EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
What we’re trying to do is find out about his question about whether, if we blend the remaining gasoline supply with the new supply, whether that would improve it or not.
So we can’t really answer that at this time because that’s what we’re going to do next.
I don’t know whether we’re going to mix them together if that’s going to improve it or whether we are going to dispose of the gasoline supply.
Those are the two options that we have at this time.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I’m sorry Mr. Chairman, but I keep asking the same question.
In his opening remarks, the minister stated that the two options that they have is the disposal of the remaining gasoline supply, blending the remaining gasoline supply with a new supply.
That’s what he stated.
But I guess he really doesn’t know which option that he’s going to be implementing so that’s just what I’m asking.
In my opening remarks, all I said was that our preliminary assessment suggests there are two possible solutions.
I didn’t say they were the solution.
I just said it was a preliminary assessment suggesting that these may be two possible options that we can follow.
That’s just what I said.
I didn’t say that it would improve anything.
So that’s just the two options that we have.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I’m tired.
Thank you, that’s good enough.
Like, there are two strokes and four strokes.
Those are two different motors.
Have these been tested as well, a four stroke motor and a two stroke motor as to which would be better?
Or would it be okay to use a four stroke and a two stroke?
They might be bad for those different engines four stroke and two stroke and in the opening remarks there were some questions of that kind.
I just wondered if there had been some testing on a four stroke engine and two stroke engines.
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): Yes, I’m not trying to play with the member.
We did some testing on a two stroke motor.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): He stated that they did some testing on the two stroke ones.
Have you found out the results, whether it is good or not.
Mr. Chairman, the results of the testing that we did as far as I know, there was no damage.
The only thing that we found out was a deposit or the residue that built up in the engine for the ones that we tested using bad gasoline and there was no real damage to the engine on the two stroke pistons.
But, we’re not exactly sure what conclusion we came to but we just know that there was a residue or deposits in the engine.
I’ve got a few questions.
I’ll try to stick within the allocated time.
I’m looking at the document here the Gjoa Haven Gas Study.
And there are a couple of sentences there that I want to read.
“The deposit appears to be a form of corrosive reaction with the sealing cast iron component.
There was no similar deposit in the new gas and that the engine was assessed over the longer period.
The deposits appear to be negating the effect of the lubricant.
It is anticipated that this could lead to premature wear and potential seizure.”
So, that was the Gjoa Haven gas thing.
At the back of the book, it said in terms of the fuel specifications analyst the Gjoa Haven gasoline met the current CGSB specification.
So, that gasoline caused a lot grief in Gjoa Haven and it met the current Canadian General Standards Board and it says, in the press release here, “Report identifies gasoline as cause of engine damage,” and I think the gasoline, on the minister’s statement, the gasoline meets the specifications of the Canadian General Standards Board except for the deposit control additive DCA.
So, I know why you can’t answer the question, it’s because there is probably a massive legal implication by saying something in this House.
If somebody picks it up.
But, my question, the issue is the gas is causing engine seizures.
And like I said earlier in my statements, we got to come to a solution on this.
And we’ve been talking and talking and talking.
Now, I’m sure the government has quality control people and I’m sure NTCL has but like I know gas isn’t tested on a regular basis or you know, the reason our gas was tested because the hunters were finding some problems.
My question is has the government determined whether the bad gasoline that was purchased from NTCL met all the government technical specifications at the time or were the specifications themselves inadequate in some way?
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): I will get my Deputy Minister to respond to Mr. McLean’s question.
NTCL and the supplier provided lab test report complying with this Canadian General Standards Board.
That was in the past.
That was in the last year.
Now having learning that experience I would like to add that for time now on the government will impose a little bit more testing in the future.
Mr. McLean: Mr. Chairman, I’m going to ask the question again.
Did the gas meet our government specifications according to the RFP?
Did the gas meet the specifications yes, or no?
The specification has been followed-up by NTCL.
When the Gjoa Haven issue became a major issue for my colleague from Gjoa Haven and it was in fact proved that the gasoline was a major problem in the engine feed and I remember my colleague being very vocal about it and he since has told me that they don’t use that gasoline in the warmer months.
So to me it appears like it is a summer grade gasoline.
I know it’s not the same gasoline that we currently have in the Kivalliq, and the Qikiqtani.
He seems to have told me that they use it in the summertime and they don’t experience any problems.
After that’s all said and done was there ever any compensation ever paid out to the Gjoa Haven residents over that issue or did the community just accept it?
Did the Gjoa Haven residents receive any compensation for that product?
As far as we know the people of Gjoa Haven were never compensated.
Chairperson (interpretation): Any more Mr. McLean?
So that is leading us down the path of compensation for the rest of Nunavut if the Gjoa Haven people weren’t compensated then that sets a precedent for the rest of the people in Nunavut not being compensated.
