EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Tabled Document 091 – 2(2): Victim Assistance Fund Report 2003-2004
I wish to table the following document, Law Foundation Annual Report for 2002.
Further, I wish to table the following report, Victim Assistance Fund report from 2003/2004.
Tabled Document 092 – 2(2): Pension Administration Report for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2004
I will table a document.
Pursuant to section 21(1) (d) of the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowances Act and section 2(b) of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, I wish to table today the Pension Administrative Report as prepared by the actuaries of the plans, Hewitt Associates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.
Item 20, Consideration in Committee of the Whole on Bills and Other Matters.
Tabled Document 52-2(2), Return to Oral Question 84-2(2) and Bill 8 Appropriation Operations and Maintenance Act 2005/06.
With Mr. Arreak in the chair.
>>House recessed at 15:23 and resumed at 15:58
Chairman (interpretation): We can resume our meeting. (interpretation ends) In the Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Tabled Document 52–2(2); and Bill 8.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, (interpretation ends) I have a motion and I would like to read it at this time to invite Shell Canada representatives.
Committee Motion 002 – 2(2): Invitation to Shell Canada Officials to Appear Before the Committee of the Whole
I move that the officials from Shell Canada be invited to accompany the Minister of Community and Government Services to appear before the Committee of the Whole at the Witness Table to respond to questions concerning the quality of gasoline in Nunavut.
There is a motion on the Floor.
All members should have a copy of the motion in front of you.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): What’s happening?
Chairman: To the motion, you have 20-minutes to speak to the motion.
Before we get into the questions, I would like to make some opening remarks, just to lay the issue before the committee.
I certainly appreciate the member that will appear before us.
I think that it would be useful for the benefit of the visiting witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to defer my comments, once they sit down here because they then will be able to take notes on my questions.
So, I would just like to have the motion be voted on right now so that we can get on.
Some members: Agreed
Chairman: Opposed.
Minister Kilabuk, please proceed to the witness table with your witnesses.
Mr. Minister, please identify your witness.
With me today are, to my immediate left, Tom Rich, my Deputy Minister, and to my immediate right, Mark Anderson, who is the national wholesale manager for Shell Canada.
Do you any opening comments.
Further to my introduction of witnesses, we also have joining us, as required for technical issues, Mr. Tim Mitchell from Staffing Engineer Fuel of Shell Canada.
And also, Susan Muckpah, our Director of PPD.
(interpretation) I am very pleased to make an appearance in the Committee of the Whole.
I’m sure that Members are well aware of complaints and concerns in Nunavut.
We have had help from Shell Canada and the gasoline that is supplied to Nunavut by Shell Canada has been tested at all stages of supply and delivery and after complaints have been received.
To date, we can say it complies with all Government of Nunavut and Canada General Standards Board specifications.
Mr. Chairman, to better understand the concerns, the gasoline has undergone further extensive testing in Rankin Inlet in extreme winter conditions, and in addition, tests were conducted at the Alberta Research Council in Edmonton in a special cold box laboratory.
The cause of spark plug foulup has not yet been identified.
However, it was found that an additive tested in the gas improves the performance of the fuel in two-stroke snowmobile engines in very cold weather.
Shell Canada and the Petroleum Product Division will safely blend this additive in the existing gas re-supplies in affected communities.
In Baffin, they were supplied by Montreal, and I am very pleased that I will be here with the Shell Canada representatives.
The questions will be answered by these same representatives.
We will be making plans on how we can improve the quality.
I would like to give Members every opportunity to voice their concerns and questions.
I will give the members 10 minutes each to make their comments.
I am very pleased that the minister and the deputy minister are here, as well as representatives of Shell Canada.
I am sure that they would like to know what is happening here in Nunavut and the consumers.
The consumers out there have to find out exactly what we are receiving.
I will be reading in English. (interpretation ends) Before we get into questions today, I already made my welcoming remarks to the witnesses appearing before the committee with the minister.
I think it would be useful for the benefit of visiting witnesses to summarize from my point of view, some of the concerns and other concerns as Nunavut Members of the Legislative Assembly, to give an indication of what answers we are looking for.
The facts that we are aware of, in summary, are as follows.
Numerous residents in Nunavut, in the Baffin and Kivallirmiut also are experiencing concerns with their engines.
These problems are not just limited to spark plugs fouling.
We want to be very clear with that.
If that were the only problem, we wouldn’t invite you to appear before this committee.
It also affects other aspects of engine performance, including outboard motors, ATV’s, trucks and snowmobiles, mainly because they are more numerous in terms of daily use in Nunavut.
Residents in the Kitikmeot do not appear to be experiencing the same problems that we are facing in the Kivalliq and Baffin.
