said and as the Premier has said, we don’t want to get into guesstimates.
So, between 10 to $12 million, probably, would be that loss for this year.
As of March 31, 2005 it will take us six or seven or eight or nine months to get those statements, as is occurring right now.
We won’t have those statements until, probably, September 2005.
So, I would expect at that time we would be able to look at the statements that are available.
In the meantime, in the next two or three weeks when we receive the audited statements for the third year of operation, that information will immediately be given to the URRC so they can ascertain what is needed for April 1,2005, because we actually will have verifiable audited statements signed off by the Auditor General of Canada.
So, that’s what I’m trying to bring some clarity to.
Again, the government has, whether it is the Department of Finance or the Minister of Energy, current, accurate information, I would hope.
As the minister indicated, that current accurate information is that they’re looking at a 10, 11, $12 million deficiency this year.
The information that is in the General Rate Application is projecting, approximately, a $20 million deficiency.
That’s almost 50 percent out.
Does the minister not feel that that’s pertinent information?
That this current information is not pertinent for the Utility Rate Review Council to have so that they can see these numbers prior to them having to give the report back to the minister?
If we wait until February to get those statements, the decision is going to be made and then the information is going to come out.
I mean, 50 percent, that’s a huge discrepancy.
So, I would like to ask the minister if he will commit to, whether it be himself or the Minister of Finance, providing that current actual variance information to the Utility Rate Review Council, so that they can get some accurate figures to be able to base their decision on before it’s too late.
This is part of the whole process, as Mr. Curley had said, around the GRA application: misinformation.
Mr. Speaker, I have said it now and I’ll do it once more: within the next two weeks we should have a copy signed off by the Auditor General of Canada for the third-year operating expenses of the Power Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, that information will be made known to the URRC.
They will have that information long before February 1.
As soon as the cabinet has a copy and I as the Minister have a copy, we will be providing it to the URRC, and they’ll have that information in the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, the URRC, when they’re looking at all the information that they’ve received from the submission between the December 17 and February 1, when they’re writing their report, will have an opportunity to request to the Qulliq Energy Corporation, to the power corporation, interim financial statements; again, to make sure of the projections that have been made.
So, Mr. Speaker, they won’t be waiting until February 1, to have that information.
We should have, as I’ve said many times, the third audited financial statement in the next couple of weeks, signed off by the Auditor General of Canada.
We will make that information known to the URRC long before they write their report.
And, as I said earlier, I would table those, then, in February, in the House.
At the same time, on February 1, they have to return with their review of the GRA application.
At that time we’ll have the audited financial statements, and I’m sure that we’ll have an opportunity to look at that in the House.
Question 091 – 2(2): Fuel and Dry Cargo
I would like to direct my question to the minister responsible for Petroleum Products.
In this report, page 21, I think they were going by that book, it states that fuel and dry cargo are very expensive, especially in the Kitikmeot and Keewatin.
I wonder if the minister can support the fuel and dry cargo issue, to find out if they can be put together, would it be cheaper.
Does he support this idea or doesn’t he, and why?
Speaker (interpretation): Minister of Community and Government Services, Hon Peter Kilabuk.
I understand his concern, and I’d like to address the concerns of fuel transportation in the Keewatin.
We fully understand them.
The Department of Community and Government Services is presently preparing for when the current contract will expire on March 31, 2006.
The contract for fuel delivery is due to expire this year.
I can tell the member that we are in support of this, but we want our study to be understandable by everyone.
Then we will advise him as to what further action we will take.
The Ikuma II report has indicated that the fuel, on page 22... . (interpretation ends) “...consider dry cargo and fuel together.” (interpretation) It’s stated like that.
Why didn’t you go by that?
Maybe this whole book is not implemented?
We went through the recommendations and we agreed to them, but we are trying to find some ways of how we can do things the most economically because of financial restraints.
That’s the system we are presently using.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, was it cheaper that in the Keewatin, at the present, businesses are going through very difficult times?
If this were happening in the Baffin region, then you would feel it.
