GN should cover NPC deficits

As a homeowner and ratepayer in Iqaluit, I must object to the plan by Nunavut Power to collect from its consumers for its own past mismanagement.

Clearly the debt has to be written-off by GN as it was the GN who caused it, right up to the top.

On top of that, the proposed one-rate system for all of Nunavut makes as much sense as the earlier one time-zone for all of Nunavut did (why this curious preoccupation with ironing out the crinkles of real-world differences?)

Homeowners in Iqaluit will see their power rates almost double, and there is no guarantee that the existing subsidy on the first 700 kilowatt-hours will continue to take at least some of the pain out of it.

Iqaluit homeowners are already the only ones in Nunavut who have to pay property taxes for land they don’t own, while also covering the development costs for the land in their so-called “equity” lease. We are asked to collectively suspend reality till there is another land ownership vote here in 20 years that just might swing ‘yes’ next time.

However, a yes-vote is unlikely, as policies including the proposed power rate structure, make homeownership unaffordable for most Nunavummiut. Much better to get government-subsidized or social housing than to own a house and be a target for shallow redistribution schemes.

Homeowners outside Iqaluit do not have to pay $4,000 in annual taxes and often $3,000+ a year towards their equity lease.

Power rates have to reflect real costs and not deny the reality of economies of scale and the high costs of servicing small isolated and scattered communities.

Similarly, social rents, public and private employee subsidies and benefits, and ultimately income tax northern allowances will have to reflect the real cost of living and homeownership, if that is a policy objective, in the Far North. The power rate as a home-grown policy should be forward-looking and intelligent enough to anticipate probable impacts.

Larry Simpson
Homeowner
Iqaluit