In the GN, the Minister’s Statement on May 3; that the GN is considering its legal options.
That to me tells me that the GN is not going to compensate the people of Nunavut for the inferior product that we got.
So if they are considering their legal options, that must mean that they feel, and I am not putting words in your mouth minister, the GN must feel that NTCL is at fault for this product.
Like I said earlier in my statement I am not hear trying to blame you or trying to blame NTCL I am looking for a solution as there have been a lot of hardship placed on people in Nunavut with this inferior product.
Have you guys taken into consideration yet any kind of plan.
I know you have hired a consultant, but it seems that this government hires a consultant for the time of day.
You know a consultant’s report, by the time we break and we come back in the fall, we could come back here as mad as hornets because we will end up with hundreds or literally thousands of outboard motors being seized, more snow machines and things like that.
It is going to come to a point where it could be so critical to this government that it may cause us undue harm and I don’t want to start to talk about specifics about where this could go.
Is the government thinking of getting together with NTCL and coming up with some kind of plan to fix this situation and compensate the people that have been effected by it?
We are presently working with NTCL in regards to the compensation that the member talked about, perhaps the Minister of Finance could respond to the question.
Chairperson (interpretation): Minister of Finance, would you care to respond to that question about compensation?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairman, our government does recognize that we have a responsibility in one form or another to lead the development of a program to try to compensate individuals that have been adversely impacted by the quality of the gas.
Now whether or not, who ends up paying the final ticket on that program, once it is finalized and once it is implemented is another matter.
As Minister Kattuk had indicated we have had some preliminary discussions with NTCL as early as this morning when the representatives of the government met with representatives of NTCL.
We both haven’t had an opportunity to be debriefed on some of those discussions.
But they are, I can tell you that NTCL is interested in working with the Government of Nunavut in trying to reach a solution that is acceptable obviously to all parties.
As well, the insurer of the Government of Nunavut has been advised and is aware of ongoing discussions and has been fully briefed on developments to date in respect to this issue.
Although they haven’t committed to this day, obviously in a formal position, whether or not they will be stepping in, as our insurer or not but again the fact that they are involved.
Everybody is at the table we want to try to reach a practical solution to the whole issue, in respect of fairly dealing with individuals have been impacted in respect to Public Works, as Minister Kattuk is dealing with as far as remedying the existing inventory.
And most important, ensuring that this doesn’t happen again.
Anything else Mr. McLean?
It’s nice to hear that NTCL and the Government are at the table, looking at solutions to this, I think that’s what we’re looking for now, immediately or immediate action.
And I think the citizens of Nunavut see that we are looking at the solution.
NTCL and the Government of Nunavut are looking at a solution for this major, major issue, I think we’re heading in the right direction on this one.
My question is, it might be an unfair question to the minister, but will the government insurance costs cover the situation?
Mr. Chairman as I indicated earlier, they have been advised of the situation, and they are being briefed and are at the table right now, although there is no acknowledgement as indicated or any commitment right now on how much interest, how much liability, I guess if you prefer that word they perceive as their responsibility.
I guess the further we get into this, the more you have, the more discussion from the stakeholders and obviously there’s more of an opportunity to reach a solution, and that’s what we’re working towards.
Just a short question and I have one more after that.
What’s the approximate cost of this situation, it may be possibly cost the citizens or the insurance company.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairman that’s the information I think it’s critical over the next days or weeks that we have to try to put together from the couple of perspectives.
First of all, once it is identified by the Minister responsible on how to rectify this situation with the existing inventory, I mean that will obviously have an impact and the most significant impact, in respect of how you handle the existing inventory, if we get a total replacement you know and the plan around that and how you do that.
Or is he going to blend in new gas, and again the cost and the ongoing cost on dealing with that.
As well I guess in trying to compile information about the machines out there right now, in every community that have been impacted and what are the numbers out there as far as damaged machines, what are the repairs that have been undertaken, for those that have had damage and also there are others that are out there they may not be damaged that we know that may be problems in the future if we have to use the gas supply that we have right now.
So trying to get some, I guess the quality of information around that is probably pretty important right now in trying to put together on how to plan on dealing with and also in measuring the financial impact to all those involved.
This will be a long debate in the fall in our fall session, in Pangnirtung.
But my question to the minister is, is that the magnitude of this issue is it’s not going to go away until we deal with it in a, like I don’t want to say quick manner, but a really direct manner that the people of Nunavut see that we are dealing with it.
So you hired a consultant and I am hoping, I am hoping that this consultant isn’t from southern Ontario or Ottawa or something like that that has never been in the north before and I am hoping the consultant that you have hired has had a large degree of northern experience in dealing with issues in the north and that he is going to have a group of people around him that are going to be able to come up with a solution for the situation.
