EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
There is a paragraph in the public housing section here on page 17 where it says, “... if public housing can generate an economic saving of 15 to 20 percent by adopting modest retrofit measures, rather than complete rebuilds, an annual savings in the order of $3.15 million to $4.2 million may be realized.” That’s quite a significant amount of money.
I’m wondering if the minister could provide some idea: has he talked to the Nunavut Housing Corporation, in terms of what they can do at their level in their area of responsibilities, to encourage energy savings to retrofit measures of public housing?
Very quickly on a number of points that the member has made and Mr. Curley mentioned this earlier.
In Nunavut, we’re very unique. We’re the only jurisdiction in the country that has to purchase 100 percent of its fuel and electrical supply for its residents.
If you look at any province in Canada, and indeed the other two territories, Gulf Oil, Esso, PetroCanada, these different private suppliers bring fuel to the provinces that operate gas bars and so on.
In Nunavut, the Government of Nunavut has to do all of that. In 99 percent of the cases, we subsidize, and we even have a few private fuel suppliers in our communities, and that cost is a factor.
Every time we look around, there is a subsidy in place to subsidize someone and we need to be able to track those.
I think that’s part of the issue with the Affordable Energy Fund; how do you do that? How do you make it more transparent for Nunavummiut, and do Nunavummiut really care? Do they want to go to their house and say, as long as I have electricity, the light comes on, and my house is warm, the government’s responsibility is to bring that forward.
I think what we’re trying to say is that at some point, and some of the members have alluded to this, it becomes unaffordable because once you start subsidizing more and more, this is money that you can’t put into social programs, that’s money that you can’t put into education, that’s money you can’t put into health, and that’s money that you can’t put into a lot of other areas in government.
I think that’s why we need to start working on that right now.
In public housing, the Nunavut Housing Corporation has moved very aggressively on several areas, when we’re looking at energy efficiency in its units.
Almost $10 million annually in the public housing portfolio... the portfolio of the Housing Corporation is almost $10 million and it’s for modernization and improvement of the housing stock that they have in place. This includes looking at the home renovation programs, as well as the home repair programs.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation just recently introduced a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation design award for the five-plex design which shows energy efficiency, double glazed windows, and so on.
So the Housing Corporation has moved forward on energy efficiency in housing in Nunavut.
When you put the savings into context: if the Nunavut Housing Corporation can save $4 million per year on energy for public housing that’s equivalent to 12 to 16 new houses a year. If the Government of Nunavut can save 15 to 25 percent off of a $200 million energy bill, that’s a least one new school, and possibly two new schools in Nunavut, which we desperately need.
It is in our interest to try and save money because I don’t think we can continue to pay $200 million a year, and it’s not going to stay at that level. It could go up 15 to 20 percent a year. At some point you’re getting at a critical mass where you just can’t afford anything else.
All your money is going to energy. That’s just a comment there.
On page 18 of the discussion paper, there is an interesting note at the top that approximately $750,000 of electrical retrofit work was identified and completed in Iqaluit in 2005-06 on various Government of Nunavut facilities.
Savings realized from this work will enable the cost to be recovered within three years.
Does the minister have any information on that project? Is he willing to share with us the savings that will be achieved?
It is my understanding that when we looked at the assets that we have and some of the work that was done to improve electrical supplies and so on, it was with some of the government buildings but also some of the other physical assets that we have.
The pay back time, I believe, was estimated to be about three years. That’s based on the best estimate that the GN had at the time. Most of the work was carried out through the auspices of the Department of CGS, as most work is done through the government.
The savings realized from that work will enable the cost to be recovered within three fiscal years.
I appreciate all the responses that are coming in. But when you compile the responses that you’re doing, all the benefits that we currently see with respect to various energy improvements, whether it’s residual heat and all that, they’re all going into this government’s buildings, pretty well.
I have not seen any that benefit the private sector.
No one appears to care really all that much for the private sector, the homeowners, and public housing, possibly. They can probably be done.
Again, I want to remind the minister that he’s not just speaking to me when he’s responding. He’s speaking to my constituents who can’t afford to pay for the cost.
I would like to, first of all, at least thank the minister and the team that will be meeting to deal with all these energy components, and so on. I hope also that there will be a consideration to look at all the different electricity rates that we have in Nunavut. I bet you they’re close to 20 or 25, I don’t know, but the rates are all different.
For instance, probably the most expensive electricity rate that we would see is probably Grise Fiord, of all the places, likely the next smallest one, Whale Cove.
These two communities probably pay twice as much as the cheapest electricity rate.
If that is so, can the minister confirm to this House that smaller communities pay the highest rates? Why isn’t there any attempt to consolidate electricity to a single rate for the whole of Nunavut?
Just very quickly on the residual heat projects, as an example, with some of the work going into not just the government but the private sector.
