EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I don’t mind being at the witness table for a long time, I live here and I am from here and my staff don’t have to go home as yet, so it’s totally up to your discretion, I just wanted to point that out.
When the fuel prices went up our staff was given direction to review the prices in regards to Mr. Tootoo’s question in regards to looking at the recommendations.
My staff will be reviewing the recommendations and looking at how we can deal with it better.
The review will start and from that, we are just using a system from a previous government as the Nunavut Government.
So at this point in time we will review it because we are mandated to, we were directed to review that.
At this point in time I cannot respond to you right now, but in regards to the figures, Mr. Green can respond to the technical questions.
I am just trying to elaborate to you that after the fuel prices increased we will do a review on all aspects in regards to the fuel prices and then we will table a motion.
So I will refer the question to Mr. Green in regards to Mr. O'Brien’s question.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Madame Minister.
If you would like to respond, Mr. Green.
With the question that was raised whether the commissions that are paid for the fuel delivery contracts were put into the costs of the fuel, it is.
It is part of the price that we need to recover from the retail sales.
I have other names on my list.
Please wait patiently for your turn.
What I'd like to understand, or clarify, I don't know if it has any relevance to this topic but this Stabilisation Fund, 5 million dollars, if it's for health issues, perhaps we would have to come up with another 10 million dollars.
I would like to get further clarification on the Stabilisation Fund.
Chairperson (interpretation): If you'd like to respond either the minister or Mr. Green.
This 5 million dollars is for a Stabilisation Fund.
We can't go over the 5 million dollars, it's a policy.
What did you say about the health hazard.
We don't understand his comments and you were talking about we don't understand how health is relevant to this topic.
Mr. Iqaqrialu could you clarify your question please.
I don't know if I can make myself clear but the health department has a 20 million dollar deficit.
I was wondering if we could get another 10 million dollar deficit.
Chairperson (interpretation): I want to explain to you we don't have health issues here on the fuel price issue.
Perhaps either one of you could make a comment.
I know that we're not dealing with health issues or Health and Social Services at this point in time.
The deficit of health boards is totally different from the Stabilisation Fund.
Perhaps you should ask that question to the Finance Minister or the Minister of Health and Social Services.
You should be directing your question to either one of these ministers because we're dealing with fuel price increases.
Now I understand that it's not going to have an impact on the deficit.
Chairperson (interpretation): I didn't hear a question.
Thank you. Mr. McLean.
First to the minister and Mr. Green, I don't want you to feel like we're attacking you or anything like that because sometimes we get caught up in the heat of the debate and it may feel like we're attacking you but we're not.
Mr. Green, you've got a lot of information and you're probably the most knowledgeable person in this room about fuel prices right now so, we appreciate the way that you're answering the questions and thank you.
And on that, a fuel price increase affects us all.
I have to go back and stand in front of Hamlet Councils and HTOs and my constituents justifying and I'd like to have information so that I can pass it on to people.
And when we explain to people what's happened then they generally accept it and that's why maybe the method that we're questioning might not seem…but I'd like to pass this information onto my constituents whether it's a radio show, Hamlet Council and stuff like that.
That's why we're probably spending a lot more time on it than we have to.
But it really impacts the hunters and trappers and everyone in the community so I appreciate your answers.
So I'm going to ask quite a few Chairman and this is for my own information.
My colleague asked a question on the jet fuel and AV gas. Are we subsidising air fuel at the pumps in Nunavut to the airline companies.
Chairperson: Thank you Mr. McLean.
In terms of the jet aviation fuel, the revenue exceeds the cost for us to deliver this service to Nunavut so actually in a sense the jet aviation fuel is used to subsidise the home heating and gasoline fuels.
In terms of the AV gas, no, the actual value is 151 thousand.
Chairperson: Thank you Mr. Green.
On the Jet A1 and the 100 AV, do we have to do this.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Green.
In reference to your question, no we really shouldn't, don't really have to do this.
This is something we can look at.
