EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) There are a number of health centres that are still in dire need of repairs or replacement, or whatever we do as a government.
One of the challenges as the minister and the program officer have been trying to relate to the committee is that we do have a number of challenges in the department that we have to address right now, continuing centres is one of them. We keep repeating that message.
The government sets a target on an annual basis for our capital and each department is allocated a certain amount of capital for their department. We, as a government, and the departments are trying to live within that allocation as a government so that we can stretch our capital dollars a little further.
The department will be undertaking a comprehensive review of all the buildings that we have, that we have to manage and administer in the department, including the treatment facilities and all of the buildings under the department. We will do that assessment in the next capital planning cycle. We hope to have that completed so that we have a better assessment of what buildings need to be replaced.
Currently, we are working with the three facilities that go in the books, so one of them is not in the books right now. Our priority is to try and bring all three into the process if we can by trying to use one standard design for the three buildings to try and move those projects up. So that’s where the department is coming from and we’re trying to do things that are practical in moving some of these capital projects forward.
As the minister indicated there’s Cape Dorset who’s in dire state, in dire need as well for replacement of their building. So there are challenges like that that we will be planning to be more strategic in how we present in the capital plan.
Just based on the standards and criteria that are supposed to be used in prioritizing projects, I had a quick look and I’m not a technical expert but it seems like the Arctic Bay Health Centre is in pretty rough shape. Their boilers are on their last legs and they have some severe foundation issues around the building.
What specific recommendations did the department use in putting the Taloyoak project ahead of two older projects? I haven’t even seen the technical standards report for the Repulse Bay one but it’s six years older than the Taloyoak one, while the Arctic Bay one is four years older.
So what specific criteria did they use in prioritizing the projects in that particular order?
I’ll start off and then I’ll get Rosemary to explain the process.
The technical reports that are completed are completed by the project officers of CGS and the department works with those technical reports, and the recommendations come from CGS technical people that inspect facilities for electrical, plumbing, and structural. I’m not an expert in that, nor is the department.
So we rely on the inspection reports of the technical staff and projects officers from CGS to evaluate the conditions of each unit, and I don’t believe there is a set criteria but rather building codes, electrical codes, and structural codes. I’m kind of guessing but the minister responsible can probably explain the process a bit more than I can.
From the program side of things, when we say we’re going to do a functional review, the functional review relates to the kind of programs we will be delivering out of those facilities - dental, homecare, nurses, and a number of other pieces. That then is used along the side of the technical report by the architects in designing.
Perhaps, Ms. Brown could elaborate a little bit more on those three facilities.
Ms. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to the documents and the studies that the minister has mentioned, we also look at population projections for the community or the region, we look at what kind of economic development is going on, and we have discussions with the hamlets and Health Committees, and we try to project needs.
After the technical assessment and doing some of these discussions, if we are able to successfully put a project in the capital plan and be accepted by the FMB and the legislature, it usually takes a project four or five years, actually, to develop through the Functional Program, the design, the two years of construction, and warranty.
So with Taloyoak and Repulse Bay, they did start a number of years ago. The pressure from the continuing care and the regional facilities pushed things back.
Right now, we have a high cost of construction in Nunavut, but there are a number of prioritized things done.
In terms of Taloyoak, the region and the hamlet requested a technical assessment of the community in 2000 and CGS carried that out. Subsequently, it was successfully put in the capital plan.
In 2004, again, the community and the health administration requested a technical assessment of Arctic Bay and that was completed in 2004. That’s the process. One may be older than another but it depends on when it becomes put forward for evaluation.
Now, to be proactive, we want, over the next year, to get CGS to look at all of the health buildings, not only health centres but group homes, so that we will have a big plan.
We won’t be able to get everything in the five-year plan.
We will have information from Technical Services but also population projections and all of these other documents that would be taken into consideration, not just one document, in terms of helping the department to put forward a capital plan to the government.
As I said, this project goes back a number of years and it’s confusing.  It initially started off as a health centre residential renovations, and funds were required for renovations and code upgrades.
In following years, the design for building code upgrades, renovations, and additions are currently underway, and the design contract was awarded for drawings for code upgrades and renovations to the current health facility. Everything that has been approved for this project to date has been for renovations and now, we’re looking at a replacement project.
The minister indicated that the reason Arctic Bay didn’t go forward was because no funds had been expended on it.  We heard from officials from Community and Government Services in Committee of the Whole that a substantial change in scope of work of the project would be considered a new project.
