EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I know and I understand what he’s trying to get at here. Again, we’re dealing with capital carryovers from last year and this is for the Iqaluit CLC.
As far as I know with respect to the residence out there, repairs are under review or are being undertaken and the residence will be ready for next year.
Anything with respect to that residence, I would believe, would have to be dealt within an upcoming capital planning process.
I thank both ministers for that response.
In the substantiation portion of the sheet, it talks that a comprehensive business case will be brought forward for consideration with a number of options for the development of the site and ensuring the college has the appropriate and necessary facilities for program delivery.
I have to question on how a budget could be allocated to a project when they haven’t even provided the business case of what exactly is going to be needed.
That’s where I’m kind of leading up to, Mr. Chairman.
As Mr. Hickes is aware, the business case has to be prepared to proceed along in the capital planning process.
When the comprehensive business case is prepared, the project will continue along in the capital planning process.
We’re carrying this money over from last year to this year so that the project can continue.
We need a business case to continue that process through the cycle.
Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for that response.
I’ll be the last person to try and stall any development and increase in capacity at Nunavut Arctic College.
I think we’re all very much aware of the impact that it has on Nunavummiut. I wouldn’t want to hinder the process, but at the same time, I just want to make sure that monies are being allocated accordingly with the capital budget planning process.
To me, when we’re allocating $3 million to a project that hasn’t even been outlined in detail and a business case been provided for, I’m just not comfortable right now having to re-approve this money being carried over again.
When are we going to see some action on it?
Public scrutiny is always good. I’m glad to hear that Mr. Hickes doesn’t want to hold up this very important project for the city of Iqaluit and people coming from other communities. As I said, the comprehensive business case is being developed.
We’re carrying the funds over through Minister Quassa, who’s got his people hard on it, the Minister of CGS, and our upcoming capital planning process cycle for the next fiscal year is underway.
We will be back in the House, I think, in October and it can be fully debated then if Mr. Hickes has additional concerns.
I just have a question on the learning centre in Whale Cove. In your business plan there, from my reading of it, I can’t take whether this is renovating an existing building or a completely new building. Can you just let us know which it is?
There is some missing information, reading it that way, but to the best of our knowledge, it is a new building.
Just a quick reminder that you can mute your microphone if you need to confer with your staff.
The reason I asked that is because on page 2 there, it says, “Risk: continued erosion will damage the structure and cause additional building maintenance issues.”
It’s not clear whether you’re fixing up the old daycare or you’re building a new building.
Can we just get an explanation? I would like to know if we’re renovating an existing building or we’re buying or getting a new building.
Perhaps I can get Minister Quassa to clarify it.
Minister Quassa, I’ll allow you to clarify that.
Hon. Paul Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Again, I guess I can say the reasons for the delay in the capital project.
Project design is well underway and construction is planned and will be initiated in 2015-16.
We had some delays because of increased expenditures for fire safety and sprinkler system, which is associated with the construction of the daycare in the CLC.
This is, in fact, a new building that we’re talking about. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m just wondering why they wrote in there that continued erosion will damage the structure.
Is that they’re spending money on an old building plus building a new structure?
I just need clarification.
Unfortunately, I don’t prepare the notes for these things, but if you read back, further up, it says that Whale Cove has a temporary community learning centre in a rented classroom in a local school. The centre may be closed at any time if the local school has expressed the desire to return the space.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but I’m thinking that they’re building a new facility and the erosion may be affecting the facility they’re in now.
I know that we try to keep these concise and clear, but if you start putting too much information in, then it won’t fit. We can certainly get clarification for Mr. Savikataaq if he desires it.
Mr. Savikataaq, please indicate which page you’re referring to and if you have anything to add, please proceed.
I’m on pages 1 and 2 of the business plan for the Whale Cove Community Learning Centre, just so you will know where I’m talking from.
No, I don’t need further clarification because I think the minister clear that it’s a new building.
I was just wondering why the structure for the erosion was put in there.
I can read too and I know that they are having space within the school for the community learning centre, but I think the daycare is in a separate building and both will be housed in one new structure, I think.
It’s not clear, but I’m satisfied enough that you’re building a new structure which is going to house the daycare and the learning centre.
Just to go back to the funding portion of it now, they said why it’s delayed and it’s not a problem.
The money is spoken for, but it also says that the project is to start in 2015-16 and anticipated completion is 2015-16. I’m just wondering why there’s still a budget of $1.8 million in 2016-17 if the project is going to be completed in 2015-16.
Again, I didn’t write the substantiation sheet, but I would say, based on what’s up in section 2, it clearly states that 2016-17 would be the second year of construction. The anticipated completion date or rationale for carryover requests must simply be a typo.
