EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
What is the status at this time? Can the minister respond to that?
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is he referring to the one in Cambridge Bay?
Mr. Mapsalak, can you clarify your question to the minister?
Yes, the one in Cambridge Bay. I’m referring to that one.
The Cambridge Bay Wildlife Office project is underway and it will take a couple of years for the project to complete.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What about the office in Hall Beach that they built; did the people who built the offices encounter any problems?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mapsalak. Minister.
When we request, then it’s handled by the Department of CGS, but we haven’t heard if they encountered any problems at the Hall Beach offices.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Mapsalak.
How does the department identify which community would know ahead of time if the community needs an office? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mapsalak. Minister Netser.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We identify the communities that have the oldest buildings, and once we finish the Cambridge Bay office, then we forward it to the FMB. That’s how the process goes.
A different question.
We were really expecting, particularly the community of Kugaaruk, for their community centre office. The minister identified the funding for that particular community and was going to go ahead but they had encountered problems and were not able to start the project in Kugaaruk.
What’s happening with the $600,000 that was going to be used for that community?
What are they going to be using the money that was allocated for Kugaaruk now? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) That $600,000 was given back to us but we’re going to go ahead with the project. We’ll be able to do three or four. It has been identified for the building, so we are going to go ahead with that.
Mr. Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief question for the smaller projects that the Ajauqtiit Chairman identified earlier in his first statement.
It is in regard to the surveys that were done by the laboratories.
When there are animals that have sicknesses, a lot of the time we have to send them out to Northern Quebec. If we were to get a laboratory in Nunavut, would that laboratory be used throughout Nunavut?
It’s supposed to be set up in Igloolik.
Mr. Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it just going to be used by the community of Igloolik? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s going to be used for all Nunavummiut.
I want to get a clear answer.
Will they send the animals or things that need to be tested to the laboratory in Igloolik?
Yes, it is called trichinosis that the walrus get tested for. (interpretation ends) I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is a health issue.
Exactly what are the laboratories supposed to be used for?
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) It’s for maybe caribou and polar bear testing. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Mr. Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister.
Would that be under health issues?
I understand though.
For the pelts, skins, and fur bearing animal skins, sometimes they get sick and they get diseases.
Can’t you work on these within your department?
As just indicated earlier that this is the Department of ED&T’s file, and when the appropriate minister comes to the witness table, you can ask that same question.
Until then, I have nothing to say.
What the Ajauqtiit Chairman said earlier, he wanted us to bring these issues forward. Since the minister is unable to address the issues, that’s it, Mr. Chairman.
You said that we were on page I-6 concerning Kugaaruk.
I have been reading these details of the capital but it’s just concerning the $600,000.
Can the minister tell me what these capital projects are?
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could he clarify his question?
Mr. Arvaluk, can you clarify your question to the minister?
I don’t attempt to understand the capital estimates because they don’t really say anything.  However, in the substantiation sheets there should be an explanation as to what we are spending.
We have budgeted $600,000 for Kugaaruk Nunavut Parks Facility design were in drawings with location and construction estimates. Why only construction estimates in the details for parks facilities and equipment? What is the $600,000 for?
Can you not simply say Qamutiik, Umiaq, (interpretation) or whatever? (interpretation ends) Say something that will make me understand why I should approve this $600,000.
For that, Mr. Chairman, I can have Mr. David Monteith answer the question.
The $600,000 we spent was based on the completion of two studies that we have been doing over the year in terms of looking at boundaries for a proposed park.
We have three or four different areas that have been picked out around the community, and assuming that we have approval from the community and the issue with respect to mineral leases and development that might take place as a result, then we would use the money towards the design of facilities, interpretive signs, entrance signs, any bridging or trail development that might take place.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s mostly expensive stuff.
There’s no actual construction because it says right there in the capital estimates, Kugaaruk Park’s Development.  You also have, in the substantiation sheet, $150,000 for design and $150,000 for other Titiraujaq, planning.
Now, $600,000 is for continuing the designing and planning, finding boundaries, and designing the other signs that you will be needed.
That’s $900,000 all together.
Is there any way to do this cheaper if you’re not actually constructing a tangible asset on it?
When a community calls for parks and special places within its area, it takes many years and a lot of planning, approximately eight years.
That’s why it seems to be expensive but it’s spread over a period of time, and when you really think about it, Mr. Chairman, it’s really not all that expensive. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Environment.
Detail of Capital. Program Development. Tangible Assets.
I welcome the minister and his officials to our Committee of the Whole today.
