EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
>>House recessed at 15:17 and Committee resumed at15:51
Chairman (Mr. Kattuk): Thank you, Members.
I would like to call the meeting of the committee.
Members, before we proceed, I have something to read.
Before the Committee of the Whole begins its deliberations today, I wish to outline the appropriate boundaries within which discussion may take place.
The subject matter covered by Tabled Document 216 – 2(4) is the Government of Nunavut’s Request for Proposals for Standing Offer Agreement for Medical Travel on Scheduled Airlines.
Members are asked to keep their questions and comments focused on the document before the House.
This is not, for example, the appropriate time for detailed discussion of the government’s client travel policy.
It will be allowable for members to pose questions concerning the GN’s monitoring and enforcement of service standards provided for in its medical travel contracts.
However, members will not be permitted to attempt to use this time to reopen debate on the location of the Baffin medical travel office, given that this was the subject of Motion 8 – 2(4), which was considered and defeated by the House at its sitting of March 27, 2007.
I ask that all members keep this in mind as we proceed today, and I wish to advise the committee that your chair will exercise discretion with respect to keeping our proceedings moving forward in an orderly manner.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bill 39, Tabled Document 216 – 2(4), and Bill 42.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 39, followed by Tabled Document 216 – 2(4), and if time permits today, Bill 42.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with Bill 39?
Chairman: Is the committee agreed that Minister Tapardjuk and his staff go to the witness table?
Chairman: Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Tapardjuk and his officials to the witness table.
Minister Tapardjuk, can you introduce your staff to the committee?
On my left is my Deputy Minister of Finance, Peter Ma.
Yesterday, we were at 2008-09 Supplementary Appropriation.
Operations and Maintenance. Finance. Operations and Maintenance.
We were on page 10. Centrally Administered Funds. Total Centrally Administered Funds.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I’m a few pages behind my document here, but I know that yesterday, we were on a particular item with respect to a QEC item, I believe the hydro project.
Was that agreed to or are we still on that item or not?
I have a question with respect to that item there.
I know that the Minister of Finance allocated $100,000 to do an assessment study or a review of possible hydro projects.
My question is directed to the minister. I want to understand exactly how the surveys are carried out. Do you hire your own official from within staff?
Do you walk around the bush?
How do you go about studying various projects?
$100,000 seems to be a bit small for the whole of the region, or are you just zeroing in on one specific location when you are looking at possible sites for hydro projects?
I think Minister Picco was answering those questions yesterday, so I will allow him to answer the question. Minister Picco.
As I was saying yesterday during the debate on the amount of money that was allocated for the Kivalliq study, the desktop study, it was $100,000 and that money would be used to look at some of the other studies that have been done.
We know, for example, there was a pre-feasibility study done by the NCPC, Northern Canada Power Commission, in the late 1990s. In that pre-feasibility study, they had actually identified several hydro sites in the region, specifically around Arviat and close to the Manitoba border.
There were also a couple of sites identified near Baker Lake and adjacent and close to Rankin Inlet and Coral Harbour.
So this money is a desktop study to take all that information that we have in place to review it, update that information, and then to look at next steps for hydrological work in the region.
I understand that a little more clearly now.
I’m surprised that it’s only a desktop kind of study because I would think that you need to be provided with advice a little more perhaps serious than collecting various reports and so on.
I would have thought that you would have actually hired maybe some consultants that are qualified really to look at various potential sites and make a very serious proposal to the government.
We can’t afford to play around with nickel-and-dime kind of projects right now because of the energy situation and the challenges that the consumers face with respect to various energy utilities are really too serious.
Could you be a little more serious in explaining exactly why you cannot be more proactive in getting various potential sites to the attention of this Assembly?
We have two roles to play here. One is the Energy Secretariat and we have talked about that a little bit before.
The member is correct, this is a serious issue and indeed serious money needs to be put forward.
We have introduced several energy efficient and energy effective programs, including the Energy Efficiency Rebate Program, Residual Heat Programs; we have put several million dollars in retrofitting all of our GN buildings across Nunavut to make them more energy efficient; we’ve got a proposed Nunavut Energy Efficient Act; we’re drafting a green procurement policy for the Government of Nunavut; and we have an Energy Efficiency Public Awareness Program; we also have a Home Renovation Program up to $15,000 for energy efficiency. That’s seven or eight items just right off the top of my head.
The $100,000 that we see in the budget right now, for the first time, we’re looking at taking all the data and there’s considerable data that has been in place, and I’m sure the member knows, in the region.
Now, taking that data, updating it, and being able to take a categorization of it, putting it in a category of potential, and that’s the study that would be taking place with the $100,000.
