EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
For the Minister of Finance or his officials, that’s the same thing with all of these other projects that are down as carryovers?
It seems pretty crystal clear to me that there’s no big deal, so just go ahead as far as I’m concerned.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. The Minister of Education assured this House and I’m fully well aware of the process.
So I think that speaks for the record that the process that I’m aware of is that before any project or capital expenditures are spent for construction, the design phase, and all the technical status, blueprints and what not, normally are allocated.
But, the practice, that we’re not questioning whether or not these funds were approved or not approved. That’s not what we’re getting at.
What we’re getting at: are the detailed plans completed?
If you carry over a project, there has to be an explanation. I’m sure the department has all this information, which is never tabled or provided to update this committee. What I’m asking for is; these updates, why an explanation...why the project is carried over to that effect, because if the project or the design phase was approved last fall, it would have been simply a design phase, not the construction part, unless they’re using existing plans to go ahead with the community.
Normally, the communities, I’m sure, probably has all the information with respect to the lot, allocations for the setback, the particular town plan. So, I need that information, and that’s what I’m asking for, and the minister says these specifications are on their way to this committee.
I’m not asking that this item be deleted.
More information now again has been made available to me from the department on the Iqaluit Nunavut Arctic College Student Accommodations.
If I may, I’ll read directly from the briefing paper. “The design is currently in the final review by Community and Government Services Technical Services. There have been re-design costs for cost effective region.
The intention is it still remains to tender for construction for this fiscal year”.  Almost all projects under the government, as all members know, have come in almost 20 percent over budget because of the economic situation and cost over runs, and so on.
So, this $1.877 million is a proportion of the total amount of the project, which is $5.677 million, and we are carrying it over to begin and complete the project itself.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to ask the minister if he would table these documents so that we can make use of them.
My point is that the minister stated earlier that the project has not yet begun, but now, the construction hasn’t begun. The design phase has not been fully completed. The total construction cost, the estimate is probably going to be $5 million, and a portion of that construction item appears to be included in there, but I have never seen or heard that before the design is completed.
You cannot put in a figure as to exactly how much it’s going to cost. So how do you, or why is it that you’re including construction costs in the design phase if you’re not sure exactly how much it’s going to cost?
Is that a new approach now that the government is taking with all capital projects in most of the regions?
No, that is not the approach that anyone is taking. When a project is budgeted for in a given year, let’s use this project.
If the total for the project is $5.6 million, and you put tender out and you say we want to build new accommodations, or a new school, or a new building, and you have a tender of $5.6 million, that’s the amount budgeted in this House.
When the three companies bid on your tender and have bid $9 million, you need an extra $3 million to actually go forward with the project, or you cancel the project and you go out to re-bid.
In the mean time, your fiscal year might have ended. So you have to expend some monies on the project even though the project hasn’t even started and you’re over budget already.
So by the time the next fiscal year comes around in the House here, because this is a public government, you would show that you have $5 million to be expended and rolled over, and then you would look at re-tendering to find a better price for the facility.
That’s similar to what has occurred here on this file.
We’re on page 7.
Education. Capital. Corporate Services.
Chairman: Total Corporate Services. $14,746,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $14,746,000.
Department of Health and Social Services. Capital.
It takes a long time for us to see. I think we should move our seats.
These are not working very well, so it’s very hard to get everything that is being said.
So at the next session I would appreciate it if they can be working.
I had my hand raised under general comments.
I have a question and I was going to ask anyway, and I didn’t think it was going to be here.
But, I don’t know for how many years now, and from what I understand, these are constantly being deferred because of the lack of funding, that the funding is carried over.
In Repulse Bay, it’s been like that with the health centre.
I don’t know what the reason is. I wonder why they keep deferring it.
Why do they keep doing that for so many years?
The information I have before me, the Repulse Bay Health Centre Replacement Project, the delay is linked to the unavailability of personnel, and some building code changes had to be incorporated into the construction project design before.
That’s the rationale behind the carryover for the Repulse Bay Health Centre.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister.
I wonder if the minister (interpretation ends) Can the minister promise me that the department is carrying forward the capital estimates to work on the health centre in Repulse next year?
We are doing our best to try and address all the capital needs that have been identified in the five-year capital plan.
The allocations for the Department of Health for their projects sometimes have to be carried over because of financial years.
The 2006-07 money has to be carried over to the next fiscal year of 2007-08, so that we could continue with the projects.
If I promise not to carry it over, then Umingniaq. I can’t promise that. What I can commit to is to try and progress the projects forward based on the availability of staff, and so on, if that makes any sense.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me the information.
Is the usual practice, especially it seems more obvious for our constituents, for those communities that are not decentralized because they have deferred these for a number of years.