I just wanted to get some clarification. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Mapsalak, for raising it - the wildlife office in Cambridge Bay.
In your opening comments, minister, you said that, “Cambridge Bay is in progress and we are hoping it will be completed within a couple of years.” And then you stated to my colleague that it “is underway.” Could you clarify what you mean by “in progress” and maybe give me a sense, when you say two years, is it currently under construction now, or will it be completed in the next fiscal year, or are you talking two fiscal years from now?
Can you clarify that for me, please? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The progress is underway right now.
We are removing an old building where we want to construct the new office building, and that’s why it’s going to take a couple of years and that the construction is underway.
So that’s part of the overall project is to remove the old building, and then install and construct the new building on site.
I thank the minister for that answer. Could the minister give me some more specific details on when he actually expects it to be completed? When will it be operational and ready to move in?
We hope to occupy that building by 2009.
There was an RFP process this summer, I believe.
Can the minister indicate to me if any contractors in Cambridge Bay or elsewhere throughout Nunavut bid on that RFP?
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the tender has been put out twice, but so far there haven’t been any contractors willing to bid on the project.
Can the minister indicate… Obviously, you must be concerned because you said in your substantiation sheets about Coral Harbour that Coral Harbour is the most dire need after Cambridge Bay.
So I would take it that Cambridge Bay is really in dire need of a new wildlife office.
Can you tell me if your department or the department heads, who have been handed the responsibility to look at the RFP, if you have reviewed why there has been no interest in that RFP in Cambridge Bay from various contractors and developers?
As I said earlier, we review the funds, and in this particular case, the wildlife office in Cambridge Bay, we give the fund over to CGS.
Often times, the bidders bid way over what we had substantiated for and I believe that is one of the reasons why we haven’t had any bids for the construction also.
I understand that it’s Nunavut-wide that nobody wants to really bid for small projects, such as this one.
Can the minister tell me, you’ve had two RFPs and there has been no interest, do you have an alternative plan to work now to ensure that that wildlife office is replaced in Cambridge Bay?
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) There is a tender coming out in early December and we will do our very best to ensure that the construction is started next coming summer.
Can the minister give me his commitment or re-assurances that the funding for that wildlife office will not be transferred to another community or region in Nunavut, and possibly delay this project by longer than two years? Can he give me that commitment?
Yes, I will commit to the member that I will not transfer the funds over to Coral Harbour, who is next in line.
Just for the record, I think that every community in Nunavut should get a new wildlife office as that was one of our promises when we first got elected in 2004.
So nothing against the other communities, but in Cambridge Bay, we’ve been patiently waiting for a wildlife office. When we have an opportunity to get a wildlife office, we don’t want to lose it.
So I appreciate your commitment.
I hope that somehow you can convince your Cabinet colleagues that wildlife offices are a priority in all of the communities, and we’ll get back to our one per year commitment, and hopefully, somehow, the Government of Nunavut can work their way to construct those facilities within the budgeted costs that we approve as legislators.
That’s just a comment, Mr. Chairman. It’s not a question. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson, for your comment.
Would you like to respond to his comment?
Headquarters Region. Total Headquarters Region. $1.7 million.
Chairman: Thank you. Total Tangible Assets. $1.7 million.
Back to page I-4. Environment.
Department Summary. Detail of Expenditure. Total Capital Expenditure. $1.7 million.
Chairman: Are you agreed the Department of Environment is concluded?
Chairman: I would like to thank the minister and his staff for answering questions to the committee.
Right now, I thank you.
Do you have closing remarks?
Hon. Patterk Netser: No.
Chairman: Thank you. Thank you, Minister and your staff.
Now, I would like to break for 10 minutes before we go on to our next department.  >>Committee recessed at 16:43 and resumed at 17:00
Chairman: I would now like to ask Minister Akesuk for Nunavut Housing Corporation to make his opening remarks. Minister Akesuk.
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee – Nunavut Housing Corporation
The corporation’s capital plan for 2008-09 has been set at $19,125,000 from the Government of Nunavut and additional funding of $4,290,000 from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for a total capital budget of $23,415,000 for 2008-09.
We will continue to work towards obtaining further federal contribution towards achieving our goals set out in the 10-Year Inuit Housing Action Plan.
The 2008-09 capital estimates main highlights are:
First, the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s funding for the Modernization and Improvement Retrofit to the Local Housing Organizations, the Fire Damage Fund, the Mobile Equipment Fund and the Seniors and Disabled Persons Preventative Maintenance Program and the Homeownership Programs remain at approximately the same level as last year.
