EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If I go back to the decision on prioritizing Taloyoak, Repulse Bay was made in the life of the First Session and Arctic Bay came sort of on the books in 2004-05.
The pressure in dealing with the three regional facilities and subsequently, the continuing care facilities was enormous. I think the government has done very well to do these amounts of buildings but something had to be put on hold. In that case, the decision was made that it had to be the community; the two then plus the third smaller health centres.
If there had been manpower or more money, it’s quite possible. We’re looking at what happened in the past and we can’t fix that.
I can understand that for the Arctic Bay one but the Repulse Bay one, it’s kind of hard to understand that rationale. It doesn’t make sense.
Mr. Chairman, another concern that I have and I alluded to with other departments is the accuracy of the capital budget.
Are we just putting projects on the books to have them on the books, and then once the numbers and tenders come in, they’re way over budget, and then decisions are made for which ones get moved ahead and which ones can’t because we can’t afford it.
I think that we need to be able to make decisions based on accurate information. If you look, again, at the substantiation sheet for the Taloyoak project it says, “The costs are based on Class C estimates.”
It says, “The reliability is questionable.”
Right now, we’re making a decision to go ahead with a project, putting $200,000 in there for design when there’s already been $800,000 for the design on it, and saying it’s going to cost $13 million.
Once that design is done, let’s say it comes back $26 million, it could.
We don’t know that and we need to be able to make informed decisions.
Once it’s approved, then it’s on the books for the five-year plan, and the tenders come in, this Assembly doesn’t have a say in which ones move ahead.
The minister indicated that FMB makes the decision, which is why Repulse Bay fell off the books, which is why Arctic Bay fell off the books and got further pushed back.
It’s quite obvious that the Members of this Assembly don’t all have a say in what gets moved ahead here.
If I question and even if we approve that, we’re basically approving a blank cheque. I’m a little leery in doing that myself because basically that’s what we’re doing.
We have seen other projects. I think the highest one that’s come in that I’ve seen is actually the school in Gjoa Haven that I think was budgeted around $13 million to $15 million and then it came in almost doubled.
If you look at that, this is at $13 million and it comes in doubled, the Repulse Bay project is budgeted for a little bit less than that, a little bit less than the Taloyoak one. That means when the tenders come in at double the amount, which one is going to go ahead? We have no say in that.
I think we need to be provided with accurate information so that we can make informed decisions. If we go ahead with this, we’re not making an informed decision. We’re just giving the government a blank cheque to go and do what it wants, and it can prioritize what it wants after that.
I have some serious reservations about doing that.
I don’t think it’s responsible for me, as a member that’s watching out for public dollars, of doing that, and saying, “Yeah, go ahead and spend whatever you want.”
We are budgeting $13 million and it’s going to come in at $26 million. So what would it take for the department to come back with more accurate figures on what this project will actually cost?
In terms of the challenges that we face in trying to advance projects, the member is correct that in the western part of Nunavut the construction project is a challenge for us. We see it in our transportation costs and we see it in a number of ways.
The boom in the west of Canada has a huge impact to what we’re trying to do in the Kitikmeot as an example. You mentioned the renovation in the Gjoa Haven school. That is an issue and we recognize that.
Having said that, in terms of projects, going back to when these two projects started back in 2002-03, the department has been successful in getting a lot of the projects in the $55 million budget, at the time, that was approved to finish off the Igloolik as an example and the hospital here, Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet, Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay. Those projects, I think, with the exception of Pangnirtung, they are pretty much complete.
With the exception of these two projects in 2004, Ms. Brown mentioned that with the priorities from Full Caucus to construct two more continuing facilities, it has put a lot of pressure on the department to meet the outline of approved projects in 2003.  We are trying to continue to advance those now that the hospitals are out of the way.
The continuing care facilities are in development now.
