EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
As we have demonstrated through initiatives mentioned above, there is great value in partnerships and collaboration when we work together to meet the needs of government departments, communities, and all Nunavummiut.
I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman.
Before I ask the chairman of the standing committee to make his opening comments, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Do the members agree to bring in the witnesses?
Thank you, Sergeant-at-Arms. Minister Kusugak, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
On my left is Mr. Roy Green, my Deputy Minister, and on my right is Alma Power, our former Director of Finance, whom I thank for being here.
Welcome, Mr. Green and Ms. Power.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development on its review of the 2013-14 main estimates and 2013-16 business plan of the Department of Community and Government Services.
The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2013-14 operations and maintenance budget of $208,397,000 has increased by approximately 7.4 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2012-13 main estimates.
The number of positions in the department is 360. This is an increase of 16 PYs from its 2012-13 main estimates.
Mr. Chairman, as we all know, the territory’s lack of adequate infrastructure significantly impacts the well-being of Nunavummiut.
The department’s 2013-16 business plan indicates that it is continuing to develop an infrastructure plan to address the territory’s existing infrastructure deficit and that the draft infrastructure plan is expected by March 31, 2013.
It also indicates that the department is developing a long-term financing plan for the implementation of the infrastructure plan with the Department of Finance.
The standing committee also notes that the department’s proposed business plan indicates that it “continues to explore all opportunities for infrastructure funding - including Public-Private Partnerships. A P3 model was applied to the Iqaluit Airport project and a similar model is presently being investigated by CGS to address solid waste infrastructure for all communities.
The feasibility of P3 for other infrastructure initiatives will continue to be examined.”
The standing committee looks forward to further progress on the department’s work to address infrastructure needs throughout the territory.
The department’s 2013-16 business plan indicates that the it is continuing to review the Fire Prevention Act. It also indicates that technical changes and regulations under the Fire Prevention Act are required due to the recent passage of the new Building Code Act.
Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, the Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan Protection Act was passed during the 2009 fall sitting. Members were pleased to note that the government listened and acted on the concerns that members raised concerning the need to protect municipal employees and their pension plans.
On November 5, 2012, the Minister of Community and Government Services tabled a copy of his department’s memorandum of understanding with the Government of the Northwest Territories concerning additional legislative initiatives related to the Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan.
The standing committee looks forward to further progress on the department’s work on this important initiative.
The department’s 2013-16 business plan indicates that “a new municipal funding formula was developed and will be included in the 2013-2014 main estimates.”
The standing committee is pleased to see that the department has addressed the need for improved municipal funding and encourages the department to continually review this program to ensure that adequate funding is provided to communities to delivery programs and services.
The department’s proposed 2013-14 main estimates include $2,513,000 in funding for the Mobile Equipment Block Funding Program.
This program “provides annual core funding to assist communities in mobile equipment lifecycle planning, procurement and maintenance.” The standing committee notes that funding has remained stable since the introduction of the department’s 2011-12 main estimates and encourages the department to continually review this program to ensure that adequate funding is provided to communities for their mobile equipment needs.
The department’s 2013-16 business plan provides an update on one of its 2012-13 priorities, which indicates that “the Uqausivut Implementation Plan has been approved and will provide $1.3 million in funding to municipalities for implementing the signage strategy in the 2013-2014 fiscal year.”
Members are pleased to see the department will be providing funding to municipalities to meet their requirements under the Inuit Language Protection Act and look forward to receiving updates on this important initiative.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2013-14 main estimates include $850,000 in funding for the Municipal Insurance Exchange to “offset incremental costs associated with municipal insurance coverage and to implement loss control program initiatives with focus on such critical areas as fire training and fire prevention.”
The department’s proposed 2013-14 main estimates includes $500,000 in funding to provide training to search and rescue organizations and assistance with the purchase of equipment.
However, the department’s 2013-16 business plan indicates that $550,000 in funding will be allocated for search and rescue initiatives.
The standing committee urges the minister to clarify exactly how much funding will be allocated for search and rescue initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2013-16 business plan provides an update on the status of one of its priorities for the Office of the Fire Marshal.
It indicates that “staff are currently working with municipalities to make required changes to municipal by-laws in order to implement Standard Operating Procedures related to the Fire Prevention Act.”