Second, the corporation has responded to requests for more staff housing particularly for the new trades school in Rankin Inlet and the Continuing Care Centres in Igloolik and Gjoa Haven by requesting additional funding to construct these staff housing units.
Thirdly, the corporation continues to renovate older staff housing units in communities with the greatest needs.
(interpretation ends) I am pleased to report to the committee that the Nunavut Housing Corporation on September 4, 2007 implemented the enhanced Homeownership Nunavut Home Repair Program which encourages eligible homeowners to increase energy efficiency by providing an additional $15,000 for energy renovations or repairs.
Homeownership program eligibility requirements were also modified to make these programs more accessible to Nunavummiut.
As of September 1, 2007, the Northern Allowance, Settlement Allowance and the Isolation Post Allowance were eliminated from the assessable income.
I am also pleased to report that the Nunavut Housing Trust delivery is proceeding on course for the current year. Construction on the housing units where materials were ordered and delivered in the fall of 2006 will be largely completed by December.
Across Nunavut, the construction projects are meeting or exceeding the NHT targets of 60 percent Inuit employment and there are 65 Nunavut apprentices working on job sites across the territory. We believe that there will be additional apprentices once we have all the information.
(interpretation) Funding for the Housing Trust units has been appropriated outside of the capital estimates process and is not included in the information provided today.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Thank you for returning.
Would you like to have your staff sit with you?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Yes, I do.
Chairman (interpretation): For the record, minister, please introduce your staff.
To my immediate right is Mr. Scott, President of Nunavut Housing Corporation, and to my immediate left is Eric Whitworth, Chief Financial Officer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Are there any general comments from the committee?
Yes, I do have opening comments, Mr. Chairman.
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development, I am pleased to provide opening comments as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2008-09 Capital Estimates.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee had the opportunity to meet with the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation in September of this year to scrutinize the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2008-09 capital estimates.
In his Economic Statement of last fall, the Minister of Finance informed the House that the Government of Nunavut would move to ensure that its capital planning process takes into full account the costs of incremental housing associated with major projects, operations and maintenance expenditures for new facilities, and the impact of capital projects on community resources.
The standing committee notes that the updated five-year capital plan for the Nunavut Housing Corporation includes over $22 million in planned expenditures for staff housing units associated with the territory’s new trades school in Rankin Inlet, the Kivalliq correctional facility, the cultural school in Clyde River and continuing care facilities in Gjoa Haven and Igloolik.
On September 13, 2005, the Government of Nunavut’s new Staff Housing Policy was announced.
The announcement indicated that “the new staff housing strategy will be phased in over a five to ten year period.
During this time, the government will incrementally increase rental rates in all Nunavut communities and withdraw from providing staff housing in the emerging market communities of Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet and Cambridge Bay.
This change in policy will lead to an incremental upward correction in rents to private market rates and the transfer of landlord responsibilities from the GN to property owners.”
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, during its review of the 2007-08 capital estimates, the standing committee publicly emphasized the importance of evaluating the impact of the GN’s new Staff Housing Policy on the government’s recruitment and retention efforts, especially with respect to front-line health care and education workers.
The NHC’s current business plan indicates that the corporation “has been monitoring the implementation of the new Staff Housing Policy and will prepare a report on the impact of the first year of its operation and present it in the winter of 2007.
The corporation will work with the Department of Human Resources to measure the impact of this policy on Government of Nunavut recruitment and retention.”
The standing committee urges the minister to table this report at the earliest opportunity, so that all Members of the Legislative Assembly may be able to review its findings and begin to evaluate the success of the policy in achieving its stated goal of “establishing sustainable housing markets and encouraging home ownership.”
Mr. Chairman, on July 11, 2006, the GN announced that new federal funding of $200 million had been designated to establish a Nunavut Housing Trust for the construction of 725 new housing units across the territory.
On December 5, 2006, the Nunavut Housing Trust Delivery Strategy was formally tabled in the Legislative Assembly by the minister.
The standing committee has recognized that increased numbers of new public housing units will also result in increased operations and maintenance expenditures.
In June of this year, the Legislative Assembly approved close to $9 million in supplementary funding to Local Housing Organizations to help them in meeting forced growth needs and to assist with costs associated with new housing units.
Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the NHC’s business and budget planning process takes this trend into account.
Over the course of this year, the minister has delivered a number of formal statements in the House concerning the Nunavut Housing Trust Delivery Strategy.
The standing committee supports the strategy’s goal of providing training and apprenticeship opportunities for Nunavummiut to learn skills and earn qualifications.