Moving right along, Ms. Angnakak.
I’m not going to talk about one specific project in this.
I do have a concern when I look at all the projects. A lot of these projects have been on the books for many years.
Perhaps my first question would be to ask the finance minister or even perhaps the CGS minister how the new Project Management Office has been doing and if there are any improvements to the capital planning process since this office was put in place.
As we discussed often in the House, the capital planning process is always a hot topic or hot issue because, as I said in question period today, there are many demands on our limited financial resources. I think all communities in Nunavut require critical infrastructure.
In the past, the Government of Nunavut has been guilty of putting projects in the capital plan with class “X” estimates and they moved along in the cycle. Class “X” estimates are estimates that are just sort of ballpark estimates and then when the numbers firm up, they turn out to be possibly much lower than they should be, but they’re possibly accurate. That has caused some issues for us.
If you put too many projects on the capital plan, you can’t project manage them, you don’t have the financing to pay for them, or you run into cost overruns. You end up with deferring projects, possibly even cancelling projects or worse, you can’t even approve projects.
We have been tightening up our capital planning process since 2008, putting more stringent controls and rigour into the process. One of the items was the Project Management Office to provide oversight to the Department of Community and Government Services and I just forget the years.
I think it was possibly last year or the year before that the PMO was approved in the House with PYs.
I think you’re starting to see the evidence that some of the oversight is taking hold.
The capital carryovers this year are $118 million, which is $32 million less than the last two fiscal years. There are 19 fewer projects being carried over.
I think that we’re moving along in the right direction. The PMO is certainly having involvement in day-to-day oversight of projects across Nunavut.
The minister could probably shed some more light on the day-to-day operations, but it’s just one component of what we’re doing to improve the capital planning process.
There are several other components.
I think, if you look at the substantiation sheets, you see projects that have been on the books from two to ten years. You said that you have been tightening up the criteria since 2008, yet we’re still seeing a lot of carryovers, some with pretty big amounts.
With this in mind, I’m wondering if you can tell us: how are priorities for the capital projects determined and who determines them?
I thank Ms. Angnakak.
I don’t know if I want to get into a real long explanation, but again, part of the whole process to improve the capital planning process, I think it was again back in maybe 2011 or 2012 where we had to start developing criteria.
Some of the criteria that I recall, I wrote a note to myself here, the ranking criteria was 40 percent for a project would be rated based on health and safety, 35 percent towards mandated programs, and 25 percent towards sustainability and economics.
You have the various committees. Obviously, you have the communities involved through the Nunavut [Community] Infrastructure Advisory Committee, the Nunavut Association of Municipalities and mayors involved on that side; you have the integrated community committee. All these acronyms; I just can’t remember them all.
There’s that committee.
You have the Deputy Ministers’ Committee, the Accountability Committee, and then of course, you have the Financial Management Board.
It all moves up through the cycle and then ultimately, the Financial Management Board makes the final decision on which projects should come forward into the House to be debated and receive approval through the Legislative Assembly.
It leads me to my next question. If you look at the capital plan for Nunavut, on that plan, for example, there’s an arena. Everybody likes to build arenas.
If you look at the letter that was written to Mr. Rumbolt from CGS, they talk about priorities. For example, for the Department of Health, they say that the Cape Dorset Health Centre is the department’s first priority. The second one is the Rankin Inlet Mental Health Transition House.
How do you weigh that against arenas when you have those kinds of critical needs?
Is there enough money to build everything?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Ms. Angnakak. I kind of had to chuckle when she said, “Is there enough money to build everything?”
Obviously, there isn’t enough money to build everything. Otherwise, we would be out there and every community would have everything they required.
All of our power plants would be upgraded.
We would have brand-new schools, lots of housing, health centres that are top notch, and mental health facilities.
Clearly, we don’t have enough money because we don’t have all those facilities.
That’s why it becomes very challenging for the government to build important infrastructure and that’s why we go through this process because there’s give and take.
Every department has requests.
The Minister of Education requires schools and colleges.
The Minister of CGS requires fuel tank farms.
The Minister of Economic Development requires airports and small craft harbours.
It’s a juggling act. We get many competing pressures from communities, the private sector, MLAs, and internally.
If you’re only dealing with a limited amount of money to provide, as I said earlier in question or answer either yesterday or today, literally we require billions of dollars of infrastructure and it’s going to take time.
When you only have $150 million to throw at infrastructure every year and you have to factor in housing, it’s a challenge, I have to say.
You asked me, “How do we do it?”