The next step now, after the desktop study is done, is to look at what has been highlighted for potential and to see what other monies that would be needed to be brought forward, and so that’s where we are with it right now.
I think it’s a pretty good first step and then we will go from there to see what comes out of that desktop study.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, this is exactly why I used the verb “nickel-and-dime” earlier because many of the programs that the minister mentioned, I consider them nickel-and-diming projects.
For instance, residual heat projects that the government has been investing in a couple of locations, two or three at the maximum, really is benefiting the government and the contractor itself, not the private homeowners and so on. It doesn’t move near providing extra benefits to people who pay taxes and own their own homes, and so on, so that’s what I’m looking at.
With respect to the study of this nature, feasibility study for various hydro projects, I would have thought that we would go on a lot more proactive scale and really offer more than one community because for $100,000, you really are not going to do very much.
Am I correct in assessing that statement?
Hon. Ed. Picco: No, of course, again the member is not correct.
Indeed, he’s incorrect and I just want to clarify again for the record, the Residual Heat Program alone will put in place several millions of dollars worth of savings, not only to the government but at the end of the day, the departmental users and in some cases, the private sector. We have residual heat projects, as the member indicated, in Sanikiluaq that runs in the school, in Iqaluit, for all the major buildings in Rankin Inlet, in Taloyoak, it’s not just in one, or two, or three locations.
The $100,000 that we’re putting forward here is the first time we’re actually going to take all the accumulated data in that region and be able to look at what are our next steps, what are the next areas to look at for hydro, specifically in the Kivalliq region.
We know there’s considerable potential there because there have been other studies done.
However, those need be updated.
A good example of that is the work that was done here in Iqaluit. For years and years, the Power Corporation and the Northern Canada Power Corporation, or NCPC, kept saying the best solution was to harness the Sylvia Grinnell River, but when we actually got in there and did some real work, we realized that the size of the dam that would have to be built and the damage to the river and the fish and everything just did not make it acceptable.
So up to and including 2001-02, with the new work that we were able to bring forward, we found out that it wasn’t feasible. It’s the same thing in other regions.
This $100,000 will be able to take all that information together and then to be able to prioritize.
We know, for example, in Coral Harbour, there’s a huge opportunity for hydro and the amount of work that was done there is so small, so insignificant that a lot of the money, we know, and this tabletop study would be devoted to that area alone because we believe there is an opportunity to provide a cheaper form of energy.
Mr. Chairman, we have to get away from oil and I think everyone agrees to that. That’s what our Energy Strategy says. We debated that here in the House and all the members had an opportunity to bring it forward.
And indeed we were just recognized nationally in Canada, and I’m sure the member has seen the national news, where we have gone from D-minus on energy efficiency and energy related areas to B and only behind one other province or territory in the country, so that’s pretty amazing in a two-year timeframe.
So, yes, we’ll take this $100,000, thank you very much, and we will be able to move forward on looking at other opportunities for hydro feasibility and energy efficiency. This kind of thing takes time.
If the question is could we use more? Yes. Could we use more money?
Of course, any of the government departments, any position of the government could use more money. But we would be very pleased to take this $100,000, complete a desktop study, and then go to the next steps.
That was useful information but the minister is speaking from both sides of his mouth. He is saying that this amount is going to contribute greatly for reducing the number of possible energy related projects or utilities in Nunavut.
But for $100,000, you’re not really going to be... if we’re serious about finding possible hydro sites, we have to do it with more than $100,000 and I think the state of the energy situation demands that we do more than that.
The various little projects, the nickel-and-dime stuff that he mentioned, are not really making a dent to the consumer at the pump where it makes a difference. It may be benefiting the department itself but not the consumers, so that’s where my difference with the member is.
I have another question to the Minister responsible for Energy.
I know that he has been studying this and all aspects of energy options, and so on.
Has he considered how he is going to eventually finance those development projects? Will it be mainly dependent on government coffers?
Hon. Ed. Picco: There’s probably no one in the House that enjoys conversation and debate with the member better than me and I don’t appreciate him saying that I’m talking out of both sides of my face at the same time because that is inappropriate language in our House.
I do, however, suggest to the member that when we look at what we have done and what we have been able to accomplish in the last four years is pretty substantial. We have introduced legislation for energy efficiency, we have a contract in place where we’re spending millions of dollars to upgrade units, and we have put more subsidies in place for homeowners.
The member keeps talking about “at the pump.” At the pump, 60 percent of our families, at any given time, are on income support and we cover those costs for them in social housing.
The private individual who goes out to hunt, for example, we have a fuel subsidy program in place for them that the member is aware of and we also have a program in place for our elders.