So, after the split of fuel and dry cargo, why weren’t they thinking about this?
They want us to use the most economical ways to operate it, and anybody was able to try, so we agreed to theirs.
Upon the expiration of the contract, we will do a further review.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): We are not joking around.
The people show high respect for this House.
In Keewatin, there are businesses thinking whether they should order from Montreal or Manitoba.
They don’t know any suppliers in Montreal, so you should make an exception because it states there that there isn’t a lot of competition in Keewatin.
This should be supported, just like the Kitikmeot can’t break away from NTCL too.
We try to look for the most economical ways because money doesn’t grow on the land.
We will scrutinize this to figure out how it would be most economical in the second year.
Item 10. Item 11.
Tabled Document 028 – 2(2): Rankin Inlet Gasoline Test Results from October 2004
I am very pleased to table this in regards to the Rankin Inlet Gas Report for the year 2001, the Inspection Report.
Tabled Document 029 – 2(2): Adjustments Applied to Commercial Accounts
I’d like to table a letter from the Nunavut Power Corporation to commercial customers in Cambridge Bay dated October 13, 2004, entitled “Adjustments Applied to Commercial Accounts.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 030 – 2(2): Nunavut Housing Corporation’s Annual Report 2002-2003
My apologies, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to table the following document, the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s annual report.
Tabled Document 031 – 2(2): 2003/04 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut
I have to table a document.
Honorable members, I wish to table the 2003-04 annual report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut pursuant to Section 68 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Motion 002 – 2(2) Re-Appointment of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut – Notice
I give notice that on Monday, November 29, I will move the following motion;
Now therefore I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Arviat, that Ms. Elaine Keenan-Bengst, be reappointed as the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut for a term of five years, effective the day of passage of this motion.
Item 14. Item 15. Item 16, Motions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek consent to deal with my motion today.
Speaker (interpretation): The member is seeking unanimous consent to deal with his motion today.
Motion 002 – 2(2): Re-appointment of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut
WHEREAS the purpose of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is make public  bodies more accountable to the public and to protect personal privacy;
AND WHEREAS the Commissioner, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly, shall appoint an Information and Privacy Commissioner to carry out the duties and functions set out in the Act;
AND WHEREAS the position of Information and Privacy Commissioner is presently vacant;
NOW THEREFORE I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Arviat, that Ms. Elaine Keenan Bengts be re-appointed as Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut for a term of five years, effective the day of passage of this motion.
Are there any comments to the motion?
I am very pleased to be able to speak briefly on this motion and before I go forward, I would like to just again, welcome, Ms. Bengst, here in the Gallery, she is sitting here.
This position is appointed by the Commissioner of Nunavut, as I pointed out, on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner has a broad range of responsibilities under the Act including monitoring government compliance with legislation, the act is intended to make pubic bodies more accountable to the public and to protect the personal privacy by giving the public a right of access to records held by public bodies, giving individuals a right of access to and a right to request corrections of personal information about themselves held by public bodies, specifying limited expectations to the rights of access, preventing the unauthorized collection and use or disclosure of personal information by public bodies, and providing for an independent review of decisions made under the Act.
This is a very important watchdog position and keeping the government accountable.
As some members will know, I sat on the committee that originally recommended that Ms. Bengst’s appointment back in 1999.
She is a long-term northerner and is an active non-resident member of the law society of Nunavut and the committee looks forward another term of a good working relationship with her in her second term of office.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Are there any comments?
Consideration in Committee of the Whole on Bills and Other Matters.
Appropriation Capital Act 2005-06, with Mr. Arreak on the Chair.
We will take a 20-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:09 and resumed at15:41
Chairman (Mr. Arreak)(interpretation): Thank you for coming back. (interpretation ends): In the Committee of the Whole we have the following items to deal with, Bill 4 Appropriation Capital Act 2005-2006.
We wish to continue with review of the capital for the Department of Community and Government Services followed by the Department of Education.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Evygotailak.
Are we in agreement with that?