And like I say sometimes we hire consultants from the south that haven’t got a clue, it’s the first time they have been up here is on a midnight excursion trip or something like that for 499.
So I am hoping and I want the minister to commit to this House that the consultant that they hire has northern experience and they know what they are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Peter Kattuk: The consultant has been north and he is sitting right behind me, Mr. McLean.
I have another name on my list, Mr. Arvaluk.
I am not sure exactly where to start but I do have some additional questions about the opening remarks that were made by the minister.
There are only two pages on it and in English…(interpretation ends)…A letter of notice was sent to our supplier the Northern Transportation Company Ltd.
What do you mean by a letter of notice?
Can you explain to me a little more what the letter of notice means in this case?
What message did you give NTCL with this notice?
I will have my deputy minister respond because he has been the main person dealing with NTCL.
Since we started these discussions with NTCL he has been the main contact.
It was a letter of notice making a statement about the gasoline and the steps required.
Mr. Arvaluk: So it was a letter of information rather than notice?
A letter has been sent to NTCL, the contracted northern supplier basically acknowledging that we have experienced and are concerned with problems with abnormal engine deposits on the snow machines, also, that the lab tests confirmed that the DCA is missing from the gasoline.
We are asking them for co-operation in a way to resolve this situation and the problem and we expecting that they will contact us by May 15, in order to find out the common ground how to resolve the whole situation.
Chairperson (interpretation): Koanaqutit.
Mr. Arvaluk: I am going to go back.
Okay I will drop that one but I am going to go back to what everybody else seems to be talking about and the opening remarks too on the third paragraph on the second page.
I think we are going to need an answer.
For example, right now the consumers, the Nunavummiut, especially the hunters that we respect, have completely lost confidence in our ability to get a good supply for them.
Just imagine what would happen if we do a similar disaster with Health and Social Services or any other programs that we have.
They had complete trust in us to carry out good education, health and social services, supply them with good gas.
I don’t think, I guess I should say, I know from our other colleagues here that we are not meeting here today in…inaudible…sometimes we do.
I think this is more of a critical situation where we will require good information, honest feedback and try to resolve it like the minister and the deputy minister is saying.
We will need to very quickly assure them that this will not happen again and we will do everything we can to rectify the situation.
Otherwise, when we have advertisements for jobs, we ask for qualifications, experience.
Mr. Chairman, can I ask that, is this kind of incident where DCA is missing ever happened in Canada let alone in Nunavut?
Is there anything that puzzles the Canadian Standards Council or the Canadian Research Council or anybody who is in authority or body that inspects the Canadian Standards, the Canadian General Standards Board?
Is Canada involved with our Nunavut concern about our bad gas?
Okay, Mr. Wispinski.
Mr. Wispinski: I know that the Government of Nunavut does have a representative that goes to the Canadian General Standards Board meetings.
In addition the Alberta Research Council is a member of this board as well.
We both brought the concerns of the Government of Nunavut to that committee and the committee is listening to those concerns and is working also to improve and make things better in the future.
The minister also stated earlier that there are approximately 770 some additives added to the gasoline in the refinery when the diesel is being turned into gasoline and there are a whole lot of additives in there, but the DCA is missing.
Is that a common experience with other refineries in Canada or outside of Canada?
How is it anyway?
What I’m saying is that in the refineries there is a standard; it’s not small drops that they put in the refineries.
It’s a huge part of the recipe.
How do you think they happen to have over sighted that additive that’s supposed to be in there as part of the refinery process to turn that diesel into gas?
Every refinery adds deposit control additives in relatively small amounts in parts per million levels to the gasoline and the gasoline is a mixture of several hundred different components but the additive is a small part of that.
Each refinery uses their own additive and as we stated before that additive, the refinery doesn’t even test for that additive.
They rely on their records of how much they’ve purchased; the calibration of the metres that were used to add that additive to the fuel.
From my understanding, every, and the requirement of the Canadian General Standards Board every refinery adds their additive to their fuel and why it’s not here I can’t speculate on that.
Mr. Arvaluk: In this House of Commons or people’s House we use, I have no clue.
We have no clue; instead of I can’t speculate at that.
Mr. Chairman, when the Nunatsiaq News who put the advertisement out, this Mr. Kattuk did, not too long ago, and the commencement is April 15 for the supply of bulk refined petroleum products in Nunavut.
It says in there that the GN’s preference is that all fuel required shall come from Canadian refineries.
Do you do that every year, every time you have advertisements for tenders like this and you put GN preference, is that all fuel required shall come from Canadian refineries.
Is that the normal thing that you put in your advertisements and year by year?
That’s the usual case.
