EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Right now, we know, given ten cents per kilowatt-hour, the amount of savings from using a general, standard spiral bulb through the 12-month period is between $30 and $80 by itself. Our kilowatt per hour costs are three times that, so we would estimate each bulb would save us approximately $100 at least on an annual basis. If you multiply that by the number of light bulbs in a given house, then the savings would be tremendous.
I guess given that, if there was a reduction of draw on electricity throughout the territory as a result of this legislation coming into place and spiral bulbs going in that there would be a corresponding reduction in cost to the Power Corporation for the production of power as well.
Would one be correct in ascertaining that? I’m just wondering if the minister could respond to that.
We would anticipate a less draw on electricity, and then the cost per consumer would, of course, go down because we wouldn’t have to purchase the same amount of fuel as we do today to provide electricity.
So those costs would be across the board in communities. How much they would be and when they would take place again would depend on what the uptake of the bulbs would be.
Specifically, there would be cost savings, not only for the consumer, but for the Power Corporation.
How that would reflect in the actual pricing of electricity, we will have to see how that works itself out through the system. However, we do know that the Utility Rates Review Council will have an opportunity to look at that because the Utility Rates Review Council sets and regulates the rate.
The minister was correct in stating the Utility Rates Review Council sets the rates but they only look at what the minister gives them as far as applications go.
He indicated there would be a significant savings to the Power Corporation for the production of electricity and power.
Would he commit that an increase … and I noticed that is one thing that he did not say in his Minister’s Statement that the cost savings would not equate to lower electricity costs.  I would like to ask him if he would commit that if there are, as a result of legislation, lower costs for the production of power that those costs are passed on and rates would be lowered to recognize that as well.
Mr. Tootoo has touched on two or three different areas. When you have an opportunity in the House, we are supposed to keep our answers concise and short and try not to get into a debate on issues.
So I am going to try very quickly. The Utility Rates Review Council does set the rates based on what the cash requirement of the corporation is to try to generate a profit. Again, the member and other members have said we shouldn’t be putting money into the corporation.
That is number one.
Number two, if the Power Corporation is using less electricity, which means less fuel having to be purchased, it would mean, for example in this case, if the fuel subsidy rider which we had to put in place because of the extra costs involved, would not be in place.
The actual kilowatt per hour may not go up or down but the Fuel Stabilization Rider would be considerably less and that means there would be an impact on your electricity bill, meaning you would be paying less on electricity. Not necessarily from the lower rates. So the member is correct when he makes that assumption.
What we are talking about is an exemption for all lights and incandescent bulbs. For example, we want to make sure that Nunavummiut know that bulbs used on the outside in their water tanks and so on, will continue to be able to be used. We are not trying to ban those.
We are not trying to ban light bulbs inside fridges and stoves and so on.
Question 127 – 2(4): Update on Counselling Services (Peterson)
My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week I gave a statement when I spoke about a very important workshop that will be delivered in the community of Cambridge Bay.
The workshop focuses on high risk behaviour and dealing with the aftermath of some of those behaviours like violence and death.
Cambridge Bay suffered a devastating loss of life in early January that we are still recovering from.
My question for the minister: can the minister update this House on what initiatives are underway to provide counselling services in communities that have suffered losses due to suicide or violent death?
In the case of that incident, to respond to the incident, a team of staff traveled from various areas to provide support to the community. We worked in close partnership, as well, with the community wellness centre to respond to that, as well as other agencies.
In communities where there are incidents that are serious in that way, a team travels to the community to provide assistance. At the same time, assistance is provided to not only the victims and families but also to the current personnel that is in the community to provide services in that area.
Indeed, the Department of Health and Social Services played an important role in the aftermath of that devastating loss.
My question for the minister is: can the minister clarify for the House what role her department plays? She mentions the team reacted; can the minister clarify if the team exists and what policy they operate under?
In every community we have mental health workers and social workers that provide counselling, as well as the services in the health centres and so on. When I say a team, internally there is a team at that.
At the same time when we are dealing with crisis we do what we can to provide assistance in other communities that may require assistance. We transport staff from other various communities to assist with that when there are crises in whatever community.
So not only within internally, there’s a crisis intervention group that deals with that. At the same time we partner with agencies at the community level, whether it is the hamlet, or the RCMP, or the Justice Committee, or whatever services are available through the wellness group in each of those communities.
The minister mentioned partnerships.
I mentioned in my statement the other day that there’s a group that the wellness centre brought in to put on some workshops for the community.
My question for the minister: would the minister commit to considering the establishment of ongoing delivery contracts with organization such as the Recovery Foundation, or the Centre for Suicide Prevention to deliver workshops and counselling services when communities suffer the sudden loss of a resident?
