EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
That was a decision that had been made by the senior management, and I found out about it was when an individual came to my office and said that they were going to sue me, a year ago, because they were not getting their bonus that they were promised.
At that time, I sent an email to Shakir Alwarid, who was the CEO of the Power Corporation, and I asked what was the scope of the bonuses that were being paid out, because I was not aware of any bonuses that were being paid out.
I was not aware of the amounts of the at-risk pay.
The CEO came forward and said that the previous CEO had gone to the employees and made a commitment.
Under contractual law, what occurred was the CEO had done individual professional personnel reviews of the employees, and the bonus was based on that, on their performance appraisal.
Then the employee was told that they would receive $5,000 or $10,000 and would be paid this on July 1 or June 2, whatever the date was.
I did not want to pay that money out, so I asked for a legal opinion at that time: was there an obligation for me as the minister and the corporation to pay it out.
It hadn’t come to the minister; I only heard about it secondhand, something that the member has pointed out.
When that information came to me, I asked for a legal opinion.
The legal opinion came back that in contractual law, if you have been promised something and you were already made a commitment based on receiving X number of dollars, then indeed, you have to pay that out.
We could have gone to court and fought it, and it would have cost us several thousand dollars to do that.
In that instance, we went with opinion to go with the payment, to pay them and basically hold our noses.
At that time, a year ago, those bonuses were reviewed and eliminated, and as Mr. Simailak said in his statement just recently, that the member quoted from, that was not the case.
The member has now just said that this past Friday there were bonuses paid out.
I’m not aware of it, and I don’t think any of them, the Minister, the Premier, Hon. David Simailak, or anyone is aware of that.
So, I can’t comment on that, because I don’t know if that indeed is the case.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now that the minions who monitor the Legislative Assembly, I’m sure are right now making phone calls to the corporation to find out if that is indeed the case, because that is news to me.
Question 074 – 2(2): Review Details of Meeting with Mr. Godfrey
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month provincial and territorial ministers met with Minister John Godfrey, the boss at Infrastructure Canada, to discuss the initiative A New Deal for Canada’s Cities and municipalities.
My question for the Minister is: when will the Minister reveal details, for regular members of the public, about the results of that meeting?
Speaker (interpretation): The Minister of Community and Government Services, Hon. Peter Kilabuk.
I’d like to inform the members that Minister Godfrey and I will meet this weekend.
I will be leaving to go meet with him this weekend.
After my meeting with him I will be able to inform the member of the outcome.
With regards to the meeting, we have identified how the communities are looking at them and we are in the process of negotiating an agreement, but I haven’t met with them.
So, I will be able to inform the members afterwards.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Minister, for that comment.
It was my understanding that the provincial and territorial ministers had already met.
For the information of the House, the Government of Canada committed a portion of the gas tax that will flow to cities, communities, for investment for infrastructure; I think they’re projecting $5 billion over five years, beginning in 2005.
So, negotiations are going to be very important for Nunavut.
I’m wondering if the minister could indicate to the House or tell us what portion of the gas tax Nunavut will be seeking out of this $5 billion.
From the $5 billion fund that my colleague is talking about, we certainly would like to receive as much as we can.
As a matter of fact, the first meetings that I will be attending will be to have discussions with Minister Godfrey and his office on our ideas as to the funding levels we should be receiving from the gas tax money.
So, the first meeting that I will be attending will be to start the negotiations on what we feel would be sufficient for an acceptable level of funding for the Government of Nunavut.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you, Mr. Minister.
In the past, Nunavut would get ripped off when we had these per capita allocation formulas, because of the small population base.
A couple of years ago we were successful in negotiating a 1-percent base allocation formula, and that’s why we got an extra $20 million for the strategic housing fund; $20 million out of $2 billion, based on 1 percent, that was great.
Can the minister tell the House that at the very minimum he will be seeking 1 percent of the base allocation out of this $5 billion?
I thank the member for these questions.
The discussions that we three territorial ministers have been having on which percentage would be acceptable... .
As the member has indicated, when the funding formula is distributed on a per-capita basis it just does not meet our needs.
So, in furthering our discussions we’re looking at as high as 1.5 percent, which would definitely increase the level of funding the Nunavut Government would receive.
I can assure the member at least 1 percent would be acceptable for Nunavut, for looking at our infrastructure needs in Nunavut.
Yesterday I mentioned in my member’s statement the importance of involving the mayors of Nunavut as a lobby organization; they have connections in Ottawa and in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
I’m wondering if the minister could tell us whether his department, the Department of Community and Government Services, is working closely with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities to lobby Ottawa for this 1 or 1.5 percent on behalf of Nunavut.