We want to know what is different in their gasoline supply.
We know that there were additives that were tested, which may or may have not been included in the current supply of gasoline.
We know that such additives as Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl, or MMT, may be at issue here.
We want to know what additives should be present in the supply, in order to allow our small engines, such as those in snowmobiles and boats, particularly outboard motors, to cope with the harsh winter climate.
We know that two different companies, to be exact, Shell Canada and Esso, supply Nunavut’s gas.
We want to know what the differences are between the two supplies.
I may have been wrong there, it could be Imperial, as far as the west is concerned.
We want to know what should be changed to Nunavut’s gasoline specs to deal with these issues.
Mr. Chairman, we want to know what the Government of Nunavut will do to compensate and to hear directly from the consumers.
Hunters, owners of vehicles and snowmobiles, through no fault of their own, suffered damage to their property and have incurred personal expenses for one of the other facts, and there are no other alternatives to buy gasoline from their community.
So, to conclude again, this gasoline supply is not good for the people of Nunavut, particularly to my constituents.
There is something wrong with this gasoline.
You forget about the spark plugs, there are problems that we know that exist and it’s time that the minister and his officials consult with the consumers as well.
It is important before you re-issue the tender for supply that there be a consultation.
That means, the people that had damaged engines and what not.
I have with me at least 26 complains related to gas.
These are constituents’ issues with respect to ATV’s, trucks, much more damaging than the spark plugs.
There have been pistons that have been broken, crank cases that have been broken.
The evidence is the same.
There’s a very dark residue inside of the engines that it’s blocking.
I just spoke to one of my constituents this morning that, not only is there black residue in spark plugs, but it’s also clogging the exhaust system.
I spoke to one of my constituents this morning as well.
He now realizes that this blockage of the exhaust systems may have been the cause of the outboard motors as well.
He now is beginning to think that that might have been the case because particularly the newer models without the carburetion systems, the fuel systems that are now been applied to the injection systems, are subject to very fine particles that the eye could not see, but they are accumulating during this summer with a new supply that we had in September, and it was blocking something in there, a residue that was not in there last year.
So I hope Shell Canada can respond to these points and I know that my colleagues here will have detailed questions for you as well so that we can get to the bottom of the problem and address it because all Nunavutmiut deserve the quality of gasoline for a number of reasons.
They are the purchasers of gasoline supply, we are dependent on them to break even, to make sure the gasoline is paid for in our communities.
So, again, I welcome you and your officials and Shell Canada representatives before the committee.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): In my opening comments, I had invited, if it’s okay with you, Mr. Chairman, and before we respond to the concerns that were voiced, I would like to give the Shell Canada representatives an opportunity to make opening comments and I apologize.
I apologize for forgetting about that.
Mr. Anderson, if you have any opening comments.
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Honourable Member Kilabuk, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Legislature, on behalf of myself and my colleagues at Shell, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the Government of Nunavut for this opportunity to attend and discuss issues and concerns related to the 2004 fuel supply and quality of fuel issue.
Shell is proud of the relationships that we have in the North, and in particular, a very strong working relationship we have established with the Government of Nunavut through the Petroleum Products Division.
Since October of 2004, Shell, together with the Petroleum Products Division, has been investigating concerns about spark plug stalling in some two-cycle engines under extremely cold weather conditions.
The application of gasoline in Nunavut is quite unique.
We very much appreciate the need for reliable products for business and for recreational use in this unique environment.
That’s why we continue to put a great deal of effort into better understanding why superior quality gasoline that has met all of the Government of Nunavut specifications and Canadian General Standards Board specs, the Government of Nunavut’s specs which, by the way, are more stringent, seem to be causing spark plug fouling in some two-cycle snow machine engines.
Today, we would like to attempt to answer questions that you may have regarding the current product specifications, all findings from our investigations, the elimination of MMT in gasoline on a national basis and how different refineries meet specifications by different means.
Again, what action we are taking today and what action we will continue to take moving forward, in addition, we hope to clear up some of the misconceptions or inaccurate information about current fuel supply and the efforts to investigate this, in conjunction with the Petroleum Product Division.
I may add, in my opinion and experience in dealing with a great many customers nationally, and internationally over the course of some 20 years, I believe the Petroleum Product Division has done a tremendous job in contracting for this business and it responds to the investigation to the concerns raised by their customers.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Are there any general comments, Members of the Legislative Assembly.
If there are no general comments, are there any questions.
I want to ask Mr. Anderson, what is different about this gasoline supply from last year, to be exact.
I know that you’re proud of your relationship with Nunavut, but as a result of this last four years, two, three years experience with the gasoline supply, Nunavutmiut are not proud of Shell.
