EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I know that the minister had indicated that it was the power corporation’s board of directors that developed the General Rate Application and put it forward.
I just want to have the minister confirm that the board of directors was not given any direction at all by either the minister responsible at the time or any other member of the government.
The process that has occurred, as I tried to explain earlier to Mr. Peterson, is exactly what we said we would do as a government.
Last May when we had the debate on the power corporation in the Legislative Assembly in Baker Lake, when the sitting was held, we said that we would freeze the rates, at that time, for one year.
And the direction that we gave the power corporation a year ago was to bring forward a General Rate Application in 2004.
So, that is where we are at right now and that is the process that is in place.
As I said earlier, the cabinet did not review the application before it came forward; that is the process that was put forward by the power corporation.
It’s a proposal so that the corporation, for those two test years, April 1, 2005 to April 1, 2006 and on, for those first two test years they are to be solvent and see what their rate of return would be to provide that.
That is why the General Rate Application is in place.
I am going to go back to that freeze in a moment, but my question for the minister is: in the General Rate Application, the option that is put forward by the board of directors was for a uniform rate for the territory.
I just want to ask the minister to confirm that neither he nor any other previous minister nor any other minister in this government directed anyone on the board of directors or the president on what options to put forward in their General Rate Application.
I can say, having been intimately involved in the process from day one, that there were no directions given by any cabinet meeting that I attended or by cabinet in any direction whatsoever to the power corporation to come forward with what we would call a postage stamp rate.
The board of directors looked at their options and they put together the proposal to the Utility Rates Review Council for a General Rate Application.
They came up with that option; it did not come to the cabinet, we did not vote on it and say that is what should be brought forward.
I am very happy to hear that, because I know it’s a small territory, things get around, and rumours of interference run rampant out there.
So I just wanted the minister to clarify that for the public.
This is another rumour that I would like him to clarify, and it deals with his response earlier, as he mentioned that the government decided to freeze the rate after the fuel stabilization rider was requested when we were at our sitting in Baker Lake.
A rumour that I heard, and I would like to ask the minister to dispel that rumour, is that one of the reasons that it was frozen and put off was because there was no money to pay for it.
I would like to ask the minister and if he could clarify or dispel that rumour.
Usually in this House, we are not supposed to be in the process of answering innuendo and responding to rumours, but the member has asked a pertinent question and I appreciate him asking the question.
So, I hope that I can give a distinct answer to his question, an answer that is very honestly and serious.
A year ago when we reviewed the Utility Rates Review Council report, as I said earlier, the Utility Rates Review Council came forward and said, “Look, you have asked for five cents and within a six-week timeframe, they changed and then they asked for ten cents.”
The Utility Rates Review Council took all of the information that was available from the power corporation.
There was only one financial statement; we didn’t know, at that time, if the problem of the corporation was a revenue problem or an expense problem, so we said we would freeze the rates for one year.
Based on the 7.5 cents that the corporation had asked for at that time, it would have cost millions of dollars to the government, because at the end of the day, 80 percent of all revenue that comes from the power corporation comes from the government.
It is a direct transfer to the hamlets, a direct transfer to the housing associations, schools, Legislative Assembly buildings, the Brown Building, the hospital, and so on and so forth.
So, at the end of the day, any increase that the power corporation or from a fuel stabilization rider then, and now, would be borne by the government.
The real reason that the rates were frozen after a review by the government, I think, were two: they were logistical as well as financial, but most importantly, probably, they were administrative, because we didn’t have the information, we felt, at that time.
Indeed, that was the consensus of the business community at the time.
I don’t make this stuff up.
A year ago they all said they applauded us; in the June 13 edition of the Nunatsiaq News, the chamber of commerce president said they thought it was a good move by the government to hold the rates for one year, to freeze them, so we could ascertain what the situation was.
So we didn’t know at the time.
As you and many members in this House know, one thing I’ve stood up for in this House, and argued for, is openness and transparency from the government to the people of Nunavut.
The minister just indicated that the government said the reason they froze the rates is because they didn’t have enough information.
Now he just said it’s because they didn’t have the money, as well as another reason. Maybe I’d just like to ask the minister for whatever reason there is that they make decisions on whatever is going to happen, that they give all the reasons why out there, so that people aren’t led to believe it’s one thing and not something else.
I think I gave three reasons for that rejection of the URRC recommendations on the fuel subsidization rider; it wasn’t a rate application, a fuel subsidy rider.
Those were logistic, administrative, and financial.
The financial rate is where we didn’t have the financial statements, we only had one set of financial statements.
I didn’t say it was because we didn’t have enough money.