Right now in Repulse Bay there hasn’t been any new facility for over ten years; there’s nothing.
There would be one made only if we definitely, definitely need it because there if there is always a shortage of oil, then they’ll have to increase the tank farm.
When the centre burned down, because of the necessity, they built a new one...only if they were very central places in the community...I think for over ten years there hasn’t been anything new that is built and we always hear that these are all ongoing, but they never seem to come about.
In regards to the health centre, what I want to hear that this won’t happen again because we’ve been expecting this for too long and they need a good reason. I am urging the minister to make sure that this goes through in Repulse Bay.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I agree with the members.
It’s also in Taloyoak. There are so many things that have been deferred for Taloyoak.
I will surely try and work on what you’re concerns are.
I have a question for the minister on the Kitikmeot Medical Boarding Home, the $1,135,000.
I think a portion of this is into its second carryover. I think last year the construction didn’t begin because there had to be some changes to the plans. The Fire Marshall wanted something to do with elevators so that caused a delay.
I am wondering if the minister could update me and confirm if this project is going to go ahead in this current fiscal year?
The plan was to have started the project last year. The materials that were required, from what I understand, for the renovation of the old high school residence missed the sealift, which resulted in us to transfer the funding, and so on.
Our plan is to initiate the renovations this construction year on that project.
First of all, I would like to ask what year the Arctic Bay Nursing Station is going to be constructed at.
The Arctic Bay funding for designs, we’re not able to again complete that design due to unavailability of personnel to do the design work for the health centre.
So we are carrying the funding over to this fiscal year to again try and get the design bids in to start that process.
In what year is that facility going to be built?
We’re on page 6, 2006-07 Supplementary Appropriations, page 8, I’m sorry.
Supplementary Appropriation. Capital 1. Health and Social Services.
Capital. Directorate. These are carryovers from the previous year.
Minister Aglukkaq, if you want to reply to that.
The Arctic Bay Health Centre Renovation Project is in this carryover this year to start the process for the design.
In order to proceed with construction plans, we need the design phase completed to do that.
So we weren’t able to do that in the 2006-07 approved funding so we’re carrying it over again to try and get personnel to do the design work.
Is it in 2007-08?
The reason why I’m asking this question is as Mr. Mapsalak stated that the regular members’ projects are being deferred constantly.
In 2008, and if I don’t run, or somebody else gets elected, the government is going to change and this project is just going to disappear into thin air and so will the money, or it will be allocated to another community for another project.
We are at this time dealing with carryovers and we’re working on items that are just listed here on this page.
Minister Aglukkaq, if you would like to respond.
The Department of Health Capital Plans that were approved in 2006-07, that plan is progressing.
We’re transferring funding from one financial year to the next financial year to continue with the work of the five-year plan.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) We’re on page 8. (interpretation ends) Health and Social Services.
Capital. Directorate. Not previously authorized. $50,163,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Total Directorate. $50,163,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Total Department. $50,163,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Department of Environment.
Capital. Program Management.
Not previously authorized. $2,215,000.
Chairman: Total Program Management. $2,215,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $2,215,000.
Chairman: Page 10, and 11.
Capital. Capital Planning.
Not previously authorized. $12,534,000.
Could the minister just clarify for the record, or explain what the Nunavut Emergency Management Program entails?
There’s a budgeted figure of $1,005,000.
Hon. David Simailak: Minister Brown would have the necessary information.
The Nunavut Energy Management Program, this is to fund the retrofit work on existing Government of Nunavut buildings to reduce usage of fuel, oil, electricity, and water.
It is GN-wide and applies to any building we own including; office buildings, schools, and health centres.
Approximately $450,000 of the work had been in 2005-06.
Another $1 million will be done this year.
Mr. Peterson, can you clarify your question; is it emergency or energy?
Mr. Peterson: Well, it says, ‘Nunavut Emergency Management Program.’ $1,005,000.
Chairman: Okay, thank you, Mr. Peterson.
My apologies; I was under the wrong line.
On the Nunavut Emergency Management Plan...just one moment while I find the proper page.
It is the same program. It is the Energy Management Program.
I’m not sure why it’s called the Nunavut Emergency Management Program on page 10, but it is the Energy Management Program that Minister Brown was just explaining.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ministers.
I suspected that that’s what it was.
My recommendation is that somebody should proofread these supplementary appropriation bills before they’re handed out.
Somewhere else in this report they spell Kitikmeot wrong. We thought that there might be a fourth region in Nunavut this morning. That’s just a comment, Mr. Chairman.
That will be corrected.
In defence of my financial gurus, this is what we were given originally when we started doing up these books.
Chairman: Thank you. We’re on page 10, and 11.
Capital Planning.
Just for further clarification, there is $117,000, which again will be used for the Nanisivik Facilities Technical Evaluation. Is that still the case?