So, I hope you will take this fact back to your management, and let them know that there are many Nunavutmiut, particularly in places like Rankin Inlet, who have been very patient with the officials in Canada.
I hope that you don’t, that the small that you provided to Rankin Inlet was not linked to try and butter up this relationship any further, because it maybe an honest coincidence and if it is, I’ll accept that.
It coincidently announced that just when we were having a very serious problem with the gasoline supply.
I will not even entertain the fact that, because the climate may have been colder this year, that’s not the case.
That’s not the case at all.
We have had good gasoline during the very cold times and so on.
So, the question again to you is, why is it different from last year’s supply this year.
Could you respond to that specifically.
Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The gasoline supplied in 2004 was Shell’s second year of supply to the Government of Nunavut.
The gasoline supplied in the 2004 re-supply met the same stringent specifications as it did in the previous year.
The difference being in the 2004 case, MMT was not part of the gasoline formulation, nor is it a specification in the gasoline formulation, nor is it required to meet the specification in the case of the CGSB, or the more stringent Government of Nunavut specifications.
So, specifically that is the difference between the 2003 and the 2004 re-supply.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): So, what you’re telling me is that MMT was not included in the current 2004/05 re-supply, but it was included in the 2003/04.
Is that the fact.
Yes, in the most recent re-supply, Shell Canada and the Canadian refining industry in general, removed MMT from all gasoline on a national basis during the period of 2004.
That industry voluntarily restricting or not putting in that particular additive into the supply.
You’re not instructed by the Federal Government or any legislation because I believe it is legal to include that as replacement product for lead that has been disallowed over the years.
So, my question to you is this, if MMT was not included in this year’s supply, what was put in that supply because this particular product is required to reduce the knocking and reduce the engine developing possibly to reduce heat that would accumulate in an engine so that it was not was not included, what was put in place because you do require, lead or that to reduce knocking that is required by the national standards.
MMT, like lead, was used as a very cost effective source of octane.
Octane can be achieved in various many other ways.
In the removal of MMT in fact, the cost of reformulation to achieve octane costs Shell Canada between $6 and $7 million of additional costs in the removal of it to achieve octane levels.
Through the testing of products through this investigation, or the ongoing testing, octane is certainly one of the parameters that is key and is often tested.
As I mentioned, the product meets all of the stringent specifications and is a 92 octane material.
MMT only provides or has only provided that cost effective source of octane which we have replaced.
You’re not answering my question.
If MMT was not included, what was then put in place to replace it.
The only other one that I’m understanding is this product that is not, I forgot the name of it but there are a lot of products from agriculture.
So, if it wasn’t included, what was included in this year’s supply because in order achieve octane level required, you either have that.
Are experimenting with this gasoline in Nunavut?
Refineries, depending on the configuration and the units that they have to work with, have many different sources of octane.
In some cases you can include Alkalid a as a source of octane, reformate as a source of octane.
I myself am not a chemist, I’m not refiner but to suggest that lead was taken out and MMT was replaced to add octane and then with the removal of MMT, there would have to be another chemical additive it is simply not the case in the refining process.
Refineries can change various streams within their refinery that are octane rich and depending on the configuration of a refinery, octane may come from many sources.
In the case of our Montreal Refinery, it is alkalid, in the case of our Scotford Refinery, heavy refremate.
Mr. Minister, can you introduce witness.
On my left, an individual who just joined us is Mr. Kim Mitchell, and he could be asked questions from the members as well.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I just want to be quite clear.
Is it because MMT is certainly not illegal to sell in Canada to be included in its current supply as an octane booster in the gasoline supply.
I believe MMT was included in last year’s supply.
If so, there were no complaints with the system.
I don’t really believe that Nunavut peoples what kind of additives or octane booster levels you put in as long as it works in Nunavut.
But what you have put in or may have not included in this year’s supply is a problem.
You have been paid for the supply that you have got so you nothing to worry about as far as I’m concerned, but the consumers are really quite disturbed.
Why were the government and Shell Canada continue to defend something that may be not be defendable in this part of the world because we have not option.
If the octane supply component is missing then it is this particular product that is creating a gasoline and damaging engines in Nunavut.
Are you prepared to accept that fact?
If the product that has met these high standards did test up to specification in terms of octane, that would be readily apparent, and that has not been the case.
The product tested on a repeated basis has met all the specifications.
What is very important to recognize is that a very unique set of circumstances in terms of cold weather, environment, load, two cycle engines, that is very unique to this environment, in fact, snowmobile manufacturers do not use MMT in testing their snow machine engines.
They don’t test at -45.
They don’t test under load.
This is the same base formulation of gasoline that is used anywhere else in Western Canada with the particular exception that this superior in terms of octane to anything used by any consumer in the southern regions.
