EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, with the sealift just around the corner, can the minister clearly update the House today on the status of his department’s implementation of the governments new hedging strategy for the purchase of fuel, which was developed to protect Nunavummiut from these types of increases?
We had put together a policy whereby we anticipated that there was going to be an increase in the price of fuel last year on May 24, almost a year ago.
I can tell my colleague that this year, with respect to the fuel that is normally purchased by CG&S, the Department of Finance and also the Department of Justice are currently working with Merrill Lynch & Associates.
Should there be a further increase, we are going to be working with those departments to come up with appropriate solutions. We don’t have a plan yet, but we are working on it so that we can alleviate some of the problems with the increasing costs of fuel, Mr. Speaker.
If I’m interpreting his response correctly, the hedging policy that was developed by this government to protect Nunavummiut and the government from increases like this has not been used.
Yes, the member is correct, we haven’t applied the policy.
At this time, we are working with Merrill Lynch & Associates and we are working out an agreement.
In order to respond to your question, we haven’t applied it yet. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe this policy, I know it’s something that’s been asked about for quite some time and developed for quite some time, so maybe if the minister could explain to the Members of this House and to Nunavummiut why they haven’t used it.
At this time, as I stated, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance are just beginning work with Merrill Lynch & Associates in regard to the hedging policy.
In order to respond to your question, we haven’t applied the policy yet, but Mr. Speaker, we are working diligently in order to apply it during the time that we will be buying the fuel, Mr. Speaker.
If memory serves me correct, this policy was approved by Cabinet over a year ago and the sales pitch by the government said, “This is what would protect us from these types of increases.”
If they haven’t used it yet this year, will they be able to use it in time for this year’s resupply?
I don’t believe we will be able to apply it for this year.
Just in a few days, we are going to have to start buying bulk fuel in order for shipping to the communities.
We have had discussions on this issue and we’re looking at how we can apply it.
In January, it was $90 per barrel and today, I think it’s up to $133 per barrel.
We are looking at whether we can apply cost saving measures if we buy it at certain times of the year but I don’t think we will be able to apply it for this year.
The plan is coming together and we will be able to apply it next year. It’s a little late for this year, Mr. Speaker.
Question 526 – 2(4): Invasive Wildlife Research Methods (Mapsalak)
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, last year, delegates at NTI’s Annual General Meeting unanimously passed a resolution opposing the use of invasive wildlife research methods.
The resolution called on the government to stop the use of invasive wildlife research methods.
Can the minister tell the House today how his department has responded to NTI’s resolution and clarify what his department’s current policy is with respect to invasive wildlife research methods?
My staff have been working on this issue.
We are looking at how we could improve the methods.
Next year and perhaps the following year, we’re going to be doing some research in the Foxe Basin area and look at what other research methods we could use in that area.
The Kivalliq Wildlife Board recently wrote a letter to the government to address a number of concerns in relation to research that was done around the Davis Strait area.
It was a three-year research where they harvested three polar bears.
Again, this was a major concern of the Keewatin Wildlife Board.
They were going to be putting the bears to sleep, putting collars on them and tranquilizing them.
This is an invasive wildlife research method.
Has the minister seen that letter and has he responded to it yet?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. I haven’t seen that letter yet.
Once I have received it, we will look into it directly.
For 2005-06 and 2006-07, we have documented all the research and there were seven fewer polar bears when they were being researched in that area.
I believe there were three in 2007 that died as a result of invasive wildlife research methods.
This was the first time that I’ve heard there were seven.
We do research on polar bears in order to inform the rest of the world with fact-based information.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I have raised a number of questions in this House about the government’s use of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in its wildlife management practices.
Although we hear statements that the government uses IQ in this area, I continue to hear concerns from HTOs and hunters about this issue.
It is clear to me that there is a gap between the government and many of its partners in this area.
Can the minister indicate to me how he will fill this gap and achieve consensus on the best approach to wildlife management?
I think we have come a long way since we became a government in 1999. Since then, we have included the HTO Committee, along with elders, on how we’re going to do the research and where we’re going to start. I think that’s a big involvement that we have included.
I do believe there are some improvements that need to be done in the future. Again, it’s our goal to make sure that we have good community cooperation to ensure that we are doing our jobs.
Like I said earlier, in 2007, there were 891 bears handled and out of that, three died, so I think that’s a good number.
Again, every time we make a mistake, we pay the HTOs $5,000 per bear.