We’re trying to move the two aging facilities. Ms. Brown mentioned earlier, with all of the new hospitals and continuing care facilities, some of these aging facilities were put on hold. The direction that Ms. Brown is trying to address here now is to finish off the two aging facilities that we talk about, as well as Arctic Bay to try and start dealing with that.
My deputy also mentioned that the department will be conducting a review of all the facilities, not just the health centres but also other long-term care facilities within the territory. We need to do the technical assessments on all of those facilities in order to plan in addressing our aging facilities.
In the last few years, much of the focus has been to construct the hospitals, the continuing care, and that has put a lot of pressure on us, as a department, not only in the financial sense but we just did not have the capabilities to respond to every need in the communities.  So the direction now is to finish off the commitment in the previous government and the commitments that have been made and the work that has been started in trying to address some of those as indicated by Ms. Brown.
At the same time, Minister Brown had also announced in the House, the additional staff that would assist departments in better projection of costs associated with construction, we can only go forward in budgeting information on the technical advice we get from CGS project officers in projecting some of these construction costs for our facilities.
So we do try the best that we can in projecting what it will cost to construct these facilities. It’s difficult to determine whether we will be accurate or not, or what the trend will be in the market and how the bids will come through.
Based on information we have, we do try to put forward the best estimates that we do have in partnership with CGS, who are project managers of all of our facilities within the department.
Mr. Arvaluk, I’m sorry but we made a mistake.
We had you down that you asked questions the other day, but now, we realize that you provided the opening comments. We are sorry.
Mr. Arvaluk, go ahead.
The apology is accepted.
I just want to get clarification on two points.
One is the deputy minister, I heard him say that they work with CGS and CGS recommends which projects should go ahead. From the technical point of view, is that a correct assessment?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Minister Aglukkaq.
I will have Mr. Campbell answer that.
Mr. Campbell (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) What generally happens, as I said earlier, was that we identify these projects. We rely on CGS to provide the technical support on identifying these projects to the department.
The normal process is that they recommend to the department on some of these projects that we should be undertaking. That’s all I said.
Then I should ask the Minister of CGS: what was the rationale behind placing Taloyoak ahead of, for example, Repulse Bay, Arctic Bay, or Cape Dorset?
What technical evaluation or assessment was applied and what rationale was behind that in the decision?
Sorry, my mistake. Minister Aglukkaq.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. I will have Ms. Brown, our Capital Manager, answer that.
I must say, again, it’s a matter of chronology or timing that Taloyoak and then Repulse Bay were brought forward both for technical assessments and for review within the department between 2000-02. These are kind of when they got on the book.
The issues around the health centre in Arctic Bay were not raised to the department, and then the department asked CGS Technical Services to do that in 2004.
The projects got into the capital plan in different years as the projects were identified to both CGS and the Department of Health.
It was not a matter of choosing by looking at all three at one point in time and then putting them in the capital plan.
Technical evaluations, the size of the community, the current ability to deliver programs - all of those come into play. Technical assessment is one of them. All three communities need buildings that are capable of delivering the Health and Social Services program.
It is now the view of the department as well as CGS that all three communities need a new health centre.
It’s just a matter of being able to get the funding in the department in an approved capital plan that we will be able to pay for them, go forward, complete the design and put out the construction contracts, buy the new furniture, and that is what we put in all three to move forward within our capital plan.
I’m having a very difficult time trying to differentiate between the technical assessments of the Department of CGS, I asked the Department of CGS, but the Health Department chose to answer on behalf of the CGS.
To get away from… I’m having a very difficult time turning away from what seems to be a lottery system.
For example, the three communities needing very badly, they are put in the basket and pick one. Taloyoak was picked.
The minister was good enough to provide us the technical assessment sheets and we were able to compare the conditions of those three different health centres, and we had a discussion amongst ourselves.
They have to understand how you were able to say Taloyoak is in the worst condition of all of these health centres from these technical assessments.