I want all the members to know that Question Period is now over.
Ms. Aglukkaq. (interpretation ends) Sorry, Mr. Curley, I will ask Ms. Aglukkaq to speak first and I will recognize you after. Ms. Aglukkaq.
I would like to raise a Point of Privilege under section 19 of our Rules.
Can you please, for the record, tell us what that is under our Rules? Ms. Aglukkaq.
The rule, a member may always raise a question of privilege in the Assembly immediately after the words are uttered or in the event occurs that gives rise to a question.
That’s a rule under where we can, section 19 and there’s a whole section if you want me to read that.
But, it allows an opportunity for us to raise a Point of Privilege, and then speak to it. Then you decide whether it’s within that rule or not.
Speaker: Ms. Aglukkaq, I am fully aware of the rules that you referred to and please proceed with your Point of Privilege.
I apologize, I thought you had asked me to clarify which section of that 19 that you wanted me to raise, and I apologize for that.
My Point of Privilege today is that my reputation was damaged by the statement made by the Member from Iqaluit Centre.
Members, I remind you that I still have not forwarded, brought my ruling to the House on this matter and therefore, I will not allow any debate on the Point of Privilege, but I will be forwarding my ruling at a later time.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Point of Privilege that I would like to raise has to do with the fact that I as a member here, need to hear from, when a question is raised that Nunavummiut and I be informed of the facts of the government’s, or agency’s role in determining how the rates were established.
I believe the minister was incorrect by stating that only QEC had the right to benefit from URRC ruling. Could you at least remind him that there are other agencies that can make presentations to the URRC instead of QEC?
To the Point of Order, do you wish to respond, Mr. Picco?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the member for raising a Point of Order.
I believe, and the Hansard will back me up tomorrow when we review the blues, I suggested that the URRC is the regulatory body that helps set the prices for the electrical company, known as the Qulliq Power Corporation.
Other outside agencies do not set the rates.
It is the URRC helps set the rate in Nunavut, after making an application. Then it goes to Cabinet to either agree with the recommendations made by the URRC, or reject them or not apply.
I would like to raise a Point of Order. Before I even had a chance to speak to my Point of Privilege, I don’t believe you’ve heard me to even draw your conclusion that it relates to the ruling that you’re still dealing with.
How do you know what my Point of Privilege is when you have not heard me speak to the Point of Privilege I am raising in this House.
Members, I will remind you that in applying the Rules of the House I will apply it after the words and directions given under the Rules.
Therefore, when any member refers to a matter where a Rule is pending I cannot allow any debate or any reference to any comments relating to that ruling. So therefore, I have to Rule that Out of Order.
Again, I remind all members that same Rule will be applied consistently.
We will proceed to agenda Item 7.
Item 8. (interpretation) Returns to Written Questions.
Tabled Document 060 – 2(4): Staff Housing - Correction to a Statement Made on March 23, 2007 to Committee of the Whole (Tapardjuk)
I would like to table a document that I sent to Peter Kilabuk, the Speaker, and I sent a copy to all Members of the Legislative Assembly in regard to March 23, during Oral Question period to the Department of Human Resources I had made a response mistakenly. This is to correct my response and table it in the House.
Please provide that document to the table officers.
I want all the members to know that our pages are quite busy.
Let’s go back to the Orders of the Day.
Tabled Document 061 – 2(4): Electoral Boundaries Commission Report - Letter from Kitikmeot Inuit Association (Aglukkaq)
Tabled Document 062 – 2(4): Electoral Boundaries Commission Report – CBC News “Nunavut boundaries report draws mixed reviews” November 10, 2006 (Aglukkaq)
Tabled Document 063 – 2(4): Electoral Boundaries Commission Report – CBC News “Four new ridings needed: Nunavut Commission” November 6, 2006 (Aglukkaq)
I would like to table a letter dated October 11, 2006 going to the President of the Kitikmeot Inuit Association from the Mayor of Gjoa Haven in regard to the Electoral Boundaries Commission.
I would also add to that an article dated November 10, CBC News headline is, ‘Nunavut Boundaries Report Draws Mixed Reviews,’ where there are interviews of members.
I would also like to table a report dated November 6, on Monday, where they speak to the process of how the boundaries commission would be handled in the House.
Please bring the documents forward.
Tabled Document 064 – 2(4): Cancelling Flight Information Centre in Yellowknife - Letter from NAV Canada (Peterson)
I would like to table a letter I received from John Crichton, President and CEO of NAV Canada, dated March 13, 2007.
The letter is in response to the letter I wrote to NAV Canada about the closure of the Yellowknife Weather Station and moving the services to North Bay, Ontario.