We will do our very best to make sure that we will use Inuit knowledge and our people in the communities that are going to be affected by the research.
Will the minister commit to tabling his response to the Kivalliq Wildlife Board’s concerns in this House before the end of our spring sitting – yes or no?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Once I receive the letter, I will inform the member and my colleagues here in the House who are affected by that letter.
Question 527 – 2(4): Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Curley)
As I stated in my Member’s Statement, I would like to direct my question to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has now announced the names of the three members of the Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Although Inuit look forward to this commission starting its work, many people emailed me saying that they’re gravely disappointed that no Inuk or northerner was appointed to the commission.
Can the Premier tell us today whether he has raised this issue directly with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, and if not, why not?
I’m glad he asked that question.
I regret to say that this is not one of our agencies.
It’s also regrettable that Inuit are poorly represented, even though they have been greatly affected.
I haven’t had an occasion to communicate with the federal government to encourage them to get an Inuk representative, but I also know Inuit leaders have spoken out on the matter and we fully support them.
Yes, I understand his answer. I believe that the Premier should tell the Prime Minister to get a representative from the north because I don’t think it’s too late.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is: although thousands of Inuit across the north live with the legacy of their residential school experience, it is not yet certain that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will hold public meetings in our communities.
Has the Premier conveyed to Ottawa the importance of the commission travelling to the north?
Yes, I can definitely do that. We also have to thank the federal government for initiating this Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
It is something all aboriginal people have waited for.
We are happy that they’re acknowledging and recognizing that, and with the Prime Minister making an apology, that will come out strong.
A lot of people have waited for this opportunity.
We will be waiting, too, up in the north, because they have to hear those of us who have suffered.
I thank the Premier about the concern.
On June 11, the Prime Minister is scheduled to make a statement of apology to former students of residential schools from the floor of the House of Commons.
I believe that Inuit who were in residential schools should be represented at this event.
Can the Premier indicate to us today whether the GN will assist Inuit to be in attendance at this event on June 11?
I will lobby the federal government to provide a representative from former students and to provide the representative’s airfare costs.
I’m aware that Nunavummiut are expecting a resolution to this question.
I thank the Premier. He will have to push really hard with Indian and Northern Affairs.
As I stated before, I believe that a formal apology is a first step towards healing and I will be glad to see the Prime Minister rise on that date.
However, as I stated earlier, a lot of Inuit from Nunavut who attended residential schools have children and grandchildren.
For this reason, I would wish to state, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Nunavut government can be involved in the residential school legacy as we also have a need to take part in this healing process.
Can the Premier tell us today what the role of his government is in addressing the residential school legacy? I wish to hear from the Premier what the Nunavut government will do. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
It is clear that this will help individuals with their healing process.
They are not the only ones who have suffered harm. Others have also been hurt in other situations as we have heard a lot of different stories. We definitely have to work with the different organizations, not just as a government.
Our Speaker has invited us to attend a meeting in relation to healing. In addition, different governments and organizations are in the planning process to discuss how they can deal with healing. I would encourage my colleagues to attend those hearings.
This is not the last opportunity, it is an ongoing process. This will be dealt with by very capable people.
Question 528 – 2(4): Upcoming Meeting of Former Residential School Students in Chesterfield Inlet (Mapsalak)
Mr. Speaker, in August, the survivors of the residential schools will hold a reunion in Chesterfield Inlet.
Has the Premier been invited to this reunion?
We always look for ways to assist one another. The federal Department of Health is responsible for this and are being assisted by our government. We are working together to ensure that it happens.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Minister.
Will the Nunavut government assist with the reunion or was there a request from Nunavut to help fund this reunion?
Your question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services, Minister Aglukkaq.
The member is referring to a gathering in Chesterfield Inlet of past residential school students and that project has been approved for funding and will be continuing.
I believe there was a slight change in when the program will be offered. Basically what this program will do is to provide support to past residential school students. A gathering will be held in Chesterfield Inlet.
The person organizing the event with a proposal is from Repulse Bay. Health Canada has approved that funding with our support as a department.
Will GN send someone from the Department of Social Services when they have a gathering in Chesterfield Inlet?
As part of the proposal that went forward, from what I understand, the proposal includes personnel that will be there to provide support and counselling and organize workshops for healing.
That is part of the package that has been approved by Health Canada.
Question 529 – 2(4): Travel Arrangements for Medical Patients (Simailak)
I’m sure you’re not used to seeing me sitting on this side, I think you miss me.