The standing committee looks forward to ongoing updates on this initiative and also looks forward to the minister tabling the 2012 Annual Report of the Office of the Fire Marshal in the Legislative Assembly.
The standing committee notes that the proposed budget for the department’s Capital Planning and Technical Services Branch is increasing from $33,838,000 in 2012-13 to $38,549,000 in 2013-14.
Most of this increase is due to the building maintenance and the project management office divisions.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2013-16 business plan provides an update on one of its previous priorities. It indicates that “Dalhousie University research into the performance of wastewater facilities in Nunavut is continuing. Two additional study sites in Pangnirtung and Clyde River have been added to investigate additional forms of wastewater treatment presently employed in Nunavut.
The study will provide preliminary recommendations for the development of appropriate effluent quality standards for Nunavut and the Far North by January 2014.”
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2013-14 main estimates indicate that the department’s Petroleum Products Revolving Fund will have a deficit of $9,977,000 in 2013-14.
On July 1, 2012, the Sport and Recreation Division of the Department of Culture and Heritage was transferred to the Department of Community and Government Services. Members were pleased with this decision and look forward to this division working closely with communities to promote and deliver sports and recreation throughout the territory.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the 2013-14 main estimates and 2013-16 business plan of the Department of Community and Government Services.
I suggest to members that wherever possible that you ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates.
Go to J-4.
Community and Government Services. $9,331,000.
I believe this is the correct place to ask in terms of the directorate where planning would be done. It speaks to what the minister also mentioned in his opening comments on the solid waste infrastructure for all communities.
When they are talking about a P3 project for funding this type of project, he has mentioned a couple of times that it is being examined.
Can he elaborate on what is meant by them in terms of determining a P3 project for our wastewater across the territory?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Thank you for that question, Mr. Elliott.
It is at a very preliminary state, but if I could, through you, Mr. Chairman, have Mr. Green elaborate on the question.
The next round of applications for the P3 Act, Canada infrastructure plan, is for June 2013. The primary category for funding is for the municipal solid waste sites, so CGS is just right now primarily putting together a feasibility study and that we would be submitting to P3 Canada in June 2013 to determine if it is viable for CGS or the GN to approach this fund as a solution to the issues that we are having with these solid waste sites across the territory.
The ideas of the P3 projects are kind of new for myself in terms of how they work and how the work is divided up, and how the partnerships are arranged.
Are there other jurisdictions that have gone through the process and have done a P3 project for municipal infrastructure for sewers and water systems?
We are not aware of any of the P3 projects with wastewater management.
Having said that, we would like to qualify that by saying that at this point, we haven’t checked in to see if other jurisdictions have done that.
The purpose behind doing this P3 is just a very expensive process that we are going go in terms of wastewater management.
The estimates we have range from as low as $340 million to a high of $503 million to deal with solid waste management sites.
We are on page J-4.
Are there any questions under Directorate?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, I do have a question which I previously raised in a standing committee meeting about the urgency to change the government policy for disposing of Crown assets.
I ask about the Disposal policy, which is rather outdated, and it has two versions, with the first version speaking to the right of first refusal by specific departments, after which the asset can be disposed of to the public.
The public or even individual Inuit, if they want to make a bid for the disposed asset, it ties their hands and they have no opportunity to place bids on these assets.
There are quite a number of assets that are given to the municipality or to charitable groups, and in particular the capital items that the government is no longer paying for the maintenance.
There are also assets, such as non-heavy equipment which has its’ own policy related to their disposal.
It doesn’t even merge into one document.
The process is taking too long, and to save time, we should look at the provincial jurisdictions to see how they dispose of Crown assets and their systems, which has a large public involvement in bidding for items, or via their website which the Canadian government undertakes for their disposal, and this even includes boats, vehicles, snowmobiles, outboard motors and so on.
We have been waiting patiently although nothing seems to have been accomplished. I wonder if the minister can clarify what steps they have taken to improve the government asset disposal policy.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, indeed with respect to the issues Mr. Curley is raising, it is clear and understandable especially when we are looking at future changes.
At this current time, this is what we have to deal with these issues.
To cite this example, if there is an old building that is no longer in use, the process that CG&S undertakes if there was a building no longer needed, first of all, we ask all other departments within the GN, and to the various levels of government.
