EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, we have not heard anything from our contractors who administer the petroleum products as to whether there have been cases of theft, at least with respect to the petroleum resources owned by the Petroleum Products Division.
I just wanted to go back because I’m still a little confused. The minister was talking about, and I guess it was Minister Kusugak, how it’s averaged in and how, in different years, the average… . I do not quite understand.
In the table we were given for the 2007-08 fiscal year, the Government of Nunavut wants to write off 567,981 litres, and then in the 2008-09 year, they want to write off 1,635,415 litres.
In terms of percentage of write off, that’s a 0.6 percent difference. Well, I guess that’s percentage-wise, but when you’re averaging it out, there can actually be an averaging difference of around 1.1 million litres. Is that correct?
I will have to defer that question to my colleague, Minister Kusugak.
Chairman: Thank you. Minister Kusugak.
Thank you, Mr. Elliott, for the question.
It’s a combination of a couple of things.
Mainly the result was of two areas in inventory measurement.
So the latter year had to make up for the missed inventory measurement of the previous year.
You also have to keep in mind that, at the time in 2008-09, the price of fuel was higher, so the volume of fuel to be written off would be higher as well.
So it’s a combination of these two or three things that you saw a spike in that.
I hope that clarifies the matter for you, Mr. Elliott.
Ms. Ugyuk was asking questions about a spillage and asked questions to the Minister of the Environment. The one thing that I was just wondering about was in terms of writing this off for evaporation and shrinkage. Is any spillage that occurs in delivery or within the community included in this dollar figure?
Again I will have to defer it to my colleague.
Any spillage that occurs before the Government of Nunavut takes possession of the fuel is the responsibility of the fuel supplier. We only are responsible for fuel that is actually in our possession that is in our tanks.
So to answer you question, this doesn’t take those into account.
This is only for fuel that we have purchased that is actually in our tanks.
We do have a bit of a unique situation where fuel is transported on an annual basis to each of the communities.
The Northwest Territories has a similar situation where they probably have it trucked in and a similar climate.
Have you looked at what the Northwest Territories writes off? Are we comparable to what they write off or do you have those figures?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you very much.
Our percentages are very similar to those with the same issues.
If I may add, the fuel delivery contracts, as they are written now, will expire in October of 2011.
As part of the RFP process, these rates will be reviewed.
We are currently in discussions with provinces and territories like the NWT, Yukon, and even Alaska, and discussing and taking a look at allowable volumes for shrinkage.
We are comparable now, and we do keep in touch with our counterparts to make sure that we and they are all within the allowable percentages.
The minister also mentioned that his staff or members of his staff travel to the communities and participate in dipping of tanks to check and help calculate the evaporation and shrinkage that go on, on an annual basis.
He had mentioned that it was done community by community.
To help us better understand in terms of the communities that we represent and the amount that’s evaporating and shrinking in our communities, would he be able to provide us… ? Obviously if they are going around and doing it community by community, that information would be available.
Could he commit to providing us with a table by community of how much shrinkage and evaporation occurs, similar to the table received going back from 2004 until 2010?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I’ll look into the matter, and if we have that information and it is able to be released, I would not hesitate to do that.
I wanted to get along with the people across the table, but the disappearance of $2.5 million into thin air, that’s a substantial amount of money, Mr. Chairman.
I think what I would advise the lead minister in dealing with petroleum products is to keep records of when, where, and how the dip was made in respective communities.
I think we, as keepers of the public purse, are expected to make an informed decision. This is the essence of what we’re talking about.
So I would advise that keep records of what is happening.
When you come to the House wanting to write off something of that substantial amount, we would have information either to approve or oppose big money.
I think that was just a comment, but if you want to comment on it, Mr. Kusugak.
I think our department does a super job of keeping track of things like shrinkage.
It’s not like we lost it anywhere. We did, but it’s in thin air. It’s inevitable, it’s going to happen.
You see that in the fine lakes around your community, and I know in mine. Water levels drop; it’s just evaporation. It is something that happens and it’s not something that we can control.
I just want to say that we do and we will continue to do our best to ensure that it is accounted for. It will be accounted for the best possible way we can account for it.
I assure my colleagues that my staff who are and will continue to work diligently to make sure that every ounce of oil that is not there is accounted for.
I need substantiation on paper that will inform me how and when the dip was made so I could be easier to convince to approve or reject the amount of money that we are to appropriate in this House.
Again I would like to say that we are the keepers of the public purse and we have to make an informed decision.