Looking at everything we approved in the past has been replacement, code upgrades, and renovations, and nothing at all to do with a replacement.
So based on that criteria, this should have been considered a replacement project, instead it has been considered a new project and zero dollars have been spent on that.
How could this have gone from a renovation code upgrade project to a replacement project when all of the money that has been approved in the past for it has been for renovations?
So maybe if I can just get an explanation as to why this one hasn’t been treated as a new project.
I’m going to ask Alex to start off and then have Rosemary finish off that question.
Just from a general perspective, when capital projects are being considered in a capital plan, there are times when the scope of work or the intention of that proposal changes on recommendations that we get from technical and advice that we’re getting from our experts in the area.
What we’re proposing right now as a department is that the scope of its work changed from a replacement because of the fact that some of the costs associated to renovating this building as well as doing an addition would cost equivalent to or even more, I haven’t seen the cost myself, than replacing a new building.
So our officials, including our department and CGS, are making recommendations to the department that we consider the replacement of the health facility in Taloyoak.
We are in the middle, as the minister said just a couple days ago, of going through that process of getting that approved through the Committee of the Whole, as well as the Legislative Assembly. That’s where we’re at with this process right now.
For most management of projects, that’s a normal thing to do.
The standards and criteria, the instructions that we get from the people that know the field, we take that into consideration, address recommendations, and try to move forward in our capital planning.
The other thing I should mention is that this project, some monies, as Rosemary said, that have been redirected to other urgent priorities that have come up unplanned, and review if there’s money to allocate for those projects.
Mr. Tootoo, do you have additional questions?
Chairman: Okay, I will allow you to continue for an additional ten minutes, but after that, I will go to the next member on my list.
I appreciate Mr. Campbell’s response where, once they’ve looked into it, it became more feasible to build a new building rather than renovate and put on an addition.
Whereas the officials of Community and Government Services clearly indicated in Committee of the Whole, when they were here, that substantial change of scope like that should be considered a new project.
The old project was renovate, renovate, and renovate, and now, this is a completely different scope of work from renovations to a brand new facility. I’m not arguing the need but if we hear explanations of where it seems like standards and criteria aren’t being applied evenly across the board on that, like in this case, if it’s supposed to be considered a new project because of the substantial state change of the scope of work that it hasn’t.
I would just like to question why hasn’t it been considered a new project when, in fact, no money has been expended on it, which is the same reason why Arctic Bay was deferred.
It just doesn’t seem like the same standards and criteria are being applied evenly across the board, so maybe if I could get an explanation for that.
I will ask Ms. Brown to explain that process.
The very first capital plan where Taloyoak showed up in was very early in the life of this government, and indeed, it was to look at the possibility of renovating the residential units to make more of them because there is a shortage of housing in Taloyoak. That was not possible.
In further discussing with the hamlet and the health of the area, we requested the Technical Services to look at the building because standing committee, at that time, directed the department to re-look at that health centre in Taloyoak.
Along with the completion of the Technical Services document in 2003, a Functional Program, indeed, was completed by CGS and the Department of Health. At that time, the project was identified in that Functional Program as a renovation of the facility plus an addition because what the scope of work of that Functional Program was to provide a building, whether it’s a renovation and an addition.
At that time, the thought was to provide a building that would house all of the Health and Social programs and services that were operational or were anticipated to be operational, like home care, in Taloyoak.  From the point of view of the department and I would say CGS, the scope of work is really the Functional Program, which is to provide a structure that will provide the program and service delivery that is required by the community of Taloyoak.
In conjunction with the Department of CGS and the architect, it has now become, with the escalation of the costs of construction and anticipated needs, to construct the building according to code but also taking infection control measures. It is the recommendation of the consulting firm and CGS to recommending that it be a standalone building and not a renovation and addition.
The current design that we had for Taloyoak, and there has been some early stage designs put forward, would require probably about a five-phase addition, it could be in some cases to two phases, but it’s somewhere between two and five phases, which would be highly disruptive for the operations in the community.
With the requirements now, for infection control standards and guidelines during construction of the health care facility or any renovation, are quite stringent now, and again, this would drive up the cost of construction and delays in the project.  So the long and the short is that CGS does not consider going through a renovation/addition to a new standalone building to be a change in the scope of work with regards to this Taloyoak project.
In fact, they’re supportive of this.