I myself use an 89 octane in my snowmobile and use it Winnipeg in -35 without MMT.
I don’t have a problem.
This is a particular issue under very unusual circumstances.
We are mixing 20 thousand parts per million of lube oil into a very stringent specification of gasoline.
The number of variables that that employs afterwards in terms of the different types of lubricants, the different additive packages with in lubricants, the different variables in terms of temperature and load, as we look for the long term solution, those are all considerations that we need to rule out or we need to consider in trying to find out what is the solution for gasoline in Nunavut.
I’m going to give the others a chance with their questions but I have one more question that I would like to ask.
Shell Canada may have met all the specification requirements of the tender of the Government of Nunavut, Petroleum Product Division’s specifications when they put out the tender but I also believe that if it’s ESSO or Imperial in the Eastern Arctic they also have met the specifications but their gasoline is good quality.
Shell Canada’s supply this year to Nunavut Eastern Arctic communities and two years ago did not.
Whether you met the standards, it was lousy, terrible.
If I was the Minister, I would even enter into contract with you guys.
So you may have met all the standards or qualifications, so would you if you included the additive that was included last year.
If last year’s MMT was the main octane booster, it worked.
If it didn’t, you didn’t explain it.
Are you experimenting with something in the gasoline supply this year and end up putting in MMT in afterwards.
I believe that’s what you put in Rankin Inlet with the number of drums that you shipped in.
Was that MMT?
I want to be understood and I want to be very clear that I have not allowed any member to misguide the listening audience of what he presumes that I would do with the problems that we are seeing.
I want to make that very clear because I am taking this concern very seriously and I want all of the members to know that we continue to work on this so that we don’t see it again in the future.
So, I hope that my colleague in his reference to how I should be taken to this contract is not something that I would repeat or say in the House at this appearance today.
Mr. Curley: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am not at all suggesting whether or not he should or should not deal with Shell, but I am only giving an example.
If I was in the Cabinet position, I would have a very difficult time and I am not, you can be assured, that I am not in the Cabinet, so I have no influence with whether or not the contract would be influenced or not.
So that’s beside the point.
The point is in Rankin Inlet MMT was not included this year’s supply.
It might have been included in last year’s supply.
I still have not heard whether or not that is the case, whether or not a new type of octane level booster was included, it still met the standards or not, if they have met all of the standards on national or Nunavut specifications, but still three years ago they made have met the specifications, but the gasoline supply was not good for Baffin or Kivalliq.
So I am asking again for the last time: what was added in the octane booster to increase octane levels in Rankin Inlet this month or last month?
Mr. Anderson, or Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Minister.
Mr. Mitchell will respond to that question.
Mr. Mitchell: Just some explanation might be required to understand octane is one of the major parameters in gasoline and there are many ways to get to a given octane level.
Just to clear things up, lead was banned from automotive gasoline in 1990 in Canada.
If you added lead to gasoline, it could give you as many as ten octane numbers, okay, and earlier we heard that the supply to Nunavut, the specification is 92 octane.
MMT on the other hand, it provides an octane boost of about one number, so it’s usually used as a trimming agent.
The advantage of it is that you can add very small amounts of this additive to get that one octane number, and MMT has been in general use in unleaded gasoline in Canada since about 1997, and as Mark Anderson explained, it was voluntarily removed by all Canadian refiners pretty well in 2004.
That was as a precautionary movement, but the big thing is the MMT only provided about one octane number. It’s not the major component.
The octane comes from the hydrocarbon and the gasoline, with all of the different components in the refinery that Mark also talked about earlier.
So MMT, what we have discovered in this particular incident is that this additive, which is normally used as an octane enhancer does provide some benefit in terms of spark plug fouling under cold conditions.
That is why we are putting it in the gasoline because it provides a benefit.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Curley: I am seeking one answer.
I want to give the others a chance.
What was put in as additional or among many other octane boosters with the current gasoline supply last month in Rankin Inlet?
Mr. Mitchell: What we did in Rankin Inlet is we have added a small amount of MMT, approximately 14 ppm of manganese has been added to the gasoline in Rankin Inlet.
That’s what we have added and the reason we have added that is because we did some tests in Edmonton in a cold box, we did two field trials in Rankin Inlet with snow machines, which showed that if adding 14 ppm of manganese as MMT, basically solved the spark plug problem issue.
So we decided to do the tank in Rankin Inlet, and were now in the process of treating the tanks.
In Baker Lake was done yesterday and Repulse Bay is being done today.
And again this is not an octane issue, it just happens to be a beneficial side effect of the additive, and that it prevents spark plugs fouling under very severe conditions.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Netser.
Mr. Netser: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Just put a couple of questions here, I ask the minister for the tank to be tested in Coral Harbour.