We have subsidies across the board. Right now, almost 35 percent of our total budget goes into energy, energy related matters, and subsidies.
There is no other government, Mr. Chairman, who puts that type of money into the program, into subsidizing.
You’re shaking your head. Tell me another government that does that. Not even close, sir.
So what I’m suggesting to you is the $100,000, if I could get more money, Mr. Chairman, yes, it would be fantastic, but we have to use what dollar values are available within the fiscal equation that presents itself.
At this time, that $100,000, the experts within the Energy Corporation and the Energy Secretariat tell me that they will be able to put together a good desktop study and then go to the next steps.
This is not like mines or mining where we’re trying to dig holes in the ground and find uranium, or iron, or diamonds.
We can look very easily at areas in Nunavut and say, “Wow, that’s a big river. Is there an opportunity?”
And that’s what the pre-feasibility study did in 1997-98.
Now, the information is to take all of that together, collaborate with that information, and ascertain the next steps. The $100,000 should be enough to do that.
I thank the members and I thank the member for not only raising the issue but for their support in accessing this money so that we can move forward for the good people in the Kivalliq region, so that we can actually ascertain what other resources we can get in energy there and in this case, hydro.
We’re not debating any government policy, we’re really debating non-government policies and that’s why we debate things because we’re attempting to get the minister to have a clear set of guidelines and policies.
If the minister indicated that, you know, I’m debating questions about energy prices or whatnot, no government charges, for instance, any provincial government doesn’t charge for the amount of the government consumption of fuel that they purchase. They don’t pass it on to the consumer; they do it through excise tax, yes, which is clear, and gas tax.
But we do charge back to the consumer perhaps 100 percent of the fuel brought in, even their own government consumption is charged back to the consumer and that is why our prices are higher. No individual, the unemployed guy, no wonder, is able to afford prices at the pump because he’s paying for someone’s consumption charged to the pumps, whether it’s government institutions or whatnot.
My question really was about whether the minister is also considering financing these various projects publicly or is he just relying on public financing.
Has he ever considered establishing private funding to raise capital for these various major projects or is he just opting out for public financing altogether?
I think it’s worth looking at now before we start building hydro projects seriously. I think that’s an important question.
It is an important question. The Government of Nunavut has never been in a position where we have looked at building a project greater than $50 million and this project, we know, over four or five years, will cost between $150 million to $300 million.
What we have done and we have said is we’ve had conversations with our federal partner to look at if there’s an opportunity to underwrite the program, underwrite the project, and come forward with a loan guarantee, which would give us the luxury of being able to go outside of the current fiscal arrangements and be able to borrow those monies.
We’re also looking at options for P3, which would be a public-private partnership.
So we haven’t narrowed down the field to any given first choice. What we’re trying to do is see what we can do as a government to find the best monetary vehicle to be able to construct, build, and own the hydro facility.
The good part here, Mr. Chairman, is that a hydro facility, the amortization cost is done over 20, 30, 40 years and because of that, you can lower that investment cost and you can get a larger payback for an investor, whether that be a public-private partnership situation or indeed, through our partner, the federal government.
On the second issue, and I think it’s very important again to maybe explain to the member, is that number one, the Government of Nunavut does not make any profit on oil.
Number two, when the member says that we’re charging the consumer for all of the fuel that we bring in because the GN is paying for some of it and so is the person at the pump, we have to realize that by going out as a government and buying 100 million litres of fuel, we get a better price than if you’re only buying 10 million or 5 million.
The number three point is how would you differentiate what would be sold at the pump and who would be buying it at the pump as opposed to who would be paying for it in the community as a whole.
So let’s take a given community, let’s say it was Clyde River. So in Clyde River, you have a school and a health centre, so that’s probably your two biggest government buildings. The biggest user of power in Clyde River is social housing, 60 percent of the units are social housing units, and the rest of the houses would be private and a mixture of federal, RCMP staff housing, and so on and so forth.
So how would you expect the four million litres of fuel that you bring in to Clyde River to be subsidized by maybe the 30 or 40 people who would actually take money physically out of their pockets and pay for it? All of those monies are subsidized through the hamlet subsidy program that we put in place because the majority of that fuel in Clyde River will be used either by government trucks, water trucks, and sewage trucks. If 60 percent of the units are social housing, all their fuel costs are covered by the GN.
And the biggest expenditure we have as a government is the electrical cost of generating electricity. So if we bring in 100 million litres of fuel, 80 million will be diesel to run our power plant. So I think that’s important to point out for clarification and for clarity.
Mr. Chairman, I think the minister knows very well that I understand all of these. He chose to pass the cost to all consumers whether they use it or not.
I believe the government uses about 60 percent of the fuel supplied to Nunavut, 40 percent are solely the private sector and homeowners.