In the member’s community of Rankin Inlet, when we did the extension of the re-heat plant, we also hooked it up to existing GN buildings, as the member had indicated, the college, they were bringing in the water treatment plant, but we also hooked it up to five commercial buildings in the community, as well as the new health centre.
Some of those commercial buildings include the Royal Bank building, the Inuksuk building, the Tapiriit building, and so on. That’s a help to the private sector, as the member had indicated.
You also remember as to how many rates that we have in Nunavut; we have approximately 100 different electrical rates in Nunavut. Each community has a rate. So there are about four different rates in each community; we have a government rate, a non-government rate, a domestic rate, a residential rate, a commercial rate, and so on.
So one of the reasons why we didn’t go to a single rate, and the member may remember, just before Nunavut started in 1998-99, when I was a Member of the Northwest Territories Assembly, we had a huge process of actually going out and doing a rate review or a rate re-balancing for the Power Corporation at that time.
Most Nunavut communities were going to be linked into zones and so on, and have the bigger communities subsidizing smaller communities. It was felt not to move that way.
The Kivalliq Chamber of Commerce and the Baffin Chamber of Commerce, and so on, felt that each community should have their own specific rate and should pay for its own self and its own costs. And that’s why we moved to that specific customer base rate by community.
I think we have to, again, refer to the Nunavummiut that when the residual heat projects are carried out, that they be carried out slowly to their benefit the government’s overall budget and the energy budget.
But to those that are qualified to benefit from the residual heat transfer, there is a criteria and what are the criteria, Mr. Chairman?
The major criteria, and again, I appreciate the member’s question, and he’s right, the reheat is a fantastic project that not only saves electricity and heat, but is a benefit of cost savings in the wallet of the agency or business that’s hooked up.
The criteria, major criteria for example, as a homeowner, single homeowners could not be hooked up to the reheat program because they’re just too small.
The heating system would not be able to accommodate a house. That’s why you have to go to commercial buildings and government buildings and so on. That’s the limitation of that.
The number one criteria in place, then after that, would be the proximity of the building to the power plant.
And, of course, if you’re a long ways from the power plant, it wouldn’t be feasible, for example, to pipe the reheat from the top of the Power Corporation building here in Iqaluit to Apex; it’s just too far away.
So that’s why you’re trying to hook up the college and every other building that’s in direct line of the plant to a lesser degree.
So those are the major criteria that would be in place.
I think it clarifies the point that I’ve been trying to make, and that is, you have to have a government arrangement in order to benefit; you have to have a contract.
If you don’t have a contract with the government, you’re not going to benefit from that.
That is exactly what the private sector is speaking.
The private homeowner is... when you compare all the subsidy programs and everything that the minister is indicating the government is currently carrying out, they’re all part of the government contracts and so on. And, if you don’t have that, it’s not beneficial.
When you look at the economies at scale, what amount of money is being transferred to the private sector, there isn’t very much that is going to the homeowners that are really, in a sense, that are having a very difficult time in being able to afford it.
Sure the minister will assume we are subsidizing you with the energy.
Let’s also remember that we pay six cents per gallon or litre for all the energy that is supplied to the community. It’s not 100 percent subsidy to the private homeowner.
They are doing their share. They pay their taxes; they pay the taxes on the fuel and so on. In return, what are the private homeowners receiving from the government?
That’s part of my clarification. I think it’s important that when you look at the costs that are continuing, each time the price goes up, so do the electricity rates.
I would like the minister to respond to the homeowners.
I understand what the member is saying, I am a homeowner.
The government has put several programs in place where the majority of Nunavummiut who own their own homes can access those types of programs.
These are provided by the Nunavut Housing Corporation, as well, it’s under the Eco Trust Fund with the federal government. We still have several hundred thousand dollars that are available there.
I think there are over 250 homeowners, private homes in Nunavut, that have accessed some of these program dollars over the last several years.
I would like to ask Ms. Crawford if she would like to elaborate on some those programs that we have in place, specifically for private homeowners that the member was talking about.
Ms. Crawford: I’m speaking, in this case, for my colleague Peter Scott who is the President of the Housing Corporation, who isn’t here at this point.
But, obviously, out of the recent ECO Trust monies, monies were set aside for the private homeowners. The residential electrical subsidy, the NESP brings the cost of electricity in every community in Nunavut to 50 percent of the Iqaluit costs.
So half of your bill is paid by the government if you’re a private homeowner in Iqaluit, and in some cases, in some of the highest cost communities, a very significant amount of your bill is paid by the government for a private homeowner.
The Housing Corporation has a number of programs which permit retrofitting and they’ve just been given permission to increase the retrofitting costs that they’re allowed to provide by $15,000 to specifically accommodate energy efficiency projects.