I believe if you look at the answer tomorrow it will confirm it and say that.
What I said is that it would have cost us millions of dollars.
Yes, that is true, because 80 percent of every cent that the power corporation generates comes directly or indirectly from our government.
So, if I increase the rates tomorrow by 100 percent the Government of Nunavut would be paying 80 percent of that.
So, it goes to say, without fair contradiction, that if you increase the rates by 100 percent then 80 percent of that will come from the government.
That means we will have to transfer money to the Department of Health and Social Services, to Department of Education, to Public Works to pay the light bill.
I didn’t say that was the reason why we didn’t do it.
I said the reason why we didn’t do it, Mr. Speaker, for the record, was based on the following three that I had just outlined: the administrative, financial and logistics.
Mr. Speaker, the financial was the lack of financial statements; we only had one statement.
Mr. Speaker, if the members would review the Hansard from Baker Lake from a year ago, they are on the public record.
I sat in the Committee of the Whole by myself and answered the questions on why we didn’t move forward on that recommendation.
So, it wasn’t because we didn’t have the money in our pockets, because we never got to that point, but it would have cost us at that time millions of dollars.
At the end of the day, like we said a year ago, we would freeze the rates for one year, go forward with a GRA.
That’s what we are doing right now.
We haven’t told the power corporation what kind of power rates to put forward.
It didn’t go to cabinet first; it’s a position taken by the power corporation board of directors and so on, to be solvent.
I’m not arguing with that.
We had to let the URRC process go forward; it’s a transparent process, and Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day we will receive their report, we’ll have an opportunity to do an analysis of it, I’ve already committed to the members to sit down with the members and go through what the report says, and then look at the recommendations made by the URRC at that time.
Question 059 – 2(2): Amount of General Rate Application
I’ll follow the line of questioning my colleague Mr. Tootoo just had.
Without prejudging the work of the URRC, can the Minister of Energy reveal to us what revenue projections has Qulliq Energy Corporation developed in relation to this general rate application.
It’s my understanding from going through the GRA application by the power corporation, there are over 100 pages, 200 pages I’ve had an opportunity to read through, the projection they’re making is to do a rate of return for the power corporation itself, to ensure the financial viability of the corporation itself, for the first two test years: 2005-06, and 2006-07.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I don’t, as the member has just said, want to preach or propose what the URRC will come up with in its recommendation.
We have to wait until those come forward.
If the corporation is not expected to break even until a later year, I think I heard maybe 2007, given that the corporation has already exceeded its legal debt limit, does this mean that the Government of Nunavut will have to bail out the Qulliq Energy Corporation again with a direct cash infusion?
Again, I didn’t say that.
What I said was the projection of the GRA application process is one: for the test years 2005-06; and two, for 2006-07, the two year program for the GRA application.
That is what it is covering, first of all, to make the corporation financially solvent.
It has no indication after April 1, 2005 that the Government of Nunavut would bail it out.
Mr. Speaker, as I had just said earlier, 80 percent of all revenue generated by the power corporation comes from the Government of Nunavut, directly.
If I had increased the rates by 20 percent, 40 percent in 2001 or 2002 or 2003, it would have been this government that would have transferred the money to pay for it, 80 percent of it.
So, Mr. Speaker, this process that we are looking at right now is an independent process of the Utility Rate Review Council; they will look at the financial stability of the corporation based on the numbers that are put forward by the power corporation.
They will review the two financial statements that are available, because that is all that we have again, two financial statements that are available, as of today.
They will look at those.
They will look at projections and the corporation has said that a postage stamp rate application, which is what they are bringing forward, will make them financially viable as of April 1, 2005 onwards, for that two year period.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Peterson.
Thank you, for the answer, Mr. Minister.
I think this year, so far, we have put $14 million into the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
I think that I read somewhere that 297 page document where it looked at maybe another $8 million before the end of March, so there is a significant amount of money that we were talking about here.
I am wondering if the minister could tell us what level of profit is the corporation expected to generate.
The power corporation, I believe this statement shows on operating costs in the first financial statement, was $5.2 million; the second year that we have the financial statement for had indicated $7 million.
We don’t have the third year statement yet, so it is a $12 million on the operating year on each of the first two years of operations.
The next year... . I was asked the question last week, and I can’t pre-disclose what that amount would be.
I can say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no bail-out.
If we had put the money next month, or next year, or if we put it in two years ago, we would have paid 80 percent of it.
So before you throw good money into bad, you have to be able to get, like we said a year ago, your financial house in order.
Get copies of the audited financial statements to see what the real problem is, see where you are hemorrhaging, where the losses are occurring.