When we looked at it again, we thought Arctic Bay was in a much worse condition than Taloyoak. So that’s why I asked the Minister of CGS: what rationale did you come up with in advising the Health Department that Taloyoak needed it more than Arctic Bay right now? The second question I had was on the substantiation sheet that the cause of this phase construction, of course, is high.
That’s why we put the Taloyoak construction into two sections, 2009-10 and 2010-11.
However, with the same breadth in all these pages, they are still phased-in constructions in other areas of the government program.
How is it not like that with other constructions for arenas and the community halls, etcetera, because they are phased-in, but Taloyoak is not?
I think that was talked about the other day, so I’m not going to get into that, but I’m still trying to ask the Minister of CGS: what rationale did you use to advise the Health Department to proceed with Taloyoak over the others?
A simple answer could be because … (interpretation) that’s it. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Mr. Arvaluk, are you asking Minister Brown? Mr. Arvaluk.
Yes, I am. There were some questions from Mr. Tootoo, Mr. Curley, and Mr. Mapsalak on those areas to the Minister of Health.
They keep saying that they work with CGS to come up with the decision to budget for Taloyoak Health Centre over Arctic Bay, Repulse Bay, and Cape Dorset, and when we looked at the assessment papers the other day, we couldn’t find how Taloyoak was chosen first.
I’m asking the Minister of Community and Government Services, they evaluate those proposals from different departments from the technical assessments: what rationale did you use to recommend to the Department of Health that Taloyoak should be first?
The department does not do technical assessments, so the member is correct that the Department of Community and Government Services provides us that service and Minister Brown should respond to that.
However, before we go into that, on the substantiation sheet, the member made reference to phased-in. They’re not phased-in. In terms of the dollar figures that are in that substantiation sheet, those are annual cash flows that are identified in terms of fiscal years - how the fiscal year should be managed versus the phased.
So I just wanted to clarify that
The member is correct. Technical assessments are done through CGS and the matter should be referred to the minister responsible.
Does Minister Brown wish to response to the member’s question?
Minister Brown, go ahead.
I thought I heard my name or my department mentioned a few times, but anyway, I’ll try to respond to the question.
The technical evaluations in Arctic Bay and Taloyoak have been done. I did ask some questions about Repulse Bay, but I don’t have that information with me.
(interpretation ends) I have the reports for Arctic Bay and Taloyoak. Both of theses reports provide technical information in order to justify and develop the scope of work for minor or major capital improvement and/or capital replacement of facilities.
CGS carries out the detailed technical evaluation of buildings at the request of client departments.
The client department is responsible for determining cash flow and the capital estimates for their departmental capital substantiation requests. CGS reviews the capital substantiation sheets and provides recommendations to the Department of Finance and client departments on cash flow, capital, cost estimates, schedules, and O & M.
Health and Social Services requested that CGS explore with FSC, that’s an architectural and engineering contractor, the option of a standalone facility, a repeat design of Repulse Bay Health Centre, which may be more cost effective and wouldn’t cause any disruptions to normal health care delivery during construction.
The standalone option has been reviewed and recommended to Health and Social Services. The project is currently on hold until Health and Social Services advise on how to proceed.
Dependent on funding approval and direction from Health and Social Services, design of either option would be completed and tendered in fiscal year 2008-09, and be constructed in fiscal year 2009-10 and 2010-11.
At current status, the Department of Health and Social Services is to provide official written direction to CGS on whether to continue with an addition and renovations to existing health centres, or proceed with new standalone health centres.
And, to answer Mr. Arvaluk’s question, I believe the technical evaluation both for Arctic Bay and Taloyoak were done at the same time.
I’m going to ask the same minister; you simply accepted the recommendation of the Health Department, that they made the technical assessment or at least an evaluation of your technical assessment, and found out that Arctic Bay, Taloyoak, and Repulse Bay are in need of those health centres very badly.
However bad the condition the buildings are in Taloyoak and Arctic Bay you advised the Health Department to proceed with the younger health centre, several years younger, to pursue it with the new capital plan.