So those are some of the ways in which private homeowners receive assistance from government on a regular basis.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I would caution the minister and their staff. I think we have to be very carefully that we don’t sugar coat those figures.
Not all these programs are available to homeowners. There are caps, there are restrictions. So they’re not across the board homeowner programs.
I have one constituent in all these. It’s frustrating. Her husband was unemployed.
She applied three times for a retrofit. All these three years, the same reply, “I regret to inform you, your application has been not been approved.” So it’s not right across the board.
What I’m trying to get at is that where, as much as possible, as I said earlier, Nunavummiut are geared toward the free market system. I believe that’s what we are. We’re not 100 percent subsidized by the government.
By and large, we’re doing pretty well with the small consumer-based market. Everything that we do is pretty well based… people have to pay for the goods and services they’re getting.
So having said that, I think we need to try and ensure that when we talk about homeowners in the private sector, let’s have a real private sector initiative or program so that... and any other program, whether they be housing improvements to conserve energy, let’s see them overhauled, that they actually go to... for instance, there was no criteria as to who qualifies for residual heat transfer.
It’s not based on means steps. It’s not based on this government, this building, these series of private sector homeowner buildings, that house government staff, are making quite an amount of profit. That’s not a factor.
But when you go to the private homeowner, they say, “Oh, you’re making too much money. You don’t qualify.” Why discriminate against people who can’t afford to make a living?
I think that’s part of the reason why we’re doing this strategy and doing some of these discussions, so we can have this type of debate. I agree with the member.
When we’re putting programs in place on behalf and for the government, we need to ensure that they’re as open as possible.
A good example of that is the cross subsidization under the territorial Power Subsidy Program so the lowest income family and the highest income family will receive a subsidy based on their electrical costs, and that’s across the board.
If you’re a homeowner and you’re in a unit, and you needed help, for example, the senior citizen, yes, there is a cap on how much money... if you make over $60,000 in that house, $50,000 in that household; you wouldn’t be able to get a subsidy.
But there has, as the member has indicated, there has to be check and balances on what types of subsidy programs that you put in places as a government.
On the private homeowner side, if you make over $100,000, you may not be qualified to get some of the grants, loans, and programs that are in place.
Most people would feel that is fair because if you’re making over $100,000, you probably should be able to pay some of these extra costs as it were that you should have.
However, if you’re making less than that threshold, maybe you need a little bit of help from the government through a subsidy program, or a grant program, or a loan program.
The Home Renovation Program, for example, that gives up to over $50,000 per homeowner if you need to make a renovation to your house or your private home unit.
Again, almost 60 percent of our people in Nunavut are in social housing units and they wouldn’t qualify for that type of money because they don’t own their own home.
So again, those types of programs are in place, and again, there is an opportunity, like through discussions here today, is how do you make them more affordable, but also, how do you make them more accessible.
I think that’s what the member is saying. There’s no argument from me on trying to do that.
Assuming that you don’t meet the threshold and you’re over that, you’re assuming then that the government assumes, obviously, because there is no exceptions to FMB. If you don’t meet the threshold, then your only option is to go to the bank and get an additional loan.
You really believe that they qualify to that? What you’re saying is if they don’t qualify for the government program; let the high energy costs that they’re incurring in inefficient energy buildings continue. That’s not acceptable to me.
I have another question to the minister.
Unless the minister didn’t understand what I said earlier, he assumed that because there are so many complex things, we’re going to raise our hands in the air. No, that’s not what I’m saying.
I think what I’m saying is that if we have a small energy for the private sector or consumer base, shouldn’t we also be looking at beyond just supplying energy to our Nunavummiut in terms of hydro? Are there any other systems in place that we could probably develop to export hydro energy?
Maybe we have a pretty big land mass in the Keewatin. I’m not sure if Baffin would be able to... you could probably get a link with the Manitoba Hydro system. But something of that nature should be looked at.
My other point, there are two points to that, one is that we have a... the minister is probably more optimistic, I’m not … eventually seeing the day our own energy in terms of petroleum products we have would eventually get to the market. Is that actually feasible?
Just clarify again.
The Home Renovation Program, which I spoke about, it’s my understanding that up to $50,000 per private homeowner can be accessed.
There is no cap on that amount, so you wouldn’t have to go to the bank or anything like that.
That $50,000 is a forgivable loan and there is a criterion to hold onto your house for X number of years and that you’re making an investment into Nunavut, and so on. So they can access that program.
I am optimistic... yes, go ahead. No, I’m just saying it’s the $50,000 based on the information that I have.
Now, the Minister of Housing is here and he can clarify it, but it’s my understanding that there is no cap.
There is a cap of $50,000 on the homeowner but there is no threshold of that for eligibility.