Department of Community and Government Services, agreed?
Minister Kilabuk, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Chairman: Does the committee agree to bring the witnesses to the table?
Minister, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
We have our Deputy Minister, Tom Rich, and Doug Sitland, our Capital Planner.
Chairman: Thank you, minister.
Before we proceed I would like to remind members of the following: According to Rule 77 (1) we have 10 minutes to speak.
According to Rule 77 (2), subject to discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
I suggest to members that wherever possible you ask your detailed question during the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates.
With the mission statement and what we were talking about yesterday, most of the departments and the social and economic opportunities in self-governing and sustaining communities, that is the main mission of most of the departments in government.
I’m not sure exactly how your department operates, as the Community and Government Services.
It seems like there is a close link between the Department of Transportation and you do use a large chunk of your budget for re-supply, and so on.
So, I’m not sure who does the policies on those issues.
If we should look back on the comments that are made in regards to dry goods, I don’t believe that one department can make that decision.
I’m sure that it’s up to the Premier to give that direction, because there is an interlink between all the departments.
I think there are more shipping companies that are owned by companies outside of Nunavut.
Sixty years ago, the transportation of dry goods and fuel started being supplied to the north.
The federal government was the ones who administered the ships following the shipping zones.
One comment that I would like to make is that it’s totally different today than it was 60 years ago.
There are publications of cargo rates and we have an idea of what it’s going to cost for that year but in regards to shipping, the rates are never published.
Usually these shipping companies have two year contract.
If we look at Northern Quebec as a model, the coast guard and the government do not give contracts.
It’s a free market now in Northern Quebec.
At the appropriate time, I will be asking if you will consider going to a free market, and if that should be the case, it would be open.
There is one particular company in the Keewatin who doesn’t have the supplying contract and the ships that are now coming to the Keewatin come from Quebec or Montreal.
If we’re going to follow through with your mission statement, I believe that we should look at other options like going into the free market.
We’re on general comments and page J-5.
I’d like to welcome the Minister and his officials to our meeting.
I just wanted to make a few quick comments and we’ve talked about this many times over years, various capacities.
My capacity as mayor, and Nunavut Association of Municipalities and now Member of the Legislative Assembly, it feels like I’m talking to the same guys and it’s the same story, but we have a current municipal infrastructure that’s $350 million in Nunavut, 26 communities.
That’s quite a large deficit.
Canada-wide it’s $60 billion.
Those are huge numbers.
I’m looking at your capital estimates for the next fiscal year where $24 million.
So, it’s not a lot of money to deal with a $350 million deficit.
That’s the reality and the only way I can see getting help in Nunavut, is you have to get some help from Ottawa.
There is no question about that.
I asked the Minister yesterday about the upcoming negotiations in Ottawa, the gas taxes, and hopefully we get some help there.
I think in the long-term, we have to look at improving the waste and water treatment systems.
I recall reading a business plan from the last time we met in May; there is a 65 percent failure rate when you waste water, your sewage lagoons.
It has been fairly recent that I think in the Baffin, I guess it’s really problematic and particularly up in Cape Dorset.
So I think in the long-term, we have to start looking at mechanical systems to improve it.
It will create some business opportunities and training opportunities for people.
The same with solid waste pumps, we have solid waste pumps that are, not in every Nunavut community, but I have heard of stories that they are really a serious problem in every communities.
I know in Cambridge Bay it’s a problem, it’s blowing across the town, it’s blowing across the tundra, it’s blowing all over the place.
So we have to take a look at mechanical systems there and possibly incinerators and tying them with our waste recovery wherever it’s available.
I know that they said that there has been some tests done in the north, I think in the Mackenzie area to be tested in the tar sands in Alberta, I think that there is even system up in a lake that they are using.
I think long-term, thinking where it’s long-term, five to ten to fifteen years in that range, this could be very important for Nunavut because, as the Premier and the government has stated, they are looking for progress in devolution within this term of government.
I think one of the things that the Government of Canada will recognize; can we look at our environment up here.