Chairman: Yes, just to let you know that this is not appropriation, this is actually a write off, but in any case, do you want to comment on that, Minister Kusugak?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: No, Mr. Chairman, I agree this is called a public purse and I hope we are very thorough with this.
I hope to get the support of my colleagues in order to be able to write off. Unfortunately there is shrinkage and if there was a way we could reduce shrinkage, we would work on it, but I hope my colleagues will support this bill.
I understand this is a write off respectively, but down the road, it could become forgiveness.
I don’t have anybody else on my list here, so we will go back Schedule.
Total. $2,626,493.43.
Chairman: We will go back to clause 2.
Chairman: Go to Part 2. Schedule on page 2.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) This is one area where the committee had real concerns and could not get much answers from the minister, understandably, because he is not responsible for the corporation.
One area that we realized is that there are some houses here in Iqaluit, in particular, that had been disposed and we are being asked to write them off, but we learned that those same units had outstanding mortgages with CMHC amounting anywhere from $38,000 to $49,000 still owed to CMHC on those units.
To be asked to dispose of them was something that we wanted more answers from the corporation.
So I ask again: are there any plans to recover those units that are being reused with mortgages outstanding to CMHC?
I ask the Minister for Housing, if that is okay. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We’re dealing with an issue, I believe it’s an accounting issue.
The debate, obviously, is really kind of difficult for me as a minister trying to justify whether or not something that is being disposed of should remain on the books of the Nunavut Housing Corporation and still be itemized as an asset of the government when it’s no longer within the reach of myself or the local housing association for all that matter because they have tendered it, and so on.
So, for that reason, it’s really something that I cannot answer with respect to the mortgage being continued to be on the obligation of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
These are probably not the only units that are being written off but remain on the total overall part of the mortgage that the Nunavut Housing Corporation is carrying on.
So it’s kind of complicated for me to answer.
I know the member wants a detailed question and, if that is the case, he could invite the president or the finance officer to explain in detail.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) We were hoping that we could get some answers on these items, on the units in question, that we learned through the media that these have been not necessarily disposed of but are now being used to make some money by the private sector.
They apparently have value because they are being reused.
We still have outstanding mortgages on them, but we have given them away. How did we give them away is another question that came to light.
There was a call for proposals, but did the Housing Corporation get any money back, for example, for these units?
They still have some value because they are being used again. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’ll have to defer that question to my colleague.
Mr. Chairman, if I may make a recommendation, perhaps Minister Curley would like to be here so that he can bring his officials in. I’ll leave it up to Minister Curley.
Chairman: Does the committee agree if Mr. Curley wants to bring in someone?
Chairman: Okay. Minister Curley.
Well, I suppose it’s a matter of debate at the moment.
Once they were disposed of by the tenders by the local housing authority… and disposed of means that the successful bidders, not one but at least two of the local companies, acquired the ownership and possession once the contract was awarded by the local housing authority.
What they do with it after they dispose them off is really beyond Nunavut Housing Corporation’s ability because it wasn’t part of the tender.
I know the member would like an answer to that, but in a sense, it’s a private contractor that has to explain what they did with it.
As far as I am concerned, we no longer had the ownership of them, but the book values… .
Because there were 10 of the 23 units that are in question, 10 of them had a net book value of $20,000 or more.
So, for that reason, they require the approval or whatever of the Assembly.
If I try to justify whether or not the disposing of the units was an important decision, I think it was because these units are probably close to 40 years old and they were no longer really serving the residential needs of Iqaluit, particularly because they were too small, and that there was a need for larger units to be put in place.
The town or the local housing authority has now occupied some, and so on.
So that’s the only explanation I can give.
If the member wants more explanation to justify the case, our financial officer is available to explain more.
I just want to remind the minister that the committee had agreed if he wants to bring any officials in, but go ahead, Mr. Okalik.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) My colleagues have a lot of other questions and we would feel more comfortable if there were witnesses who can assist us in getting some answers to the questions that are still outstanding.
We will not be prepared to approve these write-offs without getting those responses. That is the understanding I got from my colleagues.
So we would appreciate the minister come forward with the witnesses at this time so that we can get some responses. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I guess, Mr. Peterson, if you could just leave the witness table and Mr. Curley can take your place.
My mic is on. Am I speaking?
Yes, I was prepared to do that, but I just couldn’t squeeze my colleague out of a chair unless I had permission.
An Hon. Member: He’s back.
Chairman: He’s back.