I am looking for a lot of things, and of course, I want to respond correctly.
In regards to your question I want to know where it is but I can’t find it, Mr. Chairman.
Minister Simailak, if you could respond to that.
This carryover amount will allow for salvage of a Government of Nunavut owned three bay garages, which can be relocated to Arctic Bay for community use.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): That’s it for now.
Community and Government Services. Capital.
Not previously authorized $12,534,000.
Total Capital Planning.
Chairman: Petroleum Products Division. $2,402,000.
Chairman: Total. Petroleum Products Division. $2,402,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $14,936,000.
Just for the record it says here Bathurst Road and airport. I suspect that means Bathurst Road and Port.
If we could get that clarified and corrected.
My guess is it should have read Bathurst Road and Port, not Airport, unless we’re really forward thinking.
I would like to ask two questions for two line items: for the Nanisivik Highway upgrade and Nanisivik replacement pick-up truck.
Even though the Nanisivik Mine was closed after the closure it seems like the government is spending more money, and they’re buying a new pick-up truck.
What’s happening here?
We’re still using the airport and the highway from Arctic Bay to Nanisivik is quite far. We have to maintain that highway as long as we don’t build an airstrip in Arctic Bay.
So we have to replace these vehicles while constructing an airstrip in Arctic Bay.
I think it should be Arctic Bay instead of Nanisivik because we get confused. Even though they closed the community, they are still using Nanisivik. It seems like everything was Nanisivik rather than Arctic Bay.
So my suggestion would be that rather than using Nanisivik, you should be using Arctic Bay.
Chairman: Thank you, dear Member Mr. Alagalak.
Yes, we’re on that, but once that airstrip in Arctic Bay is more available, it’ll be that way.
Chairman: I have no more names on my list.
Capital. Transportation.
Not previously authorized. $3,775,000.
Chairman: Total Transportation. $3,775,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $3,775,000.
Chairman: Page 13.
Nunavut Housing Corporation. Capital.
Not previously authorized. $11,250,000.
Chairman: Total Nunavut Housing Corporation. $11,250,000.
Total Nunavut Housing Corporation. $11,250,000.
Chairman: Go back to page 2.
Capital. Total Capital Appropriation.
I made a commitment to my colleagues about the Sivumut Brown Building leasehold changes during my deliberations.
My apologies for being late; my notes weren’t very clear so I had to get clarification.
This is for the completion of the Arnakallak Building, which is the old court house, to be used to house all of the following offices; Legal Aid, Public Trustee, and Community Justice under the same roof. So, we have to get that done to move those offices together.
Right now they’re scattered all over the community and who ever wants to use the services to go under one roof, so that’s why $70,000 is in there.
Capital. Total Capital Appropriation. $98,236,000.
Chairman: Go to Bill 17 in your white binder.
Bill 17, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #1, 2006-07.
Clause 1?
Chairman: Go to the schedule on page 3.
Vote 1. Capital.
Total Capital. $98,236,000.
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriation. $98,236,000.
Chairman: Go back to page 1 please.
Chairman: Clause 6?
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 17 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that Bill 17 is ready for third reading?
Now, we’ll deal with Bill 18.
Please go to page 4.
Not previously authorized. $2,495,000.
Would the minister provide us with a breakdown of the budget of the individual components of the $2,495,000 that they’re proposing to use to strengthen financial management across departments and public agencies?
We are proposing to strengthen the comptrollership branch for $475,000; revise the policy framework for $500,000; standard processes and procedures, $120,000; public accounts strategy, $400,000; and Financial Assistance Needs Study, $600,000; Human Resource Strategy, $150,000; and Review of Public Agencies, $250,000; for a total of $2,495,000.
Could the minister tell us if all this work will be completed in this current fiscal year?
Yes, it is our intention to complete this phase in this fiscal year.
Directorate. $2,495,000.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Yes, I have a further question. These carryovers are quite significant in some respects.
I suppose it can’t become a pretty safe practice to not do some of the work and then they carry over to another fiscal or so on.
It’s very unusual; the item 7, $3.6 million is not a small figure.
Exactly why are these figures, such a huge amount, carried over to this particular portion.
I’m just asking again, the minister, to explain to us what’s going on here?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Mr. Minister.
The 2006-07 supplementary appropriations for operations and maintenance is not a carry; these are new monies.
Mr. Curley: Could the minister give a brief outline what exactly it’s going to be spent on?
Hon. David Simailak: Could the member please refer to what Page he’s on? Thank you.
We are on Page 4.
Mr. Chairman, I will rephrase my question later, but I was dealing with the item on Page 2.
I’ll ask it at the appropriate place later.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. We’ll move on. (interpretation ends) Operations and Maintenance.
