EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I’m wondering if the minister can tell us what kind of oversight does his department really provide to the other departments. Is there a time frame they’re supposed to get back to you every year, “By this time we want to know what buildings are going to be surplus and what needs to be disposed of”?
There was no formal process before. It was just the departments did it; there was no timeline and no criteria.
Now we’re in the process of formalizing it so that each department has to tell us what buildings are surplus. From that master list we would take that and see if any of the departments needed or want the buildings for any use and, if not, then we would dispose of it.
We have heard on many occasions about old government derelict buildings in communities that just sit there and they could be a health hazard or a safety hazard.
Those are the kinds of things that we would like to clean up.
I think, too, communities that are in dire need of buildings have to wait so long before and finally when they do hear, sometimes the building gets to that point where it’s no longer usable.
I’m really happy to hear that you have now a process in place because we need to speed up the process. I remember the member from Sanikiluaq here talking about a building it seemed for many years that needed to be disposed of and it just took so long.
I’m happy to hear that you’re coming up with a process. I think that’s going to be very beneficial.
I would like to go to page 188.
I know you’re talking about and Mr. Joanasie touched on this about the “capital planning process to identify long-term strategic priorities for infrastructure investment.” I know that the department deals with different funding agencies. There are different pockets of money; they don’t all come from the same place.
Within the GN itself, when it comes to capital investment, I am concerned and I have been since I became an MLA about some of the projects that are on the capital list that have... . I understand that we’re not talking about capital, but we are talking about the capital planning process.
That’s right here. Part of the capital planning, I would assume, is impacted by what’s already on the list.
You have a lot of projects on the list that have been there for a long time.
Throughout this planning process, what kinds of changes are you going to make so that we don’t have projects that sit on the plan for years and years?
I think one of the reasons why I believe they sit on the plan for a long time is because initial investments were made years back.
They kind of sit there because we put $1 million into the design and now we don’t have any money to actually build it.
Now it just sits there. The thing is it gets in the way of further developments or future developments.
How, as a department, are you guys going to address that?
I can’t comment too much on past practices, but from here forward, it has been an ongoing process where we’re having the capital planning process streamlined.
We do stuff like preplanning studies now. We also include now, if it’s a replacement of a structure, what they’re going to do with that structure so that it doesn’t just sit around. Okay, we’re getting a new health centre here.
Therefore in the old days we’re getting a new health centre and they never really thought about what’s going to happen with the old health centre. Now as part of the capital planning, they’re going to get a new health centre. Okay, the department has to come up with what they’re going to do with the old health centre.
I know that’s not what you were asking about, just to say that the whole capital planning process is trying to be fixed up for the better.
As part of that capital planning process, as I mentioned, there are old projects that sit on the capital plan that are just continuing to sit there.
What is the department’s plan? How are you going to address that?
I’m not sure which project she is talking about, but it all comes down to the prioritization of capital projects because it takes a while from when they want to do something from a conception until it actually goes out to tender.
All I can say is that it is just to do with prioritizing and sometimes priorities change.
I look forward to hearing more about developments in that area because I think, in order to go forward, you’re going to have to make some changes when you look at the list.
I want to go a little bit about where you speak about to “Explore alternative and innovative project delivery mechanisms such as design-build, construction…”
Perhaps I need a little bit of education here about the difference between the traditional design-bid-build process and the design-build process. I don’t understand the difference. Can you please explain to me what the difference is?
I can explain that to the member, yes.
When a project is design-built, the RFP goes out.
I’ll take Cape Dorset for example, the school there. It says, “We need a school.
The school has to be this big. It has to have all these items in it. It’s going to be built on this location.”
That’s how the RFP goes out. That’s the design-build. Whoever gets the successful RFP designs the building with all the specs that are included, and that’s what their price is.
The other process is where there are two separate contracts, one is someone gets to design the school and someone else gets to build it. We put an RFP out saying, “We want a school. It has to have this, this and this,” but the RFP is only for the design.
Once the design is accepted, a tender will go out to build that designed school, if it’s clear.
It kind of sounds like when you’re a homeowner and you want to build your home, you do it all at once. You pay the architect and you tell them what you want. I guess it’s like that.
Do you know yet basically how much money you’re going to save or the government will save by going through this process and the timing?
Do you know anything yet? I know it is early days, but so far to date what have you found out?