To get back to Mr. Tootoo’s question, yes, there has been money spent against it both for the Functional Program, the hire of an architect, and the early stages of sketches and design.
I just saw that there seems to be a contradiction of what should be looked at as a new project. There’s one message from some officials and someone else telling us something else, but it seems, in my mind, that it should be a completely different project. A new facility from renovations or an addition should be considered a new project.
Aside from that, the minister, I know according to the substantiation sheet that the department provided, the design for the Repulse Bay replacement health centre will be repeated for Taloyoak as a cost saving measure. Do you have an idea of how much is going to be saved as a result of this initiative?
I will have Ms. Brown respond to that.
In discussions with CGS, because the designs are not advanced to that point, or CGS does not have the new fee quotes from the architect, I can’t give you dollars and cents.
What CGS has advised us is that, in principle, when you do a repeat design, you would probably save potentially 50 percent of the cost. However, the architect would look at, for the repeat design, a percentage of the cost for the royalty of his design.
I have had some preliminary information from the Department of Community and Government Services how this works. Because I’m a Health and Social Services person, I would think it’s more appropriate for the Department of Community and Government Services to rely on their officials to answer that question about the costs and savings. I would defer that.
I don’t need the exact numbers, what Ms. Brown gave is good enough.
I’m just wondering, has the design already been done for the Taloyoak Health Centre, and if so, when was it done?
Ms. Brown advises me that preliminary designs have been done for the Taloyoak Health Centre.
Can they indicate when they were done?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: She says two years ago.
Again, I’m kind of puzzled; we have never approved any money for a new facility in Taloyoak.
I was just wondering where the department got the authority to spend money on a design for a new facility when all of the money that has been approved has been approved for renovations and an addition, not a new facility. I see that as a major concern.
Also, Mr. Chairman, in the substantiation sheet for the Taloyoak Health Centre, it indicates and I’ll read right from it, “the design fees and construction to repeat the design of the Repulse Bay Health Centre will be repeated with the addition of examination rooms to meet the needs of Taloyoak.”  The department’s own substantiation sheet indicates that the Repulse Bay design is done and that was what was going to be used in Taloyoak.
That either indicates that there’s something wrong here, the Repulse Bay one should have been ahead of the Taloyoak one but for some reason it hasn’t.
There is conflicting information here on this, so maybe if I could get the minister or her officials to explain that.
I’ll have Ms. Brown explain that.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Go ahead, Ms. Brown.
Around 2004-05, the Taloyoak project was still a renovation and addition.
There were early designs done at that point in time. It was put on hold because of the requirement to do very quick work, when it comes to programming, design or whatever, to meet the direction of the government to get going on the continuing care centres.
At the same time, the design for Repulse Bay, same architect but a different contract, the design of the Repulse Bay for a new health centre was underway.
Both designs were put on hold because of these requirements. When they were started to be resurrected in the spring/summer of 2006, the design for Repulse Bay was proceeding. It was not finished and it’s still fairly early.
The sketches for Taloyoak were revisited in light of the massive increase of construction costs for both labour and materials, the requirements during section control that our government became available for code changes to do health and safety.
In the fall of 2006, Repulse Bay was kind of slowed down again until we looked at what should we be doing as a department in terms of these health centres so that we could advance them both.
In the substantiation sheet, when it was written, we were, at that point in time, still looking at the possibility of having a design for Repulse Bay be the same design for Taloyoak. We did a review of both functional programs.
Because the Functional Program for Repulse Bay had been written quite early, I think in 2001, we realized, as a department, that the code changes for health and safety, that also that Repulse Bay was getting a mental health person with, perhaps, an additional nurse.
The program identifications for Repulse Bay were a little out of date and we were making a decision within the department, at about the time we were rating the substantiation sheet, that the existing design that we had for Repulse Bay, that there would have to be more examination rooms and a mental health added.
What we wanted to do then was have the same Functional Program for both communities, and this would also be for Arctic Bay, that will suit the two communities that are currently in the capital plan, and also a third, Arctic Bay, or a similar size community that may eventually get into the capital plan.
So the Repulse Bay, the way it is written, it has not been finalized.
As far as I know, this House and the Legislative Assembly has approved funding for what seemed like a renovation project and that money has been spent on a different project.
So there are concerns on that and also the fact that the substantiation sheets that we’re given for this year’s capital aren’t accurate.