Please bring the document forward.
Tabled Document 065 – 2(4): Voice of Parents in Nunavut Education – Presentation by Kiggaqtuijingit Ilinniaqtulirijikkut Nunavumi/Coalition of Nunavut’s DEAs to Education Act Steering Committee (Curley)
I would like to table a letter from Jeeteeta Merkosak, Chair of the Coalition of Nunavut DEAs, along with the document titled, ‘The Voice of Parents in Nunavut Education,’ that were compiled, I believe, November 2006.
Can we have that document brought forward, please?
MLA for Iqaluit Centre, Mr. Tootoo.
Tabled Document 066 – 2(4): Northern Residents Tax Deduction - Letter from Dennis Bevington, MP for Western Arctic (Tootoo)
I would like table a letter that I received from the Member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, Dennis Bevington, outlining his push to get the federal government to do something and that something is missing in the budget address and that’s the increased northern residents’ tax deduction. I would like to table that.
Tabled Document 067 – 2(4): Electoral Boundaries Commission Report - Letter of Support for Recommendations from Hamlet of Taloyoak (Tootoo)
I would also like to table a letter I received from the Mayor of Taloyoak and I would like to draw the members’ attention to it here where it says, “the recommendations will be made clear in the Legislative Assembly as well as it should be made clear to all Members of the Legislative Assembly that tampering with democracy has its price and we remind those that vote contrary to that democracy that there will be territorial elections next year.”
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. (interpretation ends) Can we have the document brought forward, please?
(interpretation) Item 13. (interpretation ends) Tabling of Documents. (interpretation) If there are no more. Item 14.
Motion 005 – 2(4): Amendments to Rules 39 and 18 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly (Tootoo)
I’d like to move the following motions. Amendments to Rules 39 and 18 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
WHEREAS the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges has reviewed certain provisions of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly;
A Minister may, under the item “Returns to Oral Questions”, rise to supplement his or her initial response to an oral question posed within the previous ten sitting days
(7) A Member may, without notice, at the conclusion of oral question period, move that the time allotted for oral questions be extended. If the motion is approved, the time shall be extended for thirty (30) minutes.
AND FURTHER, that Rule 39 be amended by renumbering subsection 5 as subsection 6; and subsections 6 and 7 as subsections 9 and 10;
Notwithstanding, Rule 18(1) does not apply to Rules 39(7) and 39(8).
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Question has been called.
Motion 006 – 2(4): Extended Adjournment (Picco)
I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that notwithstanding Rule 4, that when the House concludes its present sitting in Iqaluit it shall be adjourned until May 29, 2007.
AND FURTHER, that at anytime prior to May 29, 2007, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and members of the Legislative Assembly, that the Public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it had been duly adjourned to that time.
Motion 007 – 2(4): Amendments to Rules 97 and 101 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly (Tootoo)
I would like to move the following motion in regard to rules 97 and 101 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
WHEREAS the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures, and Privileges has reviewed certain provisions of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly;
AND FURTHER, that Rule 101 be struck and replaced by:
Under the authority of the Speaker, the Clerk shall be responsible for the production and distribution of Hansard.
Bill 1, 2, 3, and 9 with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
According to the authority provided to me by Motion 4 – 2(4), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
Members will break for 30 minutes before we proceed to the Committee of the Whole.
>>House recessed at 15:20 and Committee resumed at 15:56
Chairman (Mr. Arreak)(interpretation): We can resume our meeting. (interpretation ends) I would like to call the committee meeting to order.
We wish to continue with Bill 1 and complete our review of the main estimates for Community and Government Services, followed by the Department of Education.
Are we in agreement we return to the main estimates of Community and Government Services?
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2007-08 – Consideration in Committee – Community and Government Services
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Madame Minister, do you have officials you would like to go up to the witness table with? Ms. Brown.
On my right is Pam Hine, the Deputy Minister, and on my left is Mike Rafter, Director of Finance.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Welcome, Ms, Hine and Mr. Rafter. (interpretation ends) We were on page J-11 of the main estimates.
Community and Government Services. We will return to page J-11.
Any further questions or comments on this page?
I would like to welcome the minister and her officials back to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Chairman, I think everyone is aware of the concerns that members had, not only here but in the media, and all over the territory as well.
I am just wondering if, given the concerns we raised the day we deferred your department, is any other information you would like to provide to the members.
Yes, we have further information for the committee.
Would she be so kind as to share it with us?
I certainly can and will.
The information I have for the committee is we have a negotiating mandate and direction approved by the Financial Management Board. The first 10 years annual base lease rent will be $729,520. The second 10 years annual base lease will be $779,260.