My question was very simple: what rationale did you use to come up with that recommendation to the Health Department?
Would the minister like to answer that question?
In regard to the question, they do their own evaluation and I just follow the ... (interpretation ends) I can only rely on the information that I receive.  The rationale that the technical people used, I’m not sure.
I would have to go back and ask them why they did that. I can’t speak for them. I’m only relying on the information that I have on my desk.
Perhaps, the minister can provide to this House, from her own department, not from the influence of the Department of Health, the rationale behind that decision.
I appreciate the minister’s answer and I worry about these things.
Do you know why I worry about it? Because there may be other capital projects that are reviewed by CGS and simply follow the recommendation or the proposal from client departments.
And, depending on the mood of the FMB, they may even be approved.
This is a scary thought because there is no substantiation sheet for Arctic Bay, Repulse Bay, and Cape Dorset. There’s none because they’re not funded.
So there is no way for this Legislative Assembly, who is reviewing the capital items, to compare. There’s nothing to compare.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Health then: from your own point of view, how do you then, without bias, from the technical standpoint on technical assessments, open book, chose one community over the other when in fact the technical assessments are equal or Arctic Bay’s older?
I lost track of time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we report progress.
Mr. Evyagotailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Your committee has been considering Bill 16 and the Capital Estimates, and would like to report progress.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of this Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
Thank you, Member for Baker Lake.
Bill 04 – Workers’ Compensation Act – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for South Baffin, that Bill 4, Workers’ Compensation Act, be read for the third time.
The motion is carried and Bill 4 has had third reading.  >>Applause
A reminder for a meeting tomorrow at eleven o’clock of the Standing Committee on Health and Education in the Tuktu Boardroom.
Orders for the Day for November 8:
This House stands adjourned until Thursday, November 8, at 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Pages 2529 – 2655
Opening Prayer 2529
Ministers’ Statements 2529
Members’ Statements 2530
Oral Questions 2536
Petitions 2556
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills 2557
Tabling of Documents 2559
Notices of Motions 2560
Motions 2560
Second Reading of Bills 2566
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2567
Point of Order 2594
Point of Order 2611
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2648
Speaker’s Ruling 2649
Third Reading of Bills 2650
Assent to Bills 2652
Orders of the Day 2654
Thursday, November 8, 2007 2529
124 – 2(4): Nunavut Nursing Recruitment and Retention Strategy (Aglukkaq) 2529
268 – 2(4): Sanikiluaq Honours the Memory of Fallen RCMP Officer (Kattuk) 2530
269 – 2(4): Grade One Classes in Cambridge Bay (Peterson) 2531
270 – 2(4): Facing the Challenges of the Future (Tootoo) 2532
271 – 2(4): Nunavut Elders’ Gathering to Meet Members of the Legislative Assembly (Curley) 2533
272 – 2(4): Birthday Greetings for November 11 Celebrants (Brown) 2534
273 – 2(4): Greetings to Constituents of Gjoa Haven and Taloyoak (Aglukkaq) 2535
274 – 2(4): Update on Weather Forecasting (Picco) 2535
345 – 2(4): Assistance to Locate Graves Down South (Arvaluk) 2536
346 – 2(4): Oversight of Crown Agencies (Curley) 2538
347 – 2(4): Records Requested in 2006-07 Information and Privacy Commissioner (Tootoo) 2540
348 – 2(4): Marshalling of Qulliq Energy Corporation Supplies/Materials (Barnabas) 2541
349 – 2(4): Need for New Dozer in Sanikiluaq (Kattuk) 2542
350 – 2(4): Director of Devolution and Status of Negotiations (Peterson) 2543
351 – 2(4): Ability of Employees Purchasing Canada Savings Bond Through Payroll (Arvaluk) 2546
352 – 2(4): Missing Documents at the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation (Tootoo) 2547
353 – 2(4): Review Board of Directors at the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation (Curley) 2548