My colleague is reading my mind very well today.
As a matter of fact, I’m pleased to inform the House that when I travel to meet with Minister Godfey, I will be taking with me the NAM President to these meetings in Ottawa.
The Member for Akulliq, Mr. Mapsalak.
Question 075 – 2(2): Kugaaruk Sewage Lagoon Concern
My question is directed to the Minister of Department of Community and Government Services.
Prior to my arrival here I visited one of my communities and we had a meeting where I asked for their concerns; the major concern with the hamlet was their sewage lagoon.
I’d like to ask the minister if he has received any correspondence from the hamlet that there should be work done on the sewage lagoon.
We were first told about this in the spring of 2003.
I’d like to assure my colleague that it’s still being planned, and that plan should be completed by this spring.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you. So, can the hamlet of Kugaaruk expect that the work will start in the summer of next year?
We have set aside some funding for that, about $160,000, and we have made clear to them that this will be included in the plans.
The Member for Pond Inlet, Mr. Arreak.
Question 076 – 2(2): Improvements to the Boarding Homes in Iqaluit and Ottawa
It is in regard to boarding homes in Iqaluit and Ottawa.
They’re always filled to their capacity, and I’ve heard complaints about them.
Are there any plans to make improvements to those boarding homes?
I know they are not owned by the department, but are there any plans to make improvements in this area?
Speaker (interpretation): The Minister of Health and Social Services, Hon. Levinia Brown.
With regard to the concerns that he is raising in regards to the boarding home in Iqaluit, they are going to do a study and make plans to see if it can be expanded, and the same thing with the boarding home in Ottawa.
It should be done fairly shortly.
Thank you, for those plans.
We are very appreciative of the Iqaluit boarding home because they take in boarders.
But, I would like to ask further... .
The lease contract is short-term, and we have been told that the contract might be extended.
Yes, it’s clear that there will be some changes made, because with the new hospital it will be used.
And the one in Ottawa will always be used for those people who need operations.
We will have to give this a closer look, but at this time I can’t specify exactly when that will start.
Question 077 – 2(2): Monthly Reports from the Power Corporation
I am going to refer, again, back to a minister’s statement made last May, and I will quote from it.
It says, “The corporation’s staff will be required to provide timely and accurate financial statements and projections to the board of directors and the Financial Management Board on a monthly basis.”
I would like to just ask the minister responsible if they are in fact receiving this information.
I just want to verify an earlier question by the member.
As I indicated, the minions have been at work and the minions have informed me that indeed, to the best of my knowledge and from information provided to me, there were no bonuses paid out by the corporation last Friday or in the last little while.
So, I would be able to clarify that first of all.
I guess that rumour doesn’t seem to be correct.
It is my understanding that the information and the financial system and health of the corporation is being made known and made available to the corporation and indeed, one of the members of the audit committee of the corporation has now been put into position of being the new president of the corporation itself.
I am glad that the minister clarified that and that his dedicated employees are hard at work and listening to his every command.
He had indicated that the corporation was getting that information.
Is, as the statement outlines, that information flowing from the board of directors to the Financial Management Board on a monthly basis?
When I was saying the minions, I meant the minion I have upstairs: a very dedicated, long-serving employee of mine, Ms. Lori Anne White, who is manning the television.
So if we could thank Lori Anne, she is the minion that we are speaking about.
It is my understanding that the Department of Finance has been working very closely with the senior staff of the corporation for the last past several months, and through the Crown Agency Council, and the information on the corporation’s finances is being made known on a regular basis to the Department of Finance.
So the answer to the member’s question on the information is correct.
Then if I’m correct, the accurate timing and accurate statements and projections are being done on a monthly basis.
I would assume that is correct, that that is what the minister is indicating.
Given that, could the minister indicate, based on the last month’s information that they would have received from the corporation, what the board and the staff at the corporation are projecting the situation to be.
I didn’t say on a monthly basis.
It’s my understanding it’s on a regular basis; it could be six weeks, it could be four weeks.
So I said a regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier here, I don’t have a copy of the audited financial statements for the corporation for this fiscal year.
It is my understanding that the Auditor General has not signed off on them yet.
We would hope to have them in the coming days.
I know I’ll have them by February, when the House sits again, when we look at the recommendations of the Utility Rate Review Council.
They should be coming forward at the same time.
We will be in a better position to look at it.
The losses of the first two years of the corporation were $5.2 million, a little over $7 million the second year, and I would expect in the third year of the operation, which is what the member is asking for, the loss will probably comparable.