The Auditor General pointed out $1.2 million last year, in the statements that they attributed to, on loose terms, what would be mismanagement, at the corporation level.
That is less than one percent of the total revenue generated at the corporation.
The big issue here, Mr. Speaker, is that the rates have not increased since 1998, and no one in this House or the public denies that there has to be an increase; the question is how much should we increase.
And that is the job of the Utility Rate Review Council.
The minister keeps talking about that 80 percent of the money comes from the Government of Nunavut, but there is 20 percent coming from somewhere else.
There is somebody out there that has to pay and we ought to be concerned about them as well.
During our standing committee meeting last summer, about the Auditor General, we talked extensively about the power corporation and the problems that they have had.
We are aware that the power corporation had been mismanaged; some senior managers, executives, made off in the middle of the night with some generous severance packages, but during that standing committee meeting, Mr. Speaker, we asked the government officials if they would present us with a recovery business plan that we could review.
I am talking about a business plan, a recovery business plan that can analyze all areas of the corporation and see where things would be more efficient or effective, streamlined, and save money internally.
I wonder if the minister could commit today that they will give us members of the Legislative Assembly copies of the recovery business plan for March 31.
The General Rate Application itself outlines the process that the power corporation is trying to take to be solvent.
So, I think, as I said earlier, that 298 page document outlines what processes it has taken to prove that.
Mr. Simailak also outlined earlier some of the processes the power corporation has already done; they hired new staff, they are using the financial administration manual of the Government of Nunavut, they put new accountants in place, there has been changes in senior management, and a new CEO was has been brought in.
So, a lot of things have occurred to shore up, we think, the administrative and logistic needs of the corporation.
Question 060 – 2(2): Coral Harbour Caribou Harvest Program Funding
The people of Coral Harbour are going to be starting their caribou harvesting program, but they have to ask for money every year.
My question is: is the Coral Harbour caribou harvest program going to be receiving any funds from the government?
We are currently negotiating on where this money is going to be coming from and how much it’s going to be.
It is currently in the works, and we will be giving you the information very shortly.
Question 061 – 2(2): Income Assessment for Homeowners
I will be directing my question to the Minister of the Housing Corporation.
When I was visiting my communities, I was asked questions by homeowners.
Every six months they have an assessment done on their incomes.
Why is it that this not concurrent with the present housing tenant agreement that they have?
I didn’t get the question.
If he would rephrase it please.
What I am trying to say is that every six months there has to be an income assessment of each tenant in the public housing units.
Why is it that this is not consistent across the board?
I will have to look into this issue and see what is happening in the communities.
It is not in front of me.
And, I don’t know which community he is referring to.
We still have time tomorrow.
Written questions, Mr. Tootoo.
Written Question 015 – 2(2): Overtime Costs Incurred by the Government of Nunavut
Before I pose my written question today, I would like to very briefly draw the attention of the House to the fact that on June 18 of this year, during our standing committee’s recent public hearings, the Government of Nunavut’s lead witness made the following public commitment with respect to providing the committee with overtime costs incurred by the government.
He said, and I will quote: “We should be able to get that off the free-balance systems fairly quickly for the committee, and we will provide it as soon as we get it.”
Mr. Speaker, it’s been almost 160 days since that commitment was made, and it’s never been honoured.
Perhaps I will help to clarify for some people why members on this side of the House are determined to exercise our right under item seven of the orders of the day as written questions and perhaps the witnesses’ comments will help to explain why there should be no excuse why this kind of information should not be publicly disclosed at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is with regard to overtime costs incurred by the Government of Nunavut.
When broken down by department and Crown corporation, what was the total amount of overtime costs incurred by the Government of Nunavut for the following fiscal years: 2002-03; 2003-04; and from this current fiscal year 2004 until September 30?
Written Question 016 – 2(2): Salary Ranges for Nunavut Government Senior Executives and Crown Corporations
Mr. Curley (interpretation): My question is for the Premier, the minister responsible for the Senior Personnel Secretariat.
It’s in regards to the senior executive and Crown corporations. (interpretation ends)
As of November 1, 2004 what is the salary range for presidents and vice presidents of the:
a) Qulliq Energy Corporation;
b) Qulliq Fuel Corporation;
c) Nunavut Business Credit Corporation;
d) Nunavut Development Corporation;
e) Nunavut Arctic College?
As of November 1, 2004 what is the annual value of entertainment and vehicle allowances provided to the presidents and the vice presidents of the:
As of November 1, 2004 what is the annual value of the supplementary pension provided to the presidents and vice presidents of the:
a) Qudliq Energy Corporation;
b) Qudliq Fuel Corporation;
Written Question 017 – 2(2): Water Sewer Services Subsidy Policy
Mr. Peterson: My question is for the Hon. Peter Kilabuk, Minister of Department of Community and Government Services.