Like the product, the AV gas to see if we can't, we probably can look at means, depends on the consumer to pass along the full cost of this program, fuel costs to this particular consumer but in terms of the aviation, we've already got a surplus of 701 thousand a year in jet fuel.
That is one area that maybe we can take a look at.
Probably look at increasing the price in the future to recover our operating costs.
Mr. McLean: I think if I remember correctly, the Northwest Territories Power Corporation put a tender out to haul their own fuel into Nunavut in some locations and I see a 1.7 million dollar subsidy there.
Do we subsidise the power corporation's fuel too.
Once again, what you see there for the Power Corporation, those are the long term costs that are outside of the revolving fund for the inventory for financing charges because what happens is we do purchase fuel for the power corporation and basically it sits in our inventory until we sell them throughout the year so there is a cost.
We're actually subsidising the inventory ferrying charge because it's in there.
Mr. McLean: Okay, so you've answered my question there.
Now, so, the power corporation can go out and tender fuel and get it delivered cheaper and then we're storing fuel for them, like I mean, us, the government.
Wouldn't it be wise that the Nunavut Government and the power corporation bought fuel together.
Because the volume would probably give them a better deal in buying it.
And how come we're letting the Power Corporation who is an arm of us go out and do a special deal when their volume is not as much as us.
Does that make economic sense that we have the government buying two lots of fuel, when they could buy it all together at once.
Is this correct.
There were six communities this year that entered into a separate agreement for the power corp., and you are right in your assessment in that if we buy this then we're losing economies of scale.
So, because of the Power Corporation's decision to re-supply six communities outside of petroleum products, we actually put up our transportation costs for those communities.
To me that seems a little bizarre because the cheque is coming from the government of Nunavut and if you could buy more fuel as a group we could probably pass it on to the consumer and that's one of the reasons we're here and I think maybe that's a good question for the Minister of the Power Corporation I'll ask why they're doing that.
To me that just doesn't make sense as a businessman.
My next question is on the price of fuel here, I think it's $0.83/ litre at the pump.
I asked you the question that $0.13/ litre for the Keewatin, how much of that $0.83 is tax, administration, the cost and the local consumer that makes up the $0.83.
I think you would probably have that here.
I'll just run the costs so you can make note of those.
The blended rate which is the landed costs and the transportation costs is 44 cents, commissioned delivery charges, 12 cents, the evaporation is 3 cents, the operating expense is 9 cents, the Northwest Territories tax which is the Nunavut fuel tax is 6.4 cents, the excise tax is 1 cent and the GST on those components is 5.4 cents.
The total cost is around 90 cents to Rankin and we're selling it for 83.25 cents.
The 44 cents a litre cost, that's the price that's purchased from the Iraqis or whoever we purchase it from, so looking at this and it costs 90 cents a litre so it gets subsidised here also.
My last question and final question, how much of an increase do you think we're going to have this year by October that's going to be passed to consumers.
Just a rough ballpark.
Will it be 5 cents, 6 cents a litre in October, November.
Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Green.
I did an analysis on the Internet today to look at how the world crude has been moving and since we bought our fuel back in July of last year, the fuel costs have gone up 10 cents a litre.
So to tell you at this point in time how much we can expect to pass along to the consumer, I wouldn't be able to tell you at this point.
All I know if we had to recover operating costs, the minimum we would require would be 10 cents.
So if I'm correct here, we're looking at a minimum of 5-10 cents a litre price increase in the fall.
That's to sort of prepare my constituents and myself for the likelihood of that happening in the next six months.
That's all I have for now.
Mr. O'Brien then Mr. Tootoo.
I'll try and be brief in my questions.
I think you indicated minister, that there were six contracts outside of the normal tendering process for fuel.
One in particular is the Power Corporation.
I'd like to know what the other five are and I guess the million dollar question is if we were to go and tender our fuel as one, what type of a saving are we talking about.
What difference of fuel per litre.
First of all the six communities that we're referring to, they are all the power corporation re-supply communities.