Members also support the NHC’s efforts to adopt flexible approaches to meet local preferences and circumstances with respect to such issues as the length of workdays on construction sites.
However, the standing committee is concerned that logistical problems associated with the sealift process and the NHC’s new approach to tendering have resulted in a situation where materials for the construction of approximately 178 public housing units in a number of communities will now have to be airlifted into the territory, at significant cost to the NHC.
It is unclear what the ultimate impact will be in terms of financial costs and delays to the construction schedule.
The standing committee expects the minister to account to the House with respect to what specific factors caused this situation to occur, and to indicate what specific steps the NHC will take to ensure that this is not repeated in future years.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee also expects the minister to provide a comprehensive report to the Legislative Assembly during the upcoming spring sitting on the 2007 public housing construction program.
Members of the standing committee have also received concerns from local companies with respect to the NHC’s contracting practices.
While the standing committee recognizes that no single approach will satisfy all parties, some of which may have competing goals, it expects the NHC to communicate with Nunavut companies in a transparent manner.
Mr. Chairman, the GN and NTI jointly submitted a Ten-Year Inuit Housing Action Plan to the Government of Canada in September of 2004.
The action plan called for federal investment of approximately $1.9 billion over ten years for the construction of 5,700 new housing units in the territory.
The NHC’s current business plan acknowledges that the $200 million in Housing Trust funding “represents just 10 percent of the total requirement noted in the Nunavut Ten-Year Inuit Housing Action Plan” and indicates that one of the corporation’s priorities is to “work with NTI and other groups to lobby the federal government to fund the remainder” of the action plan.
The standing committee looks forward to the minister accounting to the House on his success in this area.
The standing committee has noted that the NHC recently issued a Request for Proposal for the development of a “Housing Strategy for Nunavut.”
While the standing committee has been given to understand that the purpose of this initiative is to develop an overarching strategy that will complement the Inuit Housing Action Plan and the Nunavut Housing Trust Delivery Strategy, members would caution the NHC to avoid duplicating work that has already been undertaken.
Mr. Chairman, in addition, while the standing committee recognizes the benefits of engaging consultants for highly specialized or technical projects, it stresses the importance of ensuring that the development of government policy in such a fundamentally important area as housing be led by those who will ultimately be accountable for its actual implementation, and who live in the jurisdiction where its results will be measured.
Mr. Chairman, the NHC administers ten different programs to assist homeowners and potential homeowners in Nunavut.
In recent months, the minister made a number of announcements concerning improvements to the accessibility of a number of homeownership programs, in addition to announcing the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s new Homeownership Energy Efficiency Rebate Program.
According to the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2004-05 Annual Report and other information provided by the minister to the standing committee, Nunavut Housing Corporation’s expenditures on its homeownership programs has increased from just over $2 million in 2004-05 to $3.6 million in 2005-06 and $4.7 million in 2006-07.
The number of Nunavummiut benefiting from these programs has also increased, as illustrated by the change in the number of approved applications for Nunavut Housing Corporation programs from 155 in 2004-05 to 321 in 2006-07.
Mr. Chairman, this is an increase of over 107 percent.
The most significant increase in demand between 2005-06 and 2006-07 was for the Seniors and Disabled Persons Preventative Maintenance Program.
However, the level of demand for the NHC’s Tenant-to-Owner Program appears to be not particularly strong.
It also appears that the Government of Nunavut’s Staff Condominium Program was not a great success and will not be continued.
Mr. Chairman, the NHC’s current business plan indicates that “157 condominium units were constructed in 10 Nunavut communities.
Some of the condominiums were sold in Iqaluit in 2006.”
The Nunavut Housing Corporation has allocated $2,116,000 in its 2008-09 capital estimates for homeownership programs.
It is unclear if this amount will be sufficient to meet public demand.
The standing committee encourages the NHC to regularly review its homeownership programs in order to determine which are successful and which are not.
The standing committee also encourages the NHC to review their eligibility requirements in order to ensure that transient residents do not benefit from programs that are intended for long-term Nunavummiut.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee notes that the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2004-05 Annual Report was not tabled in the Legislative Assembly until March 21, 2007.
Its 2005-06 and 2006-07 annual reports have not yet been tabled.
These annual reports contain information of considerable importance and are required by law to be tabled.
The standing committee encourages the minister to work to resolve the outstanding accounting issues that have delayed their being tabled in a timely manner.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the 2008-09 Capital Estimates of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.  Mr. Chairman, other members of the committee will also have comments to make on this item.