Minister Curley, could you please introduce your witnesses for the record.
To my right is Mr. Alain Barriault. He is the president of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
To my left is Lori Kimball, Chief Financial Officer.
First I need some confirmation. Everybody knows I was housing manager for 10 years and, for the 10 years I was there, I always thought that the public housing units were the assets of the Government of Nunavut, not assets of the LHO, as the minister indicated.
Can Mr. Barriault confirm whether the LHOs own the units or the Government of Nunavut?
I would like to confirm that the units are indeed owned by the Government of Nunavut and not by the LHO.
So the tendering processes to dispose of these units here in Iqaluit would have been issued by the Government of Nunavut and not the LHO?
The LHO, on behalf of the Nunavut Housing Corporation, tendered for the disposal of units.
Can the president of the Nunavut Housing Corporation give us details on what the tendering process was for the disposal of the units?
There were a number of separate public tenders over a number of years.
The tenders were for the disposal of units and the preparation of sites for new construction, and these were issued by public tender.
Was part of the tender process to dispose of the units? Was there any direction on how they were supposed to dispose of these units?
I do have a copy of one of the requests for proposals or tenders that were put out by the Iqaluit Housing Authority, and the direction was to dispose of the units from the site in accordance with municipal by-laws for disposal.
It actually names the by-law number, but it does not specifically state how it is to be disposed of other than to be removed from site.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) So you, the Housing Corporation, through the local housing authority, just said, “Dispose of these assets,” and no return for the value.
In my question earlier to the minister responsible of day of some units that were in my riding that had been removed, I asked the minister of the day what happened to those units.
I was told by the minister that they were disposed in the landfill and were no longer going to be used. So that was the answer at the time.
Later on this summer, I became aware that some units had then been taken up by some proprietors for value.
So that is where some of the confusion, I believe, took place.
The understanding I’m getting now is that those older units could no longer be used and had to be disposed of, but these other units could still be used and that is why they had been reconstructed by some proprietors for value.
So are there two distinct practices here that we are noticing through the Housing Corporation?
I defer that question to Mr. Barriault.
The units appear to have a value to other developers for a different purpose than to use them as residential housing.
At the time, as I understand it, that they were requested to be written off and disposed of, these older houses were deemed to be beyond economic repair for the purposes of using them as residential units.
Part of the reason was the size, the age, and the repairs required to continue to use them as residential units.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) We have later learned that these units that have been disposed and value-added by the proprietors, there are outstanding mortgages owed to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, anywhere from $38,000 to $49,000.
Can the Housing Corporation confirm that there are still outstanding mortgages for these units that were disposed of by the local authority?
At the time of the social housing transfer from Canada Mortgage and Housing [Corporation] to the territories and the provinces, there was a net book value attached to the mortgages from the entire housing portfolio.
I can’t remember the exact date, I believe it was somewhere in the area of 1996 that this occurred, and from that point forward, CMHC’s only requirement in terms of mortgages was that there were assets still existing on the books. We have more than sufficient assets overall in our stock to basically satisfy the requirements of Canada Mortgage and Housing [Corporation] and as such, the mortgages are no longer tied to specific units.
The values that we’re attempting to write off are the net book values or depreciated values which do not necessarily reflect the market value of the house.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) So from what I’m getting from the president is that there is no attempt to try and realize the value of these units that were disposed of.
There is no attempt whatsoever to recover some costs that the Housing Corporation may have incurred for these units. Is that what I’m getting from the corporation?
At the time that these buildings were tendered for disposal and those occurred in the years 2007, possibly previous to 2007, 2008, as well as in 2009, the decisions were made at that time that they were of no value as residential housing stock and were included as part of a tender which included the preparation of lots for new construction.
Whether they should or should not have been sold at that time to try to realize their value is in the past. So I cannot really make a comment on that, but the decision had been made similar to putting something to the curb as garbage. If someone picks it up and resells it, do we have a claim on it?
I don’t believe we do. As Mr. Curley has said, since they are no longer in our hands, we have no recourse, I believe, in that area.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I’m trying to get around this.
If I owed money to the Housing Corporation as a homeowner and I owed about $40,000 for renovations, for example, and no longer met the criteria for the Housing Corporation, the Housing Corporation would be after me for the amounts owed and not forgive my loan.
So I question.
You have these units that have outstanding mortgages on them, anywhere from $38,000 to $49,000, but you just give them away and dispose of them to whoever wants them without getting anything in return to these proprietors.
I’m trying to find a way to try and get an explanation out of the corporation.