We send the information to the department of Health or other departments to see if there is any possible use within their mandates. Only after these departments have identified that there is no need, then we offer this information to the Hamlet to see if there is interest in their hamlet.
This process includes other organizations outside of the Hamlet, if they aren’t interested and only after this whole process has been completed with no interest, does it go to the public bidding process for interested members of the public to bid on.
That is how this process is run for buildings no longer needed by government.
However, for items no longer needed such as for furniture like a sofa or a coffee table, we would open it directly to the general public. As an example, here in Iqaluit, we had a fall sale of surplus items, and everyone from the public was invited to attend this sale. It was open to the public as an open house.
We haven’t made any changes to this type of asset disposal. Our department hasn’t heard any negative comments or complaint letters about this procedure.
If members believe that we have to review those policies outside of our regular requirements, then we would entertain the idea.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Yes, I imagine that this aspect is acceptable for these types of items for disposal.
The minister stated on behalf of the government about the Surplus policy, in particular Part A under 2(b) regarding the disposal of government assets, if they are going to be sold or given as a charitable donation.
It states here that the right of first refusal goes to the departments of the GN, whether it’s the department of this minister or another department, and secondly, the local governments have their chance. I’m assuming it’s the municipalities.
The third is the federal government. The fourth is charitable organizations. The fifth one is general public.
I have never heard about the acceptance of this particular process as I haven’t been apprised of concerns, but it is becoming clearer that with respect to Crown assets or equipment, heavy equipment in particular, that once the asset has been paid for, it is usually given directly to the municipalities. With respect to the airport maintenance equipment, once the government no longer needs the equipment, they offer it to the hamlets and we see this occurring.
Perhaps we should consult the people of Nunavut as to whether they like this process or the prioritized setup.
If they state no, we don’t like it and if people identify that they aren’t satisfied with this policy, is that the only way we cam make changes to this policy?
Perhaps that is how I should be phrasing the question to the minister.
With regard to mobile equipment or heavy equipment the only GN department that would have any amount of abundance of heavy equipment would be the Department of Economic Development and Transportation and they would follow the same existing guidelines that the GN has in place for now for disposal of assets.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, I think… I am trying to make this clear regarding this policy, in light of the fact that this policy is severely outdated since it was grandfathered to our government from the GNWT.
We have never consulted with our people as to whether this policy is acceptable and yet we use the policy perhaps that is why we don’t get feedback because we haven’t asked them if it is acceptable.
However, with respect to our aging infrastructure such as buildings that are quickly aging, if they are going to be sold off, then I believe there should be an opportunity for all people to bid on, not just our government bodies and agencies.
I wonder how we could set it up, to ensure that this policy is reviewed and changed to include the public after the first refusal sections so that they have more opportunity to bid on the assets being disposed of. I believe it should always go to the highest bidder, any asset being disposed of and this includes vehicles as well.
If we look at how our federal government undertakes this process, all you have to do is visit their website and see the figures fly. It becomes quite interesting to view, with large boats being sold and some assets are only on the website for a week prior to being bought.
I have seen outboards being sold as well, as an example in the past month we spoke about the old boat that was given as a gift without any bidding process and I was informed by a bureaucrat that this boat was now owned by this organization.
The partners got this boat, with one of the partners also working for the GN as a civil servant. How did these people get this boat? That is something I would like to find out, so what I am trying to voice here is that perhaps we should update the policy to better reflect the current situation we are in.
I wonder how we could update the Nunavut Surplus Disposal Policy, and if this is impossible, we should at least look at ways to adjust the policy for our needs. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
I also thank Mr. Curley to raising these issues through his questioning.
The government legislation outlines how this process would be undertaken with a view towards fairness for all people.
With respect to this policy, I personally don’t have a concern about disposing buildings and/or equipment to the local hamlets, as well as to other organizations that may require a building for their purpose, an office building or a workplace.
I think we are mostly talking mobile equipment, heavy equipment, and whether they should be made available to the general public.
My department will look into it, and if there is room for change or improvement, then we will look at it.
That is a lot of items. Some of them are quite old and some of them are quite expensive. Some of them are just given from one department to another, or to municipal organizations and so on.
There are more and more businesses cropping up in Nunavut, and there are people who would like vehicles of all sorts.
Because of the enormity of this issue, the policy will have to be reviewed.
If the minister is going to review the policy, when will he be able to make a report on it in the House?