The Department of Health and Social Services pays for the airline tickets of patients who have to go for medical travel, especially from Baker Lake to Churchill or to Winnipeg.
Now, they’re starting to go to Rankin Inlet.
How flexible are the reservations made for medical travel for patients? What kind of policy do you have for this in the Kivalliq?
Travel for medical patients are arranged based on their nearest appointment date and as soon as the person is completed seeing or going to their appointment, the travel arrangement is made back to the home community of the patient.
Mr. Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Madam Minister.
We hear often and I have personally seen people who work for the government, when they have to go for medical travel, we usually find out or know they’re travelling way before their appointment date.
It seems like they’re just going on vacation to Winnipeg.
These are some of the issues that we see, especially for the GN staff.
Is that in your policy, or do you have a policy in regard to GN staff going for medical travel?
When we organize a travel for our patients, including public servants, the referral form that comes in from the commission will identify the date of the appointment.
So our staff will organize the travel from the nearest departure date to that appointment and organize a return ticket right after that appointment and the hotel that we cover will be for those dates only.
If the person decides to stay extra days, then that would be at their own costs and the person would require permission from their employer to stay an extra day or so.
Everything in terms of what we cover through the Non-Insured Health Benefit Program or the Government of Nunavut Medical Travel package will only allow us to cover travel as well as hotel for the required time that they are there.
As soon as we get a release form from the physician or the commission, departure plans are made for the patient to return.
Anything beyond that would be at the expense of the patient or employee. My assumption would be that those individuals would be requesting annual leave or whatnot from their employers prior to going to Winnipeg or to other locations.
I think I’m starting to understand that the GN staff, if they want to stay an extra day, then they would have to pay for their own accommodations.
The government would pay for the duration of the time, for the time they’re seeing the doctor.
What about people who are not working for the government?
What kind of policy do you have if they would like to stay an extra day on their medical travel, a day or two before you make the reservations to go back home?
If this occurs, does the department pay for their airline ticket back or does the patient have to pay for their own airline ticket back?
To just add to the first point, if the individual requests to stay longer and there is a change fee for the ticket as well, the public servant would have to pay the change fee for their ticket. We will pay for there and back for our patients.
As it relates to individuals that are covered under the Non-Insured Health Benefit package, we make all the arrangements to, again, the similar first appointment, their appointment and right after their appointments, we make travel arrangements. If they want to stay extra days, that would also be at their expense.
As far as I know, the practice has been that we don’t cover extra days in boarding homes. We have situations in boarding homes where we have overcrowding and whatnot, so we try and arrange for that individual to go home right after their appointments to free up those accommodations.
If they want to stay extra, again, that would be at their expense, and should there be additional fees that are charged for changing tickets and/or they want to stay at hotels and stuff like that, that they would be responsible to cover that.
Those types of additional stays in the community are not covered by the federal government insurance program.
I would urge the department to inform the people, especially when this occurs in Winnipeg. Regular people, the public, can stay an extra day or so during their medical travels as long as they pay for their own meal and hotel expenses, but that the Department of Health will pay for the airline ticket back.
There was an elderly couple who recently got married and both are over 60 years of age.
They wanted to stay an extra day, but they were told that they would have to pay their own way back, so they ended up having to pay over $3,000 for their return airfare to Baker Lake.
If what the minister just stated was the actual policy in effect, perhaps they can be reimbursed by submitting their receipt.
I would have to get the names of those individuals that decided to stay for a wedding, I would then check into that. But normally, the practice has been that we will transport back the patient to their community. Medical travel is for that purpose, for medical, it’s not a vacation slush fund.
I will have to get the names of the individuals to follow-up to see what the circumstances surrounding that particular travel and get back to the member.
Question 530 – 2(4): Fuel Hedging Strategy (Tootoo)
Again, I would like to follow-up with some more questions for the Minister of Finance.
I’m a little surprised that the government hasn’t implemented the hedging policy.
I anticipate that the minister is anticipating, as he indicated, the Nunavummiut to face big increases this year in fuel cost as a result of that failure to implement the policy.
Does he have an indication now, just based on the numbers that we’re looking at today with the price of fuel, on how much of a price shock our consumers will face later this year when the new fuel prices are announced?
I would also like to thank the member for his question.
I know it’s evident that the cost of fuel will have to increase when it’s shipped up and the Minister of Energy stated that next week, he will want to meet with all the members to make a presentation. Mr. Speaker, he will make a presentation on the impact of the fuel cost increase during full caucus.