Mr. Arvaluk: So, if it’s done every year then is this bad gas that we’re talking about, came from Canadian refineries?
In regards to your first question, this is for next year, but in response to your last question the concern causing gasoline does not come from a Canadian refinery.
I hope there is a miscommunication here.
My first question was in your advertisement do you always put, previous years, in the last 10 years or let’s say last 3 years, before Gjoa Haven bad gas situation.
Did you always put in the GN’s preference is that all fuel required shall come from Canadian Refineries?
That was my first question and when he said yes, my second question was, did this particular fuel that we experienced came from Canadian refineries?
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Minister. Mr. Kattuk.
In regards to the first question, this advertisement that went through Nunatsiaq News is a request for proposals for next year’s supply of bulk refined petroleum products.
And the gasoline that we did get does not come from a Canadian refinery.
Mr. Arvaluk: Oh, I understand then that this clause here that’s requiring the GN purchase of gas for Nunavut requirement that it comes from Canadian refineries is first time that is in the advertisement.
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): Yes, this is the first time that we have that in there.
Mr. Arvaluk: Can I ask the minister then why this was not done after April 1, 1999 and thereafter.
Hon. Peter Kattuk (interpretation): We used the same system that was used by the previous government and we have been using the same procedures that the previous government used to use.
Mr. Arvaluk: Mr. Chairman, when we have a contract with someone over the course of the 3 years or 5 years or even 10 years, sometimes there is a requirement to make amendments, usually acceptable amendments in the contracts.
Why was this not done in 1999, after April 1, 1999?
Well we did a review when we became a Nunavut Government but there were no changes until this year.
Mr. Arvaluk: I understand then that this requirement now is in there because we are experiencing the bad gas this winter I presume.
My next question Mr. Chairman, is that in your agreement with the NTCL under the present contract, that specifically requested and agreed that both of you agreed, I assume that agreement that you both signed an agreement, what kind of fuel or different kind of fuel automatically goes for diesel etc.
Including section 5-.1.2 that you agreed to have Nunavut gas to be unleaded, automatic gasoline, Canada CGSB 3.5 and you specifically stated 94 winter grade type 2.
Is that type used by for example PetroCanada or Esso who is considered Canadian, winter gas?
Chairperson (interpretation): Anyone?
The type 2 gas that specification would refer to a winter gasoline and that would be the same one used by other Canadian refineries such as Imperial or PetroCanada.
Mr. Arvaluk: How did NTCL or petroleum products division certified tested and certified that this fuel that we use now was that type, exactly that type?
Mr. Wispinski: Thank you Mr. Chairman The standard the CGSB standard has a table of specified limiting values that’s tested against to ensure that it meets volatility requirements for the area of Canada that Nunavut is in and that’s the yardstick that they use.
Anything else? Mr Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk: So this gas we are using now, would it be exactly 94 winter grade type 2, if DCA was included before it was delivered?
I believe it would be.
I don’t have that specification in front of me but I think it would be.
If it would meet your agreement to have a winter grade type 2, with DCA in it why we are not able to purchase DCA and in jerry can form or in a barrel form, just add it into gas.
Does that require a certain temperature to mix it in or certain stirring components or mechanisms like in a refinery?
It cannot be done by simply shaking it in a Jerry can like a premix, premix oil and gas that we would normally do, for the older models or the new ones in injection form.
Why can’t this be done if that was the only thing stopping it from being qualified under winter gas type 2?
The addition of the DCA was in fact tested in the snowmobiles and the results of that test were that there was no significant difference in the deposits using the DCA compared to the gasoline that wasn’t using the DCA.
This was a plan ahead of time to see if we can add the DCA, not to Jerry cans but to the shore tanks and the entire fuel supply.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you. Your last question, you’re out of time and we do have to deal with other things and some of the people want to ask questions. Mr. Arvaluk.
I did not realize that I was not watching that. So, what you are saying is that even with the DCA included then if it doesn’t make a significant difference in Rankin Inlet testing, then something else was wrong with it.
Something missing, or something added too much or something that was not in there or the recipe.
What do you mean by variation of vapour pressure, minimum 90, antiknock index, minimum 89?
Are you saying that these were also missing that’s supposed to be in the contract?
All those things you referred to the antiknock index and all those are the specified limiting values and those have been meeting the standard of the CGSB and the fuel itself is probably a cumulative effect of many of the properties that have been discussed before, the DCA, the oltens and other things that have maybe combined to this propensity for deposits in the two stroke engines that we found.
I still have names.
Thank you. I will ask, just a brief question, it’s a very short one.
I would like to ask the minister, last Fall in 2001, in December 19, the testing has been done since that time and we have not found any solution since that time and we heard that the bad gas is still around, first we heard that there was bad gas, that the gas was okay and then it goes back to the bad gas.