The lease of term is 20 years.
I guess it looks like we are looking at another 20 year lease on top of the 20 we already had on this particular property, which I think over the last 20 years we have paid $24 million or more for it based on the government’s contracting of $1.2 million lease cost to it.
I would assume it is an annual cost that you were referring to, the $700,000, if I could get a confirmation of that.
Yes, the member is correct. It is annual based.
That is, as the minister indicates, the base amount. I know she indicated they are still negotiating some of the other things.
Can she indicate a list of other things that are under negotiations?
I’m not looking for numbers or anything like that because I realize it is in negotiation. What types of categories and things?
Can she provide us with that information?
My deputy minister will respond to that.
Ms. Hine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The member asked a good question. What we are negotiating is called additional rent.
It is over and above the base rent the minister had previously stated. The additional rent would be the tenant’s share of the operations and maintenance of the building. That is what we are still in negotiations with the landlord over.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Hine.
I know my colleague, Mr. Peterson, brought it up and the Chair of Government Operations and Accountability.
The issue of these long-term leases was brought forward to us and raised by the Auditor General on a number of occasions.
So when you look at tying us up for another 20 years with this lease, were there other options that were looked at rather than entering into a long-term lease?
I will direct my Deputy Minister to answer that, too.
Yes, the direction from Financial Management Board that we received was to negotiate the different options that are available.
We did look at a number of options; there were options for a five-year lease, a ten-year lease, and a 20-year lease.
As required by the Government of Nunavut Leasing Policy, a cost-benefit analysis was completed by the Department of Finance and it was found that this lease, the 20-year lease was the best option for the value for money. And that was based on the fact that we would gain ownership of the building at the end of the 20-year lease.
I think this issue predates the witnesses at the table and the minister.
It’s one of those things that we inherited from the past but I know a few years ago, as my colleague pointed out, that questions were raised around this particular lease because it was simply the highest lease that the government had on an annual basis based on its own report, and that they were going to look at different options.
Was there an expression of interest or a request for proposals to look at whether or not anyone else could provide a suitable office space?
Yes, Community and Government Services determined after assessment, analysis of cost estimations, final cost assessments, and Government of Nunavut funding capabilities that it was more appropriate in this particular instance to pursue a proposal that included a suitable building that was already in existence.
I guess it depends on who’s determining it’s appropriate.
But I guess given that this option that was brought forward and approved by Financial Management Board; is this the best deal that we could get through the negotiations; I don’t know if the minister or her officials can answer that right now; is it a good deal for us?
The deputy minister will answer that.
As I said before, under the requirements of the Government of Nunavut Leasing Policy, we were to provide all options that were available and the associated information to the Department of Finance, who completed the cost benefit analysis.
Based on the information that was brought forward, they determined that this was the best deal that was presented.
I guess I just wonder how you can determine if you got the best deal if you never really went to anyone to find out if you could get a better deal, instead of just sole-source negotiating with someone instead of going out to a public tender, or look for an expression of interest, or proposals from other proponents that may be interested and looking at that type of opportunity.
I don’t know if I could get a response to that.
Again, my deputy minister will respond to that.
I believe the Minister has already answered the question.
Community and Government Services did complete their own assessment. Their assessment included the needs of the current departments located in Cambridge Bay. the actual space that is available in Cambridge Bay, it was determined that we still have sufficient space within our offices in Cambridge Bay for another 15 to 30 employees to be able to deal with any future growth.
There wasn’t sufficient need in the community for an additional office building that would be large enough to house or accommodate over a 100 employees which is currently housed in the office building and based on the financial capacity of the Government of Nunavut that the renewing of the lease with this proponent was the best option at this time.
I think it is funny that if you don’t go out and find out what the market will bear, basically what they establish is a monopoly.
You know this government, part of its mandate is to help develop the economy and to help it grow. The economy can only grow and do well and prosper in a competitive open market area.
I am just wondering; if you don’t even bother to try and find out what else is out there, how can you determine that is the best deal?
As it was stated that this happened before our time and we can commit that all future leases will go to Request for Proposal.
We have that booklet that was initiated a couple of years ago about the leasing in Nunavut for Government of Nunavut buildings, the leases that we have and we took that recommendation from your committee and we had tabled it already.
From there we can certainly incorporate that in place as we go along, with the leases that are coming up in five years. Give that limit and see what we can do from there.
I seem to recall a couple of years ago or so when we were talking about this and I must say I’m a little bit cautious about saying anything about it. The last time I talked about it someone tried to file a conflict of interest complaint against me.
But that is not going to stop me from doing my job.