There are pros and cons on both sides.
It depends on what the construction is.
The example I used with the Cape Dorset school, we did save money on it and we did save time on it.
That is not saying that every project would save time and money, but in that case it did.
My first question is in Baker Lake there was an asset that was sold by the government and was in the process of being transferred to the hamlet, but it seems that it has stalled.
For that reason the Baker Lake hamlet council had an idea of what the building would be used for and on the other hand a society wanted to use the building.
With that being the case, as the Department of Community and Government Services, how would you deal with that? Who would you surplus it to and who would you support?
The member just talked about a building.
I’m not sure what building it is in Baker Lake, but the process for disposal of surplus buildings from the GN is a process that is straightforward.
If a client department surpluses a building, it is first offered to the other government departments.
If none of the other government departments want it, then it would be offered to the hamlet as first right of refusal.
If the hamlet accepts it, then the GN’s involvement is done at that time.
The building that I was referring to was the old DPW building.
It has been sitting idle there because we have the municipality having an idea for that building and a registered society also wants to get that building. The minister of the day was aware of the situation, but I just wanted to… .
My second question here is, as a department you have shut down on old infrastructure building within my community which was used by various groups within the community.
Due to the fact of harmful substances within the infrastructure building, are there any plans of renovating it or is the decision of completely going decommissioning?
Right now we don’t have any plans to renovate it. It seems like it would be cost prohibitive to try to resurrect the building due to its age and condition, but we have no plans to replace it either at the moment.
As the minister and officials are aware, it’s in a very ideal location within in our community. I’m referring to the old health centre.
It’s a prime area. In Baker Lake it’s called the elders block.
When you look at that building, will your department be meeting with the Municipality of Baker Lake to have a plan of action for decommissioning or is there going to be a study and a full analysis and assessment plan of action to deal with that particular infrastructure?
The client department would first have to surplus the building no matter what building it is, and then the CGS department would look at it.
If it is deemed too cost prohibitive or too unsafe, then options would look at probably to demolish it. We’re not at that stage yet. We just follow the process, but we would not want to turn over a building that was unsafe to anyone.
I can’t confirm whether the client department has surplused the building or not at the moment.
I understand the department’s decision on this considering the fact that there may be harmful substances within that infrastructure.
I guess my question here would then be: what timeline do you have to make a final decision on that particular building? Are we looking at two to three months or before the fiscal year-end or before the term of this Legislative Assembly?
As I stated earlier, it’s up to the client department to surplus the building.
We don’t tell the client departments, “Okay, you have to surplus this building within 30 days.”
We wait for the client department to surplus any buildings that they deemed are surplus for their needs.
Yesterday at the end of the day the member for Pond Inlet was asking questions about the office space strategy. One question he asked was which community is in the most critical need of office space.
The minister’s reply was that “The member from Sanikiluaq will probably be happy to hear...I believe that Sanikiluaq is in the most dire need for office space.”
Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that I am happy to hear that because it’s something that I have known for many years. I have asked many questions in the House on this issue. I have talked a lot of one-on-ones with ministers and other department members about the issue of office space in my community.
I have written letters with suggestions of how to alleviate some of the problems that we have.
Finally the government did their own study and proved to themselves that Sanikiluaq is in dire need of office space.
Now that we’re at that point and everybody agrees that we do need office space in Sanikiluaq, what are the next steps?
For the short term what we have done is we have acquired the use of the old NAC building and we have built offices in there. That’s just for the short term. For the long term, once the old health centre is replaced, the plan is to convert it into office space.
That’s the long-term plan.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad the minister brought up the use of the old health centre when a new one is built because it brings another question to mind.
The construction on Sanikiluaq’s new health centre is due to begin about a year from now.
In light of what has happened now with the school burning down in another community, is there a possibility that this project or any other GN projects will be delayed because of this fire?
I can’t comment on whether it will delay other capital projects or not.
It is too soon to know what impact the burning of the school in Kugaaruk will have, but if a project is already approved by the House, then generally it goes forward.
Again along the same line of questioning, with the school burning down, you say that it’s too early to tell how it will affect the budgets. Do you have any idea how long before the government will be able to give us some idea if this fire will affect any kind of future projects?
I can’t answer that question right now. I think that would probably be answered best by either the finance minister or the House here, but it’s too early to tell.