I agree with you, Mr. Curley.
It is going to be an enormous task, and because of that, I can’t tell you when I will be able to table a report in the House if there is a requirement to change it.
It could go on for quite a while. I cannot tell the member when I would be able to table a report in the House because of the enormity of the task.
I just wanted to make an addition to Mr. Curley’s comment.
We believe, as a government today that the Third Assembly Tamapta has to be directed to everyone. The hamlet government is going to be a priority, we all believe in that.
I hope that the Minister of CGS will use this as a foundation and look over the review of the policy. It is probably going to be difficult, but we have to believe in it.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Your department’s draft 2013-16 business plan provides an update on one of the 2012-13 priorities is to “Develop an advocacy plan to seek capital funding from the Government of Canada to support implementation of infrastructure plans.”
The status indicates that CGS is working closely with Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee, municipal representatives and other stakeholders to advocate for targeted infrastructure funding to address the unique infrastructure needs in Nunavut.
As of today, what is the status of the advocacy plan, and can you provide information on your discussions with the federal government to secure capital funding for Nunavut’s infrastructure needs?
Just to remind the members, when you are talking about the documents, please mention the page numbers so we can proceed a little faster, according to the letter directions that we got from the Speaker. If you are going to ask a question, please indicate what page it is in.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I thank my colleague for asking about capital infrastructure while we’re talking about O&M.
Let me say this: those discussion are ongoing with both levels of government in terms of trying to get capital funding for our infrastructure needs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think you had a question on the business plan.
My next question is up to today, can you give us a new update to see if we’re going to get any capital funding for Nunavut?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. Can you ask that question again?
Can you repeat your question, please. Ms. Ugyuk.
Ms. Ugyuk: I’ll just read out the last question. As of today, what is the status of the advocacy plan, and can you provide information on the discussions with the federal government to secure capital funding for Nunavut’s infrastructure needs? It’s a simple question.
We do have consultations. We meet about these issues as ministers, and also with the (interpretation ends) Nunavut Infrastructure Advisory Committee, municipal representatives, and other stakeholders to advocate for the targeted infrastructure funding to address the unique infrastructure needs in Nunavut.
A broad group of stakeholders met with Infrastructure Canada officials in July 2012 in Iqaluit to discuss the potential framework of future federal infrastructure programs.
We’re under Directorate.
CGS. (interpretation ends) Directorate.
Branch Summary. (interpretation) I have no other names on my list. (interpretation ends) Total Operations and Maintenance. $9,331,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Let’s go to the (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. (interpretation) Community Support.
The proposed funding for 2013-14. (interpretation ends) Total Operations and Maintenance. $76,912,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Turn the page. Government Services. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. J-6.
One of the questions that I have is regarding one of the government services and the government buildings that we have in all of the communities across the territory. It’s not just with the Government of Nunavut; we have federal infrastructure in Resolute Bay that is old, aged, abandoned, and at times, dangerous to community members.
We have similar issues that I have raised in Grise Fiord and Arctic Bay with some of the Nunavut Housing Corporation houses. Definitely, in all three communities, there has been a concern. The issue was brought up a few years ago, maybe two years ago now, in terms of old buildings within the community and the idea of demolishing them.
I have asked questions before in Committee of the Whole.
At one time, the government was actually, and this might seem like a capital issue, but there were O&M dollars that were being spent on doing environmental studies.
At the time, I think it was explained that it was a territorial-wide issue where the government was not just looking at one community specifically but all communities to come up with a plan. Since it has been a couple of years, can the minister update me on what’s happening with that plan?
If I could have my deputy, through you, respond.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Over the past six months, we have hired a consultant to go into all of our municipalities to do a conditional assessment of all municipal and GN buildings in those communities. We are currently right now compiling this information.
Once we enter this into our asset management database, we will determine then if buildings are beyond repairs.
If they are, then we will be developing an action plan to dispose of any unsafe buildings that are in the communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Green. Any further questions, Mr. Elliott?
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As an MLA, at times, we receive concerns from either hamlet about conditions about buildings.
There are building maintainers in the communities who do services on behalf of the government to either fix boilers or fix railings.
At times, when you discuss the issues and you get constituents coming up asking why certain things are not being fixed, when you talk to some of the maintainers, it is based around work orders.