Well, like I said, if you look at the ranking criteria, health and safety is the top criterion, then mandated programs and sustainability.
It’s a challenge. If we had more money, we would be able to do more.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your long answer.
It’s very complex. For example, when I read what CGS has written in this letter and this letter was as of March of this year, their first priority would be the fire hall for Kugaaruk. You talk about how we have no money to build everything.
I don’t want people to think that I don’t like arenas and all that; I’m just thinking about the critical need and how something like an arena, as great as it might be, will make the list when there’s such a need for health centres and other things that we need in Nunavut because we don’t have all the money.
I don’t know if I heard a question or not.
I was listening to the Premier yesterday. He was telling some of our visitors making a presentation in Full Caucus that the Minister of Finance is tight-fisted and squeezes the nickel so hard that the beaver is screaming with pain or something like that.
I’m not actually that tight-fisted, but I would like to ensure that all departments and all communities, where the need is the greatest, we can deliver. I would like to ensure that we deliver on time and on budget.
There’s nothing worse than spending money because you went over budget. Again all I can say is that it’s a balancing act. I would love to have more money for capital, but unfortunately, we just don’t have the resources.
We appreciate the money that the federal government gives to us through the Building Canada Fund and through gas tax and those other programs.
That certainly helps, but again, if we take on too many projects through those programs, then it becomes a capacity issue for us.
We’re up against the weather, shipping seasons, and permitting issues, all kinds of stuff.
It’s a challenge and I appreciate all the work that all the departments and all the officials do to make those projects a possibility and deliver them.
I appreciate the support of everybody to approve those projects, but again, we do need additional funds if we want to improve the lives of our residents in our communities.
It is a difficult balancing act, I’m sure. I’m sure it’s very difficult to try and please everybody, which we can’t really.
I just want to ask one more question.
Well, perhaps there are a couple in here, but what are the main reasons for all these delays we see in the project; a 10-year delay?
What would be the main reasons for these delays on these projects, and have you kept track of what the issues are that cause so many of these delays?
If not, I would recommend that you do so, so that they can be addressed.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again thank Ms. Angnakak for the question.
As I said earlier, we are tightening up and improving our capital planning process.
It can take up to eight years depending on the size and complexity of the project. We’re not saying every project takes that long. Some could take three years.
Houses are quite easy to deliver within a three-year window, but a large school or a health centre could take more years, anywhere between three and five years.
Some of the delays possibly could be land issues if there is land in the community that you need. You could go out to tender and not receive bids. You could go out to tender and receive bids that are over the budget, and it delays things.
You have to get approved for additional funds to proceed. Legal action can delay projects. That’s why, up front, we want to firm up the design issues so that people don’t come back after the fact and say, “We want a bigger community hall.”
Issues we had as an example, recently in Iqaluit, the Baffin General Hospital, which was approved, the contractor proceeded and then he had problems with the asbestos and then later on his business partner declared bankruptcy. That delayed the project a year and a half.
There are many issues. Many of them are beyond our control, but we have to be prepared to deal with them.
One of the main reasons we are tightening up our capital planning process and putting more rigour and consistency up front in terms of the planning and design, and then approval, is so that we can better manage our cash flow and deliver projects on time and on budget, in a year that we approve them to be delivered.
Ms. Angnakak: I said that was it, but I’ve got just one more question.
When projects come before you that are, perhaps, questionable, what is the process used to say no?
I’m not sure if I understand Ms. Angnakak’s question about projects.
All projects, as I said earlier, go through quite a rigorous vetting process, working up through the various committees before they even get to the Financial Management Board.
Presumably, when those projects get to FMB and we sit around as ministers and discuss them, and then subsequently approve them for tabling in the House to be debated, by that time, there are no real questionable projects.
They have been vetted out long ago before they get to our level.
I just have the one question. On page 5, it says, the Sanikiluaq CLC renovations, $35,000 carryover.
I’m just wondering if either of the ministers can update us today on the status of this project, whether it’s going to be completed this spring and be ready for classes in the fall.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, update, please.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman, with technology here, I have to press lots of buttons and find what I’m looking for.
The project is on schedule, I understand, to be completed this month. The contractor needs to complete the server cabling and then the IT department of CGS will fly to Sanikiluaq and complete all the network and hardware online, once the contract is complete.
The other part of my question was whether these facilities will be ready for occupancy in September.
As far as we know at this table, it will be complete, unless there’s some other information out there that we are unaware of. As I said, there will be the minor things.
If the contractor had to attend to some deficiencies in the design, then CGS will pursue those deficiencies, if there are any deficiencies, resolutions to deficiencies over the summer, but as far as I know, the plan is for the project to be completed and ready for the school year. I haven’t heard otherwise.