For example, when the Cape Dorset school burned down, it didn’t appear to affect any of the budgets that were slated to go out at that time.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services. Infrastructure. (interpretation) Following my list of names, Mr. Shooyook.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While we are on the subject of office spaces, I have a question for the minister. Welcome.
Office space in Nunavut is one of the most critical challenges facing us or at least one of the most important issues.
In Resolute Bay the Department of Family Services and I forget which other department were working out of a very antiquated building that I referenced in the past.
If you can recall, when it was no longer in use, the occupants were moved to a different office that they are now leasing.
I wonder if the lack of office space in Resolute Bay is listed in your documents or if it is completely outside of your plans.
What is the status of this building? That is my first question and perhaps you can accommodate my request for clarification.
We are aware of lack of office space in Resolute Bay and our department has separate offices with no space in the community.
Although we are aware of the possible office space that the Department of Family Services is leasing is inappropriate, it is being dealt with. Nonetheless, no other office space has been identified for the department.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister for that and I imagine I will bring this question up at a later date.
With respect to this issue, with the construction of the new health centre, our old health centre will no longer be in use.
Since the new building has been completed, the old building also surpassed its useful life and it is quite an old building.
There is another building that was used as an office building which is older than me.
It’s probably about 100 years old and it’s in my community.
I don’t know if there is a safety issue involved, but it was renovated and it is now owned by the hamlet.
It was used for many years, but the issue of safety never came up.
I don’t know whether I’m getting ahead of myself, but there are communities that are lacking office space.
Is it possible to have that old health centre retrofitted for office space or as a meeting space for local organizations?
Do you have any plans for that old building?
The health centre in Arctic Bay will no longer be used and we are aware of that.
The Department of Health owns that building.
When they no longer require that building, the government can allocate it to another department.
If no other department requires the building, then it would be allocated to the municipality.
That is the process we use.
At this time the Department of Health has not said that they require the building, so we have not made any decisions as to what the building will be used for once they move to the new health centre.
My constituents can hear and I’m sure they understand exactly what is occurring.
Going on to another topic regarding office space, while we’re here I would like to ask a question on page J-7.
I believe we’re on that page.
The renewable resources office in Arctic Bay is very old and it lacks space.
I will talk about it in two parts.
The building is old and I’m not sure when it was last renovated, but I’m sure it will need renovations.
The building in Resolute Bay is also very old.
Are those buildings going to be renovated? Do you have any plans to renovate those buildings or will you be replacing them altogether for Arctic Bay and Resolute Bay?
Can you elaborate further on that for me?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister of Community and Government Services, Mr. Savikataaq.
I have seen the office spaces that the member is talking about in Arctic Bay. It is quite old, but the client department usually requests renovations or replacement of buildings.
It is the client department that makes those decisions. It is not our department that makes the decision because they are the ones that have a budget for it.
I will speak to the Minister of Environment because the office in Arctic Bay is so old now.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services. Infrastructure. Second time around I’ll recognize Mr. Akoak.
It’s just one question. In the Inspection Services on page 188 you have down on-site inspections.
How many times a year do you go to each community in all of Nunavut, especially in the Kitikmeot?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker...oh, Mr. Chairman.
I almost got promoted, but Mr. Savikataaq.
That’s a pretty broad question because there are many different inspectors for many different things.
There are building inspectors, fire inspectors, electrical inspectors, and boiler inspectors. That’s just too broad. I can’t answer that question.
Mr. Akoak: My apologies to the minister.
It’s to buildings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I still can’t answer that question.
We have an electrical inspector for the building. We have a building code inspector for the building.
We have many inspections for a building, so I can’t answer that question.
If someone brings up an issue, then it would be inspected or if there’s a new building, then it has to be inspected. In terms of how often we go to places, it’s just too broad. I can’t answer that question.
In your business plan on page 188, from 2016-17 to 2017-18, it is increasing by $871,000.
Does that mean you will be doing more inspections?
We’re putting in more PYs for building inspectors, so yes, in theory we would be doing more inspections.
Following the list of names, second round, Mr. Enook.
I am aware of the fact this question was partially asked by Ms. Angnakak as well as by you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mikkungwak, related to buildings that are declared surplus buildings.
What I want clarification on is that you stated your department is idly waiting for client departments to notify you of the fact a building is no longer needed or that this equipment is no longer needed.