On the second part of the member’s question on the optimism that I have as Minister of Energy, for example, for oil or gas, and so on, I think it is feasible.
A lot of people forget, Mr. Chairman, I’m sure you remember, and most of the Members in the House remember that in 1986 we had a producing oil well called Bent Horn, which provided the oil to the power plant in Resolute Bay. We ran that, I believe it was for four and a half years through Pan Arctic, who was involved, and it didn’t need any type of refining.
There was a concern with some of the dirt sediments that was in the oil itself, which meant that the filter had to be changed more often on the plant.
However, yes, I am optimistic. I think right now the numbers show us that we have over 20 percent of known oil and gas reserves in Canada, known reserves.
At some point, those oil and gas wells will be explored, and that energy can be used.
I’m quite optimistic when we look at some of the oil and gas, as well as some of the other mineral finds in Nunavut, especially when we look at the economic side of things.
When we look at what’s happening with global warming and climate change, having access to that. There has been interest, by the way, from different mining companies to be able to look at more exploration throughout the Basin area for oil and gas.
Probably my last one.
In terms of the other programs that he mentioned, I had a constituent who has been denied three times because the case was that they’re making too much money. So there has to be some other home renovation program.
I didn’t want to make a political statement out of anything. I believe the minister just made one with respect to his optimism with the oil and gas development in the arctic.
I would love to hear it from the experts on that because if it was feasible to develop that, why hasn’t it been developed now? What are the reasons?
What benefit would there be, directly, aside from royalties, to offset the cost of oil we pay in Nunavut, if that were to happen?
I did mention very quickly the Sverdrup Basin area of Nunavut. Nunavut has 11 percent of Canada’s crude oil potential and 20 percent of Canada’s natural gas potential.
The Canadian Energy Research Institute just produced a favourable feasibility study on the economics of producing natural gas from the Basin.
When I say I’m optimistic, it’s not because of something that we’re not sure of. It’s because of information that we have.
I am optimistic that at some point in time, in the next 10 or 20 years I would suggest to you when you look at the uranium, diamond, oil and gas, and some of the other things happening in Nunavut, I think Nunavut is well placed, economically, as a territory but it’s going to take time.
While we’re waiting for that time to occur, we need to move forward on an energy strategy for Nunavut, which takes in, not only the devolution process that’s ongoing, but takes in the extra cost of being self-sustainable in Nunavut; being more frugal, as it were, when we’re dealing with energy related matters.
Probably a couple of short questions here on page 9 of the discussion paper.
There is a question that the discussion paper is going to ask readers. It says, “Question 6. Would you support the introduction of legislation, such as the Energy Efficiency Act, to restrict the importation and sale of inefficient energy equipment in Nunavut?”
I’d like to ask the minister if he’s had any feedback, or does he have a feeling for Nunavummiut’s opinions are on the introduction of an Energy Efficiency Act.
We’ve actually had some feedback, some positive, some negative.
I’ll just ask Mr. Wischnewski to give you a very quick overview; I know we’re pressed for time, so maybe a very short answer on some of that feedback on question 6 on page 9.
Some of the feedback we’ve had from our targeted consultation indicates there is support for an Energy Efficiency Act. I know we had one in the House, before the House now, for compact fluorescent light bulbs.
The legislation that this question refers to goes wider than that; it looks at ovens and fridges and electrical appliances.
Would Nunavummiut support legislation that control what is there and what they can buy and what is it important in Nunavut?
The answer seems to be something to consider.
The other thing that has come up is that people are quite in favour of; this is part of the legislation, a graduated licensing system for vehicles.
If you bring in an eight cylinder truck, you pay a high licensing fee.
If you bring in a four cylinder, like a Honda, a small vehicle with four cylinders, you should pay less to register that vehicle. So there is some favour for that, mostly positive.
I thank Minister and Mr. Wischnewski for that answer.
That was my last question and at this time I would like to recognize the clock. It is getting quite late, we are all hungry.
Yes, I have a Point of Order. I do not dispute the argument at all on it.
I think it is important that we provide accurate and not provide misleading information.
There is a cap on salary for eligibility on the homeownership retrofit program. The Minister of Energy made a statement that there was no cap. You can make $100,000 a year when you qualify.
It’s important that information be corrected; otherwise it will burn in a false sense of optimism.
Sometimes the Minister of Energy does so without accurate information, so I would like him to correct that statement he just made.
I appreciate the member’s point and I am just looking at the sheet with Mr. Wischnewski.
The member is correct, the amount is up to $50,000 and there is a threshold for family income of $125,000.
I will go back to Mr. Peterson’s motion.
Does the committee agree we conclude debate on Tabled Document 49 – 2(4)?
Thank you, Minister Picco, Ms. Crawford, and Mr. Wischnewski.
All those in favour raise your hand please.