He stated that at that presentation, we will have a clear picture, but at this time, I don’t have any figures.
I know last year, it was quite an increase and that was after the government subsidized half the increase, so I look forward to hearing what that number is for people and the government to prepare.
Mr. Speaker, I know last November, one of the provisions of the Qulliq Energy Corporation Act was providing for the creation of an Affordable Energy Fund, which is something that I have raised issues on over a few years now, came into force.
At the time, the GN’s new Energy Strategy states that this fund “will be managed by the Department of Finance” and “Funding will be made available for alternative energy and efficiency projects. In addition, the department would track direct and indirect energy subsidies.”
Can the minister update us today as to the status of his department’s implementation of the Affordable Energy Fund?
I don’t have that information, so I will have to take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Tootoo, your question has been taken as notice.
Question 531 – 2(4): Rankin Inlet Power Failure Report (Curley)
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy and it’s in regard to the cost of fuel and in particular, the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
On page 27 of the annual report for the year ending March 31, 2007 that was tabled in the House states, “In the Summer of 2006, QEC installed a brand new and environmentally enhanced diesel generator in Rankin Inlet,” and it also states that “The Rankin Inlet Power Plant is now able to meet the firm capacity requirement, at 110% of the peak load.”
I wonder why that wasn’t so.
Can the minister explain to this House whether or not there was something wrong with the brand new generator that was installed in 2006, or was it because of a failure of the engines, or was there something wrong with the power plant in Rankin Inlet?
I would like to thank the member for his question and I want to say publicly, in the House, to Nunavummiut that, again, we were in a very difficult situation in Rankin Inlet a few months ago when we had a catastrophic failure of the engines. I believe that’s leading to what the member is asking.
I want to thank the people from Rankin Inlet for their patience and so on. We actually went to Rankin Inlet with the Power Corporation and they gave an overview of the report.
That report that was brought forward at the meeting in Rankin Inlet actually looked at the maintenance schedule, the equipment that was in the plant, as well as some of the other issues with the plant itself and the engines.
No, the position that the Power Corporation took, when we looked at the equipment and the diesel generators, they were not at fault in that they weren’t maintained properly or so on. What it did say was that it was almost like a comedy of errors where a domino effect took place, for example, when the turbo charger failed and so on.
What the annual report was saying for 2006-07 is a little bit more technical than that and the report just gives the framework.
I don’t have the specifications and the specifics on the actual diesel generator that the member is referring to, but it is my understanding, from the report that was brought forward publicly in Rankin Inlet and the member has seen have a copy of, it did indeed absolve the corporation of any concern where we weren’t performing proper maintenance duties on the equipment and indeed, the equipment should have been able to handle the capacity and the load.
I appreciate the summary and the response from the minister.
I certainly share his conclusions based on the report that was submitted but the annual report did indicate that having this new generator, and I’ll quote from one of the points on page 27, “based on current forecasting, firm capacity requirements should be met for the next 8 to 10 years.”
So based on that catastrophic failure of that particular model of engine, will the minister be replacing that new generator and not base it on this annual report?
The report suggests that it should be good for another eight to 10 years, so I’m asking the minister: will you be replacing it with a new model or a completely new brand for that matter?
It is my understanding, based on the specifications of the particular generator in question, that yes, the life cycle of that generator should have lasted the number of years that was stated in the annual report, and that’s why we did the outside investigation into the failure. There was a cause of concern because it did not reach the life cycle that had been proposed.
What we have done is we have moved very quickly, as the member knows, to bring other generators in. We actually have purchased a generator and placed it in the plant.
We will be reviewing the capacity and the load differentials within the community, and then make a decision through the Power Corporation board to see what else we have to do.
What I can say is, with some certainty, that if the current capacity of the plant is more than adequate with the generators that we have moved in, then we will look at replacing generators where needed.
That report has given us basically a roadmap to say, “Is there a need for a new generator on top of the new ones we actually have purchased and brought into the community because of the failure that we had talked about?”
Mr. Curley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for that response, but I also have a follow-up to the question with respect to the power failure expenditures that were incurred.
I understand that the expenditures were somewhat quite high due to the nature of the disaster.
Will the minister ensure this House and the consumers that he will not pass on the expenditure to the consumer base? Can he confirm the amount of the expenditure that were incurred and also ensure that the consumer will not have to pay for that particular failure?