Buildings and infrastructure, in particular buildings that have recently been vacated, are usually in fairly good shape with not much damage.
However, in the interim between notification from the client department and transferral of ownership, these abandoned buildings become vandalized.
A building not requiring too much renovation becomes no longer usable as your department waits for notification, as I imagine certain legislation applies.
However, in this interminable length of time where the department is waiting for notification, the buildings start to deteriorate and the possible useful life of the building is impacted.
As the manager of government infrastructure as well as the maintenance of the buildings, as a government, have you discussed how to fast-track this process? As an example, there should be a directive or policy in place that once a client department decides a building or infrastructure is no longer needed, you allow them a year to make a decision. Do they provide their decision to your department?
If there was such a regulation, we can utilize those buildings that are no longer being used.
Have you ever discussed this matter?
We started a process almost on exactly what the member is envisioning.
On an annual basis now, each department is asked whether they have any buildings that are surplus. If there is, then it’s dealt with at the DMC level.
Also in the capital planning process, if a building is being replaced, the client departments must have a plan on what they are going to do with the building that’s going to be replaced.
Are they surplusing it? Are they going to keep it for a different use?
We are working toward a better system where we don’t end up with old derelict buildings, like the member said, that could have had another use that end up being old and derelict that are unusable.
I know this was answered many times, but I believe we continually ask this question.
When infrastructure or equipment that belongs to the government becomes surplus, who has the priority for the disposal of the building or asset? Do you inform the public through the media?
Can you remind me what practice you use for this?
Since we’re talking about infrastructure and buildings, we will stay with that.
The process is, when a client department no longer needs a building, the client department will surplus it. It will be first offered to other government departments if they have any use for it. If all the other departments have no use for it, then the hamlets have the first right of refusal.
The minister had mentioned a report from last year in regard to the retrofit of existing facilities to reduce O&M and have more energy-efficient buildings. We have been pleased about energy-efficient buildings.
Looking at the business plan, it seems like there are no plans for energy-efficient buildings.
I would like to ask the minister what the status is now.
Is the report that you tabled just going to collect dust on the shelf, even though we need to use it?
Any new infrastructure projects that we have, we do spec out that they have to be more energy efficient in both operational costs and in terms of the insulation value.
Another project that we have done, the pilot project here in Iqaluit, it’s called the energy efficiency retrofit.
We spend the money and then we get it back in the savings that we make. If approved, then the next pilot project that will be done will be in the Kivalliq for the same project that was done here in Iqaluit.
There’s no mention of the energy efficiency program or project. When are you going to start that program again?
It’s an ongoing process. When we spec out any projects that are going to be build in the capital planning process, then we spec out for more energy-efficient structures to lower the energy cost to operate the building.
I didn’t get a response to my question. My question was: when are you going to start this program again? This program will start in the Kivalliq.
When will you move on to the Kivalliq? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I talked about the Kivalliq one. That would be in the capital planning process, but it’s not O&M.
The next step is to do the Kivalliq in the next capital planning process.
If memory serves me correctly, the workers were never paid by the government, but are only now getting paid from the savings made by the government.
These funds did not originate with the government.
The private businesses initiated the construction and financed it themselves. It is only now that the government has released the funding for the project.
Why then does the money now have to come from the government when it was privately financed in the first place?
It’s a bit of a complicated process.
The best way I can explain is these projects that are like a mini 3P, it’s an accounting process that has been deemed that it’s going to be a capital cost.
The money is spent by private industry and then we pay the private industry and we get our money back in terms of the savings. For accounting processes, it has been deemed that it’s a capital project.
It would be interesting to see that in our immediate future and we expect a completed document that is properly written.
That is it for me.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) It’s just a comment. We will take a 10-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 10:18 and resumed at 10:32
Mr. Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me for the second time.
I have a few follow-up questions with regard to some of the line of questioning we had in relation to the capital planning process and their priorities stated on page 188 of the English business plan.
I’m trying to figure out when you state, “identify long-term strategic priorities for infrastructure investment.”
Given how in Nunavut we have 25 communities, every community has their own needs. At the same time every community is different.
Population-wise we know Iqaluit is the largest and Grise Fiord is the smallest.
How does the capital planning process at any point give weight or consider as a factor the population of a community and the investment going into that community?
The capital process is evolving and, we believe, for the better.