I know that there are some estimates that the loss could be between 119 and $12 million for the third year.
Again, it wouldn’t be correct to say that until I actually get the statements.
Maybe it’s less. I would hope it’s less.
It may be in that ball park: 11 or 12.
I would hope that it wouldn’t be more.
So, I think that’s what the member was alluding to.
I would like to thank the minister for revealing that information.
But, the information that I was seeking is on its projections and not for a time period that is done already.
If they’re not following the minister’s statement where it says they will be required to do it every month and they’re not doing that, why?
I have a question about that.
Mr. Speaker, it does say that they will provide that information and the projections and that’s for every month.
And that’s what I’m talking about.
Currently, what are they looking at right now on their variance reports or whatever?
I’m sure that that’s what the department or the corporation is putting forward.
What are their projections for the current year for their fiscal outlook?
I don’t want to speculate on what the numbers are, so, when I said based on the first year, 5, and then 7, and we know the costs have been going up, that’s why I said that it may be 10 or 12.
It may be less.
It may be more, but I don’t think there’s any point in speculating until we actually have the documents in front of us, and Mr. Speaker, I would hope to have those over the next few days.
Mr. Speaker, their estimates and so on have been made available on a regular and ongoing basis to the Department of Finance.
Because at that the end of the day, the corporation’s revenue base is paid for by one customer and that’s the Government of Nunavut.
I think it’s important to point out that since April 1, 2001, when the corporation set up, there has only been $14 million put into the corporation by this government, in the last three and a half years.
If you look at that amount that was put into the corporation, the $14 million, 80 percent of that, in lieu of a rider, would have been paid by the government anyway, or $ 11.2 million.
So, the subsidy that we talked about yesterday to the people of Nunavut is about $2.8 million, because that’s what they would have paid out of that total amount.
So, I hope that helps clarify the answer to the member.
Question 078 – 2(2): Appointments to the Human Rights Tribunal
(interpretation ends) I believe a few days ago the minister made a statement in the Legislative Assembly with respect to the appointments to the human rights tribunal.
I would like to congratulate all the members that have been appointed, particularly from small communities throughout Nunavut.
But I had a concern with one of them, and I wonder if the minister would be prepared to explain exactly why he would appoint someone who is a legal counsel to the Legislative Assembly.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister of Justice, Hon. Paul Okalik.
I asked for submissions from all members and from the public to see who they think would be ideal for serving on the tribunal.
I’m very glad to submit that we’ll have good broad representation from throughout Nunavut and from different backgrounds.
It helps to have legal counsel.
She will not serve as legal counsel for the tribunal but will sit alongside the other members and represent her views to the tribunal.
I would think that the member, this particular legal counsellor, will then have to probably declare conflict of interest and whatnot when dealing with human rights legislation and with issues that are related to human rights issues and so on.
I wonder if the minister should seek advice from the integrity commissioner, and if not, why not?
Where there’s private proprietary interest involved for elected officials we have an integrity commissioner.
I don’t see the point being made here; we are dealing with human rights, not proprietary interests.
Question 079 – 2(2): Number of Probation Officers in the Communities
Social workers in many of Nunavut’s communities are doing double duty as probation officers.
This places a great deal of additional stress on their shoulders; they already have a difficult job, as we all know.
It also exposes them to more danger, as some of the people that work at probation work with offenders, dangerous offenders, violent offenders, that are being released from jail.
Since 1999 it’s been recommended that at least 18-23 community corrections officers be hired to deal with probation services.
My question for the minister is: can the minister inform the House how many communities currently have community corrections personnel, and how many do not?
I understand currently there are eight communities that have corrections workers.
Yes, it would be ideal to have probation workers in every community, but unfortunately we haven’t had the resources to cover all the communities to date.
We have done it, and we have tried to cooperate with the federal government to try and coordinate both activities and fund them jointly, but we have not been successful to date.
Could the minister clarify how many social workers currently also provide probation services in their communities?
My department works in coordination with Health and Social Services, but I don’t have those figures right now.
I know that we have probation workers in at least eight communities that I know of.
So, I could get back to the member with the exact figures on how many social workers coordinate their activities with our department.
Can the minister describe the working relationship between his department and the Department of Health and Social Services for the direction and compensation of social workers who are providing probation services?
Speaker: Hon. Paul Okalik.
I will have to get back to the member because it involves getting information from another department at this time.
I will commit to providing that to the honourable member as soon as possible.
Question 080 – 2(2): Amounts of Financial Projections
My question is once again for the very popular minister of the Power Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, earlier the minister indicated that he is getting current and accurate financial information and projections from the Power Corporation, and I would assume that that’s for this fiscal year that they are operating in right now.