Chairman: Total Directorate. $2,495,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $2,495,000.
Lawyer Support Services. $450,000.
Chairman: Total Lawyer Support Services. $450,000.
Chairman: Corrections. $54,000.
Chairman: Total Corrections. $54,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $504,000.
Community Programs. $160,000.
It says here $160,000 for the assessment of sport recreation and physical activity facilities in Nunavut.
Is the existing staffing going to do that, or is there a contract that going to go out to do it. I thought that kind of stuff was done on a regular basis.
I understand that this work will be contracted out.
We will go on. (interpretation ends) Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
Chairman: Total Community Programs. $160,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $160,000.
Adult Learning and Post Secondary Services. $657,000.
This is a two-part question.
I believe the first one is: where will this $150,000 for Nunavut Arctic College individuals be located?
This is part of the new monies we’re using in response to some of the recommendations in the Berger Report. It was intended to strengthen the education system in Nunavut. There’s an addition to build 100 positions we created in the last two budgets.
The breakdown is as follows in these new positions is that we have new positions created in Pangnirtung, Kugluktuk, Kivalliq region, the Qikiqtani region, Arviat, and CSFN.
When I say the region, I mean the regional office in that region.
Mr. Curley: Yes, on that page, the first part of that is to provide a coordinator. Will that be an overall coordinator for all the trades programs in Nunavut?
And, that particular position, will it be based here, for instance in the Baffin?
I understand that you will also have regional supporting positions as opposed to for the total from this $657,000 part.
But my question really is: exactly where will the coordinator be located for all the trades development and operations of the proposed trades schools?
The intent would be to have that position, if the monies are approved and so on, situated in the home of the trades’ school, which would be Rankin Inlet.
Mr. Curley: But my second question has to do with the allocation for $570,000 for implementation of project training plans as it was specific to Cape Dorset. I’m wondering exactly what types of training plan; you know...it appears to be related to the contractors or what not in trades and related training requirements.
Could the Minister of Education help us a bit? Exactly how this initiative...I think it’s a good program, how is it going to fit?
Will it be private sector related, or will it be four walls standard training program?
How is it going to work?
Hon. Ed Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re excited about this program.
It’s a little over half a million dollars for the Cape Dorset program.  The reason why we’re calling it the Cape Dorset Project Training Plan is in cooperation in our Labour Market Development Agreement that we have in place; it’s the implementation of trades training at the local level within the community.
Cape Dorset has led the way in the Community Transfer Initiative.
It was one of the first and most significant communities that took on a lot of responsibility from the previous territorial government, and we believe there is an opportunity to begin that training plan there.
So, not only are we dealing with location, but we’ll also be dealing with some of the academic subjects and so on. This is a pilot project.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I fully support it.
I think it’s a good initiative. I think it’s long over due whether it is a pilot project or not.
But if it does work, I think it could probably be a standard throughout other communities and I would encourage the minister to use that as a model when negotiating other labour market agreements with the federal government because there are significantly untapped federal labour market initiatives that the federal government normally has.
I note that the only reference to the document that I found, or in the press was when requesting education-training dollars...was related to NTEP students in Nunavut programs.
So I would like to encourage the minister, whether or not he monitors this carefully and maybe could succeed in expanding into the communities and hopefully that he would also seek and get some federal dollars through this type of program.
Would that be one of his strategies or plans?
The member is correct. That is part of the strategic plan that we’re trying to put in place with the Cape Dorset project.
As I said earlier, it is a pilot project.
Once it’s complete, after the evaluation I would suggest to you that we would be able to implement it in more communities across Nunavut.
Does anyone have any questions on that page?
We’ll go on to another.
Chairman: Total Adult Learning and Post Secondary Services. $657,000.
Chairman: Curriculum and School Services. $1,549,000.
Chairman: Total Curriculum and School Services.
Not previously authorized. $1,549,000.
Not previously authorized. $1,411,000.
Chairman: Total School Operations.
Not previously authorized. $3,617,000.
Corporate Management. $63,000.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would the minister clarify for the record what the term “reinstatement” means on this page?
It implies that a position existed in the department before and has ceased to exist, but now it’s being reinstated. Can you give us a bit of background to that, please?
Minister of Environment, Mr. Netser.
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My understanding is that this activation has forced an unfunded position.
Could the Minister of Finance indicate that if this is part of the overall government strategy where positions that go unfunded for years are terminated, and then it’s up to the department to justify reinstating positions and seeking funding from the Legislative Assembly?
As a result of the person year control project departments were directed to remove all unfunded frozen positions from the organizational charts, and the Department of Human Resources was directed to deactivate those positions.
The Department of Environment has stated that the reactivation and funding of some of the positions is crucial for it being able to meet its current mandate and future program demands.