It’s regarding the water-sewer services subsidy policy.
For each fiscal year since April 1, 1999, what amount of funding was provided to each community under the water-sewer services subsidy policy?
How are is the subsidy calculated?
If the calculation of the subsidy has changed since April 1, 1999, when and how did it change?
As of November 18, 2004 what is the status of the review of the water-sewer services subsidy policy that the Minister of Department of Community and Government Services referred to May 20, 2004?
When will the results of the reviews be tabled in the House?
Speaker (interpretation): If you have written questions, please make sure they go to the Clerk.
Committee Report 001 – 2(2): Appointment of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut
As the chair of the standing committee Ajauqtiit, I would like to report to the House on the appointment of the Language Commissioner of Nunavut.
As members are aware, the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit has been undertaking a selection process for this important position.
Mr. Speaker, all five members of the committee conducted the interviews and selection process for the language commissioner.
We conducted in-person interviews with two of the strongest candidates, each of which were over two hours long.
We also received written submissions from each candidate detailing the candidates’ vision for languages in the territory and the role of the office.
After careful consideration and assessment of the applications, the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit unanimously recommended the re-appointment of Ms. Eva Aariak.
Unfortunately, after the committee conducted a thorough selection process to identify her as the most appropriate candidate, Ms. Aariak’s informed the standing committee that she will be taking on new challenges in the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, we would like to warmly thank Ms. Aariak for serving as Nunavut’s first languages commissioner and wish her the very best in this new challenge.
She has left the office in a strong position to carry on its important work.
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Aariak is sitting behind me, and I ask that all members take this moment to applaud her for the excellent job she has done while in this position and in the establishment of the Office of the Language Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, the languages commissioner must be a strong, committed voice for the promotion and preservation of Nunavut’s official languages and dialect.
At the same time, he or she must have the diplomacy to mediate solutions, have sensitivity to the aspirations of different language groups, and posess the integrity and administrative competence to deal with matters in a fair and timely manner.
Above all, he or she must be a leader in the Inuit tradition, able to hold the respect and confidence of all Inuit, elders, and youth, as well as French- and English-speaking residents of Nunavut.
The standing committee will shortly be re-advertising this position.
I would ask and encourage all members to inform suitable candidates in their home communities of the vacancy and encourage them to apply for this position.
The standing committee understands that the Management and Services Board will be exploring the option of identifying an acting appointee until such time as the position is filled on a permanent basis.
I move that the report of the standing committee be received and adopted by the House.
Speaker (interpretation): There is a motion that the report of the standing committee be received and adopted.
Tabled Document 019 – 2(2): Nunavut Ten-Year Inuit Housing Action Plan
I wish to table the following document, the Nunavut Ten-Year Inuit Housing Action Plan.
Tabled Document 020 – 2(2): Coral Harbour District Education Authority
During my member’s statement, I noted a number of concerns related to the problems currently faced by the district education authority in Coral Harbour.
Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a number of letters and documents dating back to 1999.
These documents show Coral Harbour’s need for a new school as well as other issues that have been expressed continuously over the last several years.
Tabled Document 021 – 2(2): Clarification on the Fiscal Update
I wish to table the following document to clarify a section of the fiscal update I presented on Wednesday, November 17.
For the record, I’m going to read it out.
On page 6, paragraph 4, the last sentence reads, “$6.4 million has been allocated for modernization and an improvement retrofit, of which $4.3 million will be recovered from Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation.”
Mr. Speaker, the paragraph should read as follows, “In addition, $6.3 has been allocated for modernization and improvements retrofits, to be supplemented by $4.13 million from the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation.”
Tabled Document 022 – 2(2): Letter from the Kitikmeot Corporation Head Office
I would like to table a document from the Kitikmeot Corporation.
It was their presentation to the Utility Rate Review Council public meeting in Cambridge Bay last week.
Bill 4 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2005-06, with Mr. Evyagotailak in the chair.
We’ll take a 20-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:36 and resumed at 16:07
Chairman (Evyagotailak): I would like to call the committee meeting to order.
In the Committee of the Whole we have to deal with the following items: Bill 4 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2005-06.
What is the wish of the committee, Mr. Mapsalak?
We wish to proceed with the review of the capital estimates for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation followed by the review of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with the Department of Economic Development and Transportation?
Mr. Simailak, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Yes I do, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Does the committee agree to bring in the witnesses?
Chairman: Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witnesses in.