My question then; as Ms. Brown indicated, when these substantiation sheets were done, things have changed since then.
I’m just wondering if she can give us an indication of when the substantiation sheets that we have for this year’s capital were prepared.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I will have Ms. Brown respond to that.
The title on this substantiation sheet is “replaced health centre.”
In terms of the Department of Health and Social Services submission in this capital plan, it was brought to FMB in June as a replaced health centre, acknowledging that in the previous submissions, it had been renovation and addition. It was presented to the standing committee as a replaced health centre, rather than a renovation and addition.
The department is coming forward now with the changes that we have become aware of in this past year and presenting the name change in the project to indicate our best recommendations put forward to the government for approval based on our collaborative work with the Department of Community and Government Services.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Ms. Brown for that response.
So if I was to read this correctly, in June, when this went to the Financial Management Board or the Cabinet, as Ms. Brown indicated, the department still anticipated doing the Repulse Bay Health Centre design before the Taloyoak one. So maybe, since June, how did that change?
According to the substantiation sheet, it has the Repulse Bay one coming out ahead and using that design for Taloyoak.
So that would indicate that that was the priority in which those projects were going to go ahead and how has that changed since June?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back in 2002, both projects were supposed to be happening at the same time but with all that has gone on, many things have changed and they were delayed for six years.
So I will have Ms. Brown, who has been with us for a long time, to, again, explain what transpired with those two files.
Way back when we started out early in this government, both Repulse Bay and Taloyoak were sort of neck in neck in terms of being in the capital plan.
What Deputy Minister Campbell alluded to before, in those days of planning, the department was given certain targets and the submission had to fit those targets. Because of the other pressures on the capital plan, the regional health facilities and the way it started in the very first term, Taloyoak was identified a little bit ahead of Repulse Bay.
The way the funding is in the past few years of the capital plan, the community health centre project in Taloyoak would start the year before in terms of major construction and in terms of the health centre in Repulse Bay.
It’s a matter of we can’t find the first year of construction money for the two health centres in the same year.
By saying that the plan for Repulse Bay would become the plan Taloyoak, basically means we would abandon the five-year sketches that we have for Taloyoak.
We would ask the architect to use where we are at so far with Repulse Bay, enhance it a bit in terms of the extra rooms that are required for the extra staff people and programs have now been identified, and this modified, would still be called the Taloyoak Health Centre Project and the Repulse Bay Health Centre Project even though the designs would be the same but actually, Taloyoak would go out to tender the year before. We wouldn’t be starting from scratch in terms of design, we would use the base designs for Repulse Bay.
It may be a bit confusing but it has been very difficult to try to advance both projects given the limited money we have, and to properly provide the communities with a building that will be appropriate for the programs and services the department wants to deliver.
I fail to understand that the standards and criteria that the government is supposed to use in determining its prioritizing of departments, as the minister indicated, that they use in prioritizing capital projects.
How could a 20 year old facility move ahead of a 26 year old facility, other than the perception is that it was an FMB decision and the member for the 26 year old community doesn’t sit on the FMB.
It just leaves it as a very concerning perception out there for that.
I don’t understand, based on the standards and criteria that we’re supposed to use in prioritizing projects, that they could do that.
Maybe if I could just ask how.
Again, I will have Rosemary explain the process that’s followed by the government in going from a technical review to a functional review, community reviews and population reviews; all that stuff as well.
I think we have to go back in terms of looking at the chronology of when all of this happened.  Taloyoak was put forward in terms of its technical assessment with the request from the community and the region to look at that health facility.
That was done in 2002-03. At that point in time, the government was new, certainly, I was new. And, at that point in time, the community of Arctic Bay or other health centres were not put forth by their regions or within the department as a priority.
When we became aware around 2004 that there were concerns coming out of the region from both Health and CGS, we asked the Department of Community and Government Services to carry out a technical assessment by CGS to determine what we needed to plan for in terms of that community health centre.
At that point in time, we said the recommendation was to plan for the replacement of the Arctic Bay Health Centre, same as when Resolute Bay came up.
If you look at the chronology, this was the life of the first government that these decisions were made then.
We’re a little bit slow in getting things done.
In terms of the priorities of the government as well, there have been three regional health facilities and two continuing care centres. This has put not only a financial impact on the government; it has put a human personnel strain within the Department of Community and Government Services and within the Department of Health to get all of these things done. Some things had to get put on hold.
There’s only so much manpower and so on.