So I think it's around 20 million litres in decreased sales so I can't give you the exact estimate but some calculations that we've done in some communities being anywhere from 5-10 cents per litre difference in the transportation cost because the contract that we've entered into is a fixed contract for transportation costs. So if we order less fuel it's going to drive the costs up.
Because of that, in some communities, the fuel delivery charge did go up an average of 10 cents a litre.
Mr. Chairman, how soon can we as a government, I'm trying to look through my notes to see as to the dates that the minister's staff gave me a reference to, terminating the existing contracts or finishing up with them before we go into the tendering process again.
I believe it was 2001.
Is there a possibility of doing that sooner so that we can get these savings in place.
We cannot break the contracts, we'll have to wait right to the end.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Minister, Mr. O'Brien.
I was referring more to the contracts that went out with the power corp. with those six areas.
I haven't been a party to those contracts that were signed for NTCL but to the best of my knowledge, I think those contracts were signed for three years and I think there's two years remaining on those contracts.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Green. Mr. O'Brien.
I don't think I made myself clear, and that's my fault not the minister or staff.
What I was referring to is the big tankers that come into our communities and one in particular, to mine, I believe it was a 10 story Russian tanker unloading fuel for the power corporation, this was fuel that NTCL or others would not be delivering, that would have reduced their load.
That was the area I was referring to.
How long are we tied into those agreements in reference to, the decision was made prior to the Nunavut Government coming into affect.
It was made by the last Assembly, the last cabinet minister or Financial Management Board to allow the Power Corporation to deviate from the norm and buy their own fuel.
We accepted that arrangement, maybe not knowingly that it was going to increase, or maybe we did, in such a significant manner.
So that was the area that I was referring to.
The Power Corp was sort of being allowed to go on their own and not get the same deal that if we went as a whole family that we would get and that's obvious from your numbers.
So I guess my concern was how do we get around that.
And the sooner the better.
The second point I want to make in reference to all the information, the jargon and the detailed comments that are made by the ministers and their staff, it's very difficult for members here.
We sit down and we have a face to face dialogue with yourself minister, and other staff people about how these figures are arrived at and the cost of fuel and the subsidies and so on and so forth but it's a little more difficult to go back to the community and take this information and try to make sense out of it to make it simplified so that everybody understands.
I'll be honest with you, I just don't understand all the jargon that you've thrown at us today, the leaflet to the people in the community so that the guy who is going out hunting and finds that the price of fuel is just too much.
If we could in some way put it in a form that is very simple so that everybody understands it. Then I think it will go a long way to making our jobs a little easier so that the people in the communities understand why the cost is up.
So, I would like the minister to commit to that in order to simplify the documentation.
A one or two page document so the people in the community could see for themselves and they could go through and understand it.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. O'Brien, Madame Minister.
Mr. Chairman, there are quite a lot of numbers that you have to deal with in regards to fuel prices.
We will work on getting easier to understand information out to the communities.
Mr. Chairman, a few questions.
I just want to go back to one that I didn’t understand earlier and just to make that point along with Glenn.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this information because I will have to explain it to my constituents.
I think as everyone is seeing it is not a very simple straightforward issue.
It is very complex and that is why we have all these questions.
We are just trying to understand it.
As someone has said earlier the decision was made earlier by the government and as regular members we'll have to live with it in our communities and our ridings and have to answer to it when our constituents ask why did this happen.
That is what I see this being about.
We do really need to understand this and I don't believe we are wasting public time in doing this.
Just one quick question on the DND and the federal government subsidy of what looks like just over 200 thousand dollars.
Is that an actual subsidy or did you indicate that we would be recovering that from the federal government.
Those subsidies, I guess what I was trying to allude to earlier and trying to emphasise, the PPD's mandate is to recover its operating costs from the retails sales from the cash component that I mentioned earlier.
What you have seen in this report for the DND and the federal government are the cost components that are outside of the revolving fund, which is not mandated to form part of the retail price.
But it is a cost to the Government of Nunavut to deliver this program unless our mandate is changed so we can start recovering the full cost of services for some consumer groups.
Right now that mandate does not exist.
We have to change our mandate in order to collect the total cost to certain consumer groups like the federal government and the Department of National Defence.