Given that, I would like to ask the minister: if they had that information and there are accurate projections out there, why does it seem like it’s such a secret, that they are not letting people know what kind of a shortfall the corporation is going to be looking at in this fiscal year?
I guess we still have several months to go in this year: December, February, March, and up to March 31 of this fiscal year.
Again, as I stated earlier, I have not received the audited statements for this fiscal year going back to last year, from April 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004.
I don’t want to be in a position of trying to say what an amount may be as of March 31, 2005.
That’s the reason why we are not saying what those are.
There are some projections, they have made forecasts; any business and government does forecasting on what we believe the expenditures will be for a coming period of time.
I would just like to ask the minister: is it the view of this government and the corporation that the public doesn’t have a right to know how much public money is being looked at to go into bailing out again the Power Corporation this year?
If they have this information, what’s the big deal about letting people know what it is if someone is asking for it?
I can understand if no one is asking for it: it would be great; don’t say anything.
But given the interest in this and that people do have a right to know... . As the minister indicated, there are projections that they are looking at.
If the government calculates projections, they need to know how much to plan to put aside for the corporation and not wait until after the year end and the year later when they get the audited statements; they don’t wait that long.
Is it the view of the minister and this government that this is information that the public doesn’t have a right to know?
The process has always been when you receive the audited financial statements, signed off by the Auditor General, you table them in the House.
That has not been to say that our projections right now are saying X number of dollars and so on.
I don’t see to any benefit of making those known; I guess that would be the quick answer.
The second answer on the bail-out: since April 1, 2001 this government has only provided $14 million in actual cash; 10 and 4; $10 million in lieu of the rider and $4 million for operating costs.
If we had put the rider on as first asked for, we would have paid 80 percent of that anyway.
So, $11.2 million would have come directly from us because we provide 80 percent of the revenue to the corporation.
In reality, the bail-out that you talked about, and the member has said, will be $2.8 million since 2001; in a three and a half year period, that is what we would be paying.
And Mr. Curley made a good point yesterday when he said, “What is the rate of the subsidies that are out there and how do we provide an escape from a rate shock for our customer base?”
That’s what we’re trying to do.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the government has to be conscious of the electricity that we’re spending, come up with better energy management processes, and that’s what we’re working on.
At the end of the day our government provides 80 percent of the revenue to the corporation, and I don’t think that it is correct phraseology to say that the government bailed out the corporation.
In a three-and-a-half year period, all we’ve provided is $2.8 million, because that is what the customers would have paid; 20 percent of that $14 million.
We provided $11.8 million that we would have paid anyway if the rate had been put in place.
So, I hope that helps clarify the answer.
I guess the key word there is if that had been put in place.
The fact of the matter is it wasn’t.
So, you can paint it any color you want; it’s still due this money that was given by the government to the corporation to cover its shortfalls, for whatever reason.
Again, I would like to ask the minister: do they have current projections for this year?
I’m not talking about last year.
They have to know what they’re looking at having to cover off for this fiscal year and next fiscal year prior to the new rates kicking in.
Why does the minister not feel the public has the right to know what that amount is?
As I said earlier, since April 1, 2001, we only have two audited financial statements that the members have seen and that the Auditor General has looked at.
We will be in receipt of the third audited financial statement, signed off by the Auditor General, in the next couple of weeks.
As soon as we receive those, we’ll table them.
If the House is not sitting, it will be in the February session when we deal with the Utility Rate Review Council recommendations, at the same time.
To say right now what our projection is, based on March 31, of a cost factor, Mr. Speaker, would be inappropriate because we’re still dealing with some of the costs.
For example, I note that there is an oil tanker standing off shore pumping oil right now, and there’s another tanker.
I don’t know what the cost of that will be to this corporation.
Is there a new cost based on that?
Will those costs increase?
So, if I made a projection in this House and said the corporation expects to generate $2 million worth of profit up to March 31, March 31 comes along and it loses $10 million, then the members would say I misled the House or something.
So, you need to be able to deal with facts.
There are projections that have been put forward to the Department of Finance, which has been working on a regular basis with the power corporation.
We do have the Crown Agency Council that the Auditor General suggested that we set up, and that’s in place, and they’re reviewing the financial projections and statements.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time the board of directors and the audit committee of the board of directors are also dealing with it.
So, I guess that’s the reason why I’m not saying what those projections are, because they’re only guesstimates and projections and they may change.
They may change in the next couple of weeks based on any new costs that occur.
I know that the government as a whole has no problem in projecting what they look at for the year.