So if you don’t mind, Mr. Chairman, I will continue with this line of questioning. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m not sure how clearer I can make this, but the mortgages are not tied to particular units.
I’m not aware if there would have been remaining original mortgages left on these units to begin with, only that our mortgages that we carry are tied to the full portfolio and not to specific units.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) We have encountered numerous challenges with the Housing Corporation in terms of financial situations.
We are realizing that they are also disposing of property that they’re asking us to write off and not making any attempts to recover any costs that may be of value to our government.
So is this practice going to continue in the future, Mr. Chairman?
Disposal of units that are under the care of the Housing Corporation is done through a process whereby the value of the house is looked at. Sometimes the net book value does not reflect the actual value of the house.
For example, amongst the list of units to be written off includes houses that have burnt to the ground and have zero value.
If anything, they have a negative value because we have to clean up. But on the books, they can still have thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of value.
The intention here is really a book keeping exercise more so than trying to write off value against a house.
I’m hoping that clarifies.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) No, it does not.
As I said, we are realizing that the units that were disposed of are now being reused for profit and that those proprietors did not pay any dollars to the Housing Corporation to be able to use those assets thereafter.
I’m asking the corporation, for those units that had not been burnt that still had reusable value after some renovations perhaps, could the corporation, perhaps, re-look at their practice of trying to recover costs in future disposals?
As I noticed, there are more units that are being boarded up throughout the community here that may still have value for other users. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can assure the members that houses, as they are being considered for write off in the future, will first be advertised for sale before any other process is looked at.
I’m okay at this time.
Again, we’re talking along the same lines of questionings as some of the other MLAs. I don’t think we are questioning… .
There was a duplex that burnt to the ground in Arctic Bay. In terms of writing off assets that are no longer able to be used, I don’t think we have a problem with that, but in Iqaluit here, there’s that whole list.
According to our table and chart that we have here, there are lot 228, lot 229, lot 230, 231, 232, 233, 238, 239, 240, and 241, and it’s saying that they are being replaced by new buildings.
I can see what they have wanted to do is remove the houses so they can build some of the new ones.
Are there new houses now on all of those lots?
There are either new houses or buildings on those lots at present or others that are going to be there.
For me, it’s a bit of a learning process in terms of writing things off.
You had mentioned that were two separate… I think you had said one was a tender and the other one was a request for proposals.
Is that correct for all of those lots in Iqaluit?
In terms of houses that were removed, these were done over a number of separate… .Pardon me, I am looking at the documents and the Iqaluit Housing Authority has actually described it as a request for proposals.
In answering the question, you said that it’s for the houses that were removed. So some of the houses were not removed, or what do you mean by, “For the ones that were removed, it was a request for proposals.”? I am assuming you were not saying the other part of it, that some of them were not removed.
My understanding is that they were all removed. If you could explain what you meant by that it would be greatly appreciated.
I was alluding to the houses that were burnt. I don’t have the details as to how they were disposed of, whether it was a request for proposals or tender.
I want to specifically talk about the ones in Iqaluit. According to our information, none of the ones in Iqaluit burnt down, but maybe I’m wrong.
Maybe the information that I have is wrong.
None of the houses in Iqaluit burned down.
Looking at our submission for assets to be written off, there was one unit in Iqaluit which was burnt down.
I see that lot no. 2 is the one that burnt. So for all of the other ones that I listed earlier in terms of lot 228 up to 241, those were all tendered out or those were requests for proposals.
Mr. Barriault: Thank you.
Those were advertised as requests for proposals.
In terms of Mr. Rumbolt’s questions as the GN owning the assets, who decides to write them off?
Is it the Nunavut Housing Corporation that tells the local housing authority or is it the local housing authority that determines that?
The process is for the Iqaluit Housing Authority or whichever local housing organization it is to put in a request. So they typically identify that they have units that require a write-off. The normal process is for that to be approved by their board and moved forward to the Nunavut Housing Corporation for approval before they can dispose of units.
So in terms of the unit that burnt down, I am assuming that was the tender. You said that there were two requests for proposals and there was a tender. So the tender actually went out for the unit that burnt down and that tender talked about “reclamating” or cleaning up the area.
Is that what the tender was for?
Mr. Barriault: Without having the specific details in front of me, I can speak more in the general process. If a unit is burnt, a tender would normally go out to remove the debris to clean the lot and, in the case of utilidor, to cap off utilidor to terminate all of the services and to basically leave a clean lot.