But at this point in time the Petroleum Product's mandate is only to recover its operating costs.
Not all the costs of delivering the programs.
So now that I understand, we are subsidising the federal government for their fuel.
I think they should pay what it costs us for the full service of that delivery and I believe the same with the airlines.
They are passing on everything to the passenger.
You can look at the freight rates and how much the prices of tickets and cargo rates have gone up in the last two years.
But I really believe that we should pass those full costs on especially to the federal government.
You say it's not in your mandate.
What would have to happen in order for that to be included in your mandate so we do recover all those costs from the federal government.
Mr. Green: Thank you Mr. Chairman, as part of the review for our long term strategies that is one option that we can take a look at interest groups like the federal government and the Department of National Defence to recover all of our operating costs.
The only concern I've got with some of the other commercial groups.
For example for the airlines if we pass on a 5 cent increase to the airlines then they turn around and increase the prices by 7.2.
That means it is still going to be a cost to the consumer and Nunavut if we pass some of those costs to some of those commercial groups.
We are running out of time here it's almost six o'clock.
Mr. Iqaqrialu I'll give you an opportunity.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving me the opportunity.
I thought that Mr. McLean had a very good question regarding whether or not there was going to be an increase in fuel prices this fall.
For myself in my other community it is going to have a drastic impact on my community if there is going to be another increase in my community in the fall.
I will be very concerned if you are thinking about increasing the price.
It would be a thirty to forty percent increase in the fuel rates in my community.
If there is going to be a 5 or 10 cent increase it's going to have a tremendous impact in my community.
That’s how I understood it, so I kept it as short as possible because it is almost six o'clock.
Perhaps the minister or her official will answer.
Mr. Chairman, there was a question of whether there was going to be an increase in the near future.
We don't know but it is very likely and we are trying do a review and we will be putting together some recommendations for your review after.
Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other questions, but recognising the clock maybe I will ask if we can move to report progress and continue with more questions tomorrow.
Madame Minister and Mr. Green, I would like to thank you for taking the time and for being at the witness table.
Speaker (interpretation): Orders of the day.
Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Minister's Statement 51-1(3), and would like to report progress and Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the committee of the whole be concurred with.
Seconder. Mr. Nutarak seconds.
All in favour of the motion.
Third reading of bills. Third reading of bills.
Orders of the day. Mr. Clerk.
Meeting tonight at 6:15, at the hotel board room of the Standing Committee of Culture, Health and Education.
Orders of the day for Tuesday, February 29, 2000.
Third Reading of Bills,
Bill 9
I will now adjourn this meeting until February 29, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. Sergeant at Arms.
>>House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.
DAY 19
Tuesday, February 29, 2000
Pages 748 - 795
Opening Prayer 748
Speaker’s Ruling: Point of Privilege 748
Ministers’ Statements 748
Members’ Statements 751
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 759
Oral Questions 760
Returns to Written Questions 768
Replies to Opening Address 770
Tabling of Documents 777
Notices of Motion 777
Motions 778
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 778
Report of the Committee of the Whole 793
Third Reading of Bills 794
Orders of the Day 794
Tuesday, February 29, 2000 748
71 - 1(3): Arctic Winter Games (Anawak) 748
72 - 1(3): Climate Change (Kilabuk) 749
73 - 1(3): Expansion of the Rankin Inlet Birthing Centere (Picco) 750
159 - 1(3): Appreciation for Sessional Support (Kilabuk) 751
160 - 1(3): Appreciation for Support during Session (McLean) 752
161 - 1(3): Natillik Arctic Winter Games Participants (Puqiqnak) 753