Why should they be paying 100 percent for the fuel that they’re not purchasing, they’re not buying? That’s what I call “caps” and I don’t even know what the minister calls it, so I say it’s taxing individuals more than what they really are buying.
I think we live in a situation now if we were to triple the population today, even tomorrow, we would triple the cost of fuel at the pumps and they would be paying at astronomical prices because we’re not a private sector.
We buy at the world market, yes, that’s a private sector level, but when it comes to the government fixing their pricing and instituting it, it becomes, I don’t know, confusing.
My last question to the minister is: will you be consulting with the private sector on various options?
I think it would be good to have a discussion with the private sector on various hydro project possibilities just for discussion purposes, at the same time, to seek advice from potential investors.
That is correct, we will be talking with the public and the private sector to see what opportunities may be there as we move forward with this program.
We’re on 2008-09 Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) No. 2.
Total Centrally Administered Funds. $2,375,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $4,182,000.
Chairman: Go to the next page. Page 11. 2008-09 Supplementary Appropriation.
Directorate. Total Directorate.
Not Previously Authorized. $187,000.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I just need clarification on Item 2, “To provide funding of $75,000 to cover the increased costs of utilities,” etcetera.
Can you tell me what that is in reference to Human Resources?
What that is, it is to recognize the fact that there will be indirect impacts to all government departments. Because of the fuel price increase, we already know that airlines have raised airfares. From time to time, government officials have to travel on business, so that’s to recognize that airfares will be going up and it’s throughout the document.
I think it’s the first time you may have noticed it in a particular department, but it is in every department pretty much throughout the sup bill.
So every time I see this sort of a vague explanation, then I will know that that’s for the staff travel that will have the increase for most of the departments. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, that’s true.
These are the estimated increases we will incur as of July 1, 2008 for our government operations.
The amounts we are using are effective from that date onwards and they are listed for travel and transportation, Mr. Chairman.
I want to ask the minister with respect to Item 2 on the page.
It says here that this is to offset probably the increases in various utility costs for the various fields; I want you to help me understand exactly.
One thing I do understand is that through the consumption and fuel prices that the airlines and consumers use, most of the fuel that we buy is recovered through various prices that the GN has instituted into the fuel prices. Would I be correct in assuming that?
I believe the member is correct on what he’s saying. Basically, when the government purchases its fuel, we take into consideration all of the costs that are necessary to purchase that fuel and get it to all consumers, including the government. Some of those cost factors will be things such as transportation and obviously, the direct cost of each one of the particular products that we buy, and then based on those costs, we then develop the price to fully recover the cost of whatever it costs us to bring the fuel in.
So, yes, the member is correct in saying that.
With respect to this particular item, an increase of $187,000, could the minister perhaps be clearer exactly how it’s going to help offset the cost of various prices of fuel?
We believe that we have been asked to vote so that you can have that expenditure available to cover these various increases, but where does it go from there?
Do you pay the consumer, do you pay the distributor of that price so it goes directly to the pump prices, or who do you spend it with?
I think in Item 2, the figure is $75,000, not $187,000.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Ma will explain that further.
In this particular case, the appropriation is for the additional travel costs that would occur as a result of the indirect impact of the fuel price increase.
As I stated earlier in my response to I think Member Arvaluk, we’re recognizing the fact that because of the fuel price increase on July 1, there will be an impact to the travel budgets of various GN departments and that impact comes from the fact that there would be and there have, I guess, been some increases on airfares.
(interpretation ends) We’re on Human Resources.
Total Staffing.
Not Previously Authorized. $266,000.
Total Community Operations.
Not Previously Authorized. $131,000.
We will go to page 12.
Total Job Evaluation and Organizational Design.
Not Previously Authorized. $45,000.
Inuit Employment Plan. Total Inuit Employment Plan. $34,000.
Total Training and Development. $168,000.
Operations and Maintenance. Employee Relations.
Total Employee Relations. $64,000.
Total Department. $895,000.
Next topic is Justice.
Not Previously Authorized. $887,000.
Law Enforcement. Total Law Enforcement.
Not Previously Authorized. $160,000.
Not Previously Authorized. $168,000.
We will go to page 15.
Registries and Court Services. Total Registries and Court Services.
Not Previously Authorized. $356,000.
Total Corrections.
Not Previously Authorized. $909,000.
Community Justice. Total Community Justice.
Not Previously Authorized. $123,000.
Total Department. $2,603,000. Agreed?
Not Previously Authorized. $223,000.
Official Languages. Total Official Languages.
Not Previously Authorized. $112,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Culture and Heritage.
Total Culture and Heritage. $112,000.