We’re on page 5. Are there any more questions? Does anyone who hasn’t asked a question have a question before I go to Mr. Savikataaq?
(interpretation ends) Going once. (interpretation) It seems that there are none.
Mr. Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me again.
I just noticed something again on the topic I was talking about, the learning centre in Whale Cove. I just want to ask the minister if it’s… .
I read it and he read it. It says here that the project is well underway. Construction is planned and will be initiated in 2015-16.
Whether that is normal on a class “X” estimate, because that’s what it says on top, class cost estimate is an “X,” is that normal to go into construction with a class “X” estimate?
As I mentioned earlier, I think it was to Mr. Savikataaq, there appears to be some issues with typos on there and I’m suspecting that “X” up here is not a class “X” if the project design is well underway.
It won’t be a class “X” when it continues through the capital planning cycle that comes forward in October.
The information we have is what we have in front of us. That’s as good as we have. We don’t have anything else.
I think they should make sure that there are no typos because now this one sheet of paper apparently has two typos. It’s a class “X” estimate and he says, “No, that’s a typo.” Anticipated completion date, 2015-16, and that’s a typo.
I think we’ve got to scrutinize the substantiation sheets a little more. It’s not us because we get them and we don’t alter them, but I think they should make sure that they’re correct before we get them.
I believe that is just a comment.
As Chairman, if I can direct you all to the written document, (interpretation ends) 2014-15 Capital Carryovers to 2015-16, (interpretation) which department puts that together every year?
Those departments that produce this document, I would like to remind them to make sure that they are proofread properly.
When we get documents that have typos in them, then our information is wrong, as Mr. Savikataaq pointed out. That is my direction as the Chairman.
I believe you are done, Mr. Savikataaq.
I just want to say that in looking through the substantiation sheets, there are a lot of X’s here. We have the Grise Fiord Community Learning Centre as a class “X.” The Nunavut Arctic College Iqaluit Community Learning Centre is also a class ”X.”
We have the Sanikiluaq Renovation Project, a class “X.” All of these are class “X,” so I think somebody is going to have to look at it and get back to us with the proper estimates.
I didn’t hear a question, Ms. Angnakak, but if you would like to address that comment, Minister Peterson, I will give you the opportunity.
I appreciate the comment. We have talked about these things before; proper information.
Departments prepare these substantiation sheets and it is important.
It’s not the Department of Finance sitting there crunching the numbers.
It comes in from the departments. I, as the Minister of Finance, have to appear before you. We have to be confident in the information we receive.
I appreciate you guys making the comments in front of the ministers and hopefully the deputy heads are paying attention out there, wherever they may be, that it is critically important that financial information that comes forward is not cut and pasted from a previous year or another project and they just forget to change a couple of dates or in this case, a class estimate.
I appreciate it. My deputy will follow up on your concerns.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. Thank you for saying that you will be directing your deputies.
Let me go back to the page that we’re supposed to be on. Finance. Capital.
Total Comptrollership. $50,000.
Total Centrally Administered Funds. $8,545,000.
Total Department. $8,595,000.
I know there is only one item on here and it is a fairly small one at that, yet the renovation for the children’s group home, and I don’t want to keep harping on this typo or class “X” and class “A” category discussion, but in the cost estimate, it’s got a budget allocated of $24,000, yet we’re being asked to carry over $85,000.
That sounds like that’s a class “Z” estimate, I’m thinking.
Maybe if we could just get a bit more information. Has the scope of work changed from the original budget allocation?
I thank Mr. Hickes for pointing out that there might be a class “Z” out there or a class “Y.” I don’t believe there’s a change in scope of that.
The $85,000 would be the accurate number.
That’s the number that we’re working with in the bill, Bill 22.
We’re on page 6. It reads, Family Services. Not Previously Authorized.
I just can’t let this one go.
When I look at the scope of work for a project of this nature and from the original background information and the time that it’s going to take to do the work, and I do realize the cost of contractors in Nunavut is very expensive, when I go back to that original estimate number of $24,000 and now going up to $85,000, it’s more than three times.
It shows the project here of 2014-15, but how long was this being planned for?
I know that the children’s group home just changed the program needs fairly recently, so I can anticipate that this was on the books for a long period time so that such a dramatic change in the cost of this renovation that’s entailed within the scope of work, I may be in the wrong business, but it just seems like a lot of money to spend on the scope of work that’s under this project.
Maybe if I could just get a little bit of clarification on how the procurement was done on this project.
I appreciate Mr. Hickes’ concern here.
Again, it says, class cost estimate of $24,000.