162 - 1(3): Rankin Inlet Birthing Centre (Thompson) 753
163 - 1(3): Hamlet of Clyde River Financial Status (Iqaqrialu) 754
164 - 1(3): Inuinnaqtun Language (Havioyak) 754
165 - 1(3): Appreciation to Rankin Inlet Residents (Anawak) 755
166 - 1(3): Appreciation of Support (Nutarak) 755
167 - 1(3): Appreciation to Rankin Inlet Residents (Alakannuark) 756
168 - 1(3): Appreciation to Rankin Inlet Residents (Picco) 756
169 - 1(3) Rankin Inlet Session Progress (Ng) 756
170- 1(3): Appreciation to Rankin Inlet Residents (Arvaluk) 757
171 - 1(3): Rankin Inlet Session (Tootoo) 758
172 - 1(3): Appreciation to Rankin Inlet Residents (Akesuk) 759
250 - 1(3): Location of Nunavut Power Corporation Headquarters (McLean) 760
251 - 1(3): Government Subsidies (Tootoo) 762
252 - 1(3): Level of Eye Care (Puqiqnak) 763
253 - 1(3): Climate Change (Iqaqrialu) 765
254 - 1(3): Pension Payments (Nutarak) 765
255 - 1(3): Federal Budget (Tootoo) 766
256 - 1(3): Hunters’ Compensation Budget (McLean) 767
2 - 1(3): WQ 3 – 1(3) Gjoa Haven Water Contamination (Picco) 768
F.  Tabled Documents
38 - 1(3): Hamlet Council Documents (Iqaqrialu) 777
39 - 1(3): Consultant Contracts (Speaker) 777
13 – 1(3): Extended Adjournment (Tootoo) 778
39 - 1(3): Consultation regarding Fuel Price Increases 779
40 - 1(3): Plain Language Information on Fuel Prices 780
41 - 1(3): Review of Petroleum Products division 780
42 - 1(3): Review of Fuel Subsidy 781
43 - 1(3): Review of Fuel Stabilisation Fund 781
44 - 1(3): Review of Local Fuel Delivery Contracting Procedures (Withdrawn) 781
45 - 1(3): Affordable Fuel Prices 785
46 – 1(3): Amendment to CM 45 – 1(3) 790
Bill 9 An Act to Amend the Judicature Act and Other Acts Relating to Judges 794  Tuesday, February 29, 2000
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. Puqiqnak could you please begin with the opening prayer.
Speaker’s Ruling: Point of Privilege
Before we go to Orders of the Day, on February 23, 2000, the member for Cambridge Bay rose on a point of privilege concerning media coverage of the oral question period of February 22.
Specifically the member’s point of privilege concerned alleged inaccuracies in the CBC Radio’s morning news coverage of questions asked during the previous day’s sitting.
I have reviewed Hansard on the day in question and find that the member’s material argument and his point of privilege, that only two members questioned him directly on that day on the issue of budget surpluses, to be accurate.
The question of whether the media coverage accurately reflected the temperament of members on this issue is not one which the Speaker can reasonably comment on.
I would like to take this opportunity to use this incident to remind all members that rule 20(1) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly specifically provides for cases where any member is of the view that his or her actions or comments have been unfairly or inaccurately commented upon outside of the House, members may use the House as a forum in which they may issue clarifications or explanations on such matters.
(interpretation) Item 2.
Minister’s Statement 71 - 1(3): Arctic Winter Games
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Team Nunavut has been selected and is preparing to attend the
2000 Arctic Winter Games in Whitehorse between March 5th and 11th.
There are 1,700 participants that will represent nine contingents from the circumpolar regions at the games.
Members of Nunavut’s first contingent to these games went through a number of qualifying rounds to make the team.
Regional trials were attended by 900 athletes and coaches - that is about 300 per region.
Of those, 535 qualified for the Territorial trials.
The final composition of Team Nunavut is as follows: 199 athletes, 29 coaches, 12 mission staff, 6 cultural representatives, 3 chaperones.
That makes a total of 249 members for Team Nunavut in Whitehorse.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that their hard work and dedication will serve as an inspiration to other Nunavummiut who aspire to attend these games in the future.
Their efforts to date should make us proud to see them representing our territory and competing in the colours of Team Nunavut for the very first time at these Arctic Winter Games.
The Government of Nunavut is proud to support them in its efforts to fulfil the Bathurst Mandate Initiative of promoting healthy communities.