354 – 2(4): Negotiations – James Bay Cree (Kattuk) 2551
355 – 2(4): Miramar Newmont Training Initiatives (Peterson) 2551
356 – 2(4): Timing of Awareness of Responses in Auditor General Report (Tootoo) 2554
002 – 2(4): Pond Inlet Arena (Arvaluk) 2556
006 – 2(4): Bill 13 “Nunavut Energy Efficiency Act” (Tootoo) 2557
007 – 2(4): Bill 12 “Emergency Measures Act” (Curley) 2559
156 – 2(4): Standing Committee Ajauqtiit Review of Bill 6, Official Languages Act and Bill 7, Inuit Language Protection Act – Transcripts from the Public Hearings October 18 to 19, 2007 (Mapsalak) 2559
157 – 2(4): FANS – Materials Concerning the Auditor General’s Report (Tootoo) 2559
009 – 2(4): Bill 16 – Delete $200,000 from Taloyoak Health Centre Project # 500239 (Barnabas) 2588
010 – 2(4): Bill 16 – Repulse Bay Health Centre Replacement Be Moved Forward (Barnabas) 2598
011 – 2(4): Bill 16 – Arctic Bay Health Centre Replacement Be Moved Forward (Barnabas) 2598
022 – 2(4): Northern Residents Deduction – Notice (Peterson) 2560
022 – 2(4): Northern Residents Deduction (Peterson) 2560
023 – 2(4): Motion to Refer Bill 13 to Committee of the Whole (Picco) 2565
Bill 22 – Engineers and Geoscientists Act – Second Reading 2566
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee – Health & Social Services 2567
Bill 14 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – Consideration in Committee 2622
Bill 15 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – Consideration in Committee 2622
Bill 17 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2006-2007 – Consideration in Committee 2622
Bill 19 – An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2 – Consideration in Committee 2635
Bill 12 – Emergency Measures Act – Consideration in Committee 2638
Bill 18 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Related Statutes – Consideration in Committee 2645
Bill 12 – Emergency Measures Act – Third Reading 2650
Bill 14 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – Third Reading 2651
Bill 15 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – Third Reading 2651
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2008-2009 – Third Reading 2651
Bill 17 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2006-2007 – Third Reading 2651
Bill 19 – An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2 – Third Reading 2652
Bill 18 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Related Statutes – Third Reading 2652
Bill 04 – Workers’ Compensation Act – Assent 2652
Bill 12 – Emergency Measures Act – Assent 2652
Bill 14 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – Assent 2652
Bill 15 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2007-2008 – Assent 2652
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2008-2009 – Assent 2652
Bill 17 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2006-2007 – Assent 2652
Bill 18 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Related Statutes – Assent 2652
Bill 19 – An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2 – Assent 2653
Speaker (Hon. Peter Kilabuk)(interpretation): Members, let us pray.
Speaker (interpretation): Good day, Mr. Premier, Ministers, and Members.
Minister’s Statement 124 – 2(4): Nunavut Nursing Recruitment and Retention Strategy (Aglukkaq)
Mr. Speaker, through our new Nunavut Nursing Recruitment and Retention Strategy, we shall strive to address the major challenges of attracting and maintaining a trained, motivated, stable nursing workforce, serving all of Nunavut communities.
Because of the scope of the challenges, the Department of Health and Social Services will be working in full partnership with the Department of Education and Nunavut Arctic College to foster a local nursing workforce as the long-term goal.
I am pleased to inform you that the strategy is now complete and officials are moving forward with its staged implementation.
Mr. Speaker, the strategy consists of a number of elements to improve Human Resource practices.
We want to ensure that the new nurses receive a full orientation by senior staff and that they have access to ongoing support.
As well, we are exploring options for voluntary rotations in remote communities and increased work schedule flexibility.  Professional development, education, and training of our nursing team is a continuing priority of the department.
Mr. Speaker, as we strengthen our nursing workforce, we lessen our dependency on agency nurses.