EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I give notice that on Thursday, May 29, 2008, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Quttiktuq, that Peter Kattuk, Member for Hudson Bay, be appointed a Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 34 – Nunavut Outfitters Liability Protection Fund Act – Notice
I give notice that on Thursday, May 29, 2008, I will move that Bill 34, the Nunavut Outfitters Liability Protection Fund Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 31 – Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 – Notice
I give notice that on Thursday, May 29, 2008, I will move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that Bill 31, the Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be read for the first time.
Bill 32 – An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act, No. 2 – Notice
I give notice that on Thursday, May 29, 2008, I will move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act, No. 2, be read for the first time.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Item 15.
If there are no more, Item 16. Motions.
Motion 038 – 2(4): Appointment of Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole (Mapsalak)
Mr. Mapsalak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues.
WHEREAS sections 42 and 43 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act provide for the appointment of a Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairpersons of the Committee of the Whole;
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly is prepared to make an appointment;
Item 19. Consideration in the Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Bills 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 with Mr. Arreak in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:32 and Committee resumed at 15:59
Chairman (Mr. Arreak)(interpretation): Thank you for returning. (interpretation ends) In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 29 and the supporting documents, followed by the review of Bill 30 and Bill 28.
Are we in agreement we first continue with Bill 29?
Is the committee agreed that Minister Tapardjuk and his staff can go to the witness table?
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister and his officials in.
(interpretation ends) Thank you. Minister, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
On my left is Peter Ma, my Deputy Minister for the Department of Finance, and on my right is Diane Moebis, Manager of Budgeting Development with our Expenditure Management Division.
We are on page 5 of the capital estimates.
Bill 29, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2008-2009.
We had Mr. Alagalak asking questions where we left off yesterday.
The last question I had was not responded to by the minister.
I was asking about the Nunavut Heritage Centre and the amount of $2,774,000 that you are requesting was agreed to last year and it was carried over from last year.
There must be a breakdown of that amount of money and what it’s going to be used for.
I would like the breakdown of that amount. Do you have that information now and do you have any funding allotted for the design and others?
We thought that we had lost the money we had planned to spend. As it turns out, we want those funds to be carried over from last year and use them as seed money now that we have a contract in place with a firm to do fund-raising.
We also have a working group comprised of members from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Heritage Trust, as well as from the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth. The working group is in existence right now and the money that we’re requesting for this year is mainly for continuing the search for more funding.
We now have an agreement to collectively come up with $20 million in funding and so we have been working hard to raise funds for the Nunavut Heritage Centre.
That is what the funding is earmarked for, Mr. Chairman.
This project is going to continue for some time and it’s going to cost a lot of money. With everything becoming very expensive, such as fuel, oil, gasoline, and construction materials, the contract for the construction of the heritage centre will most likely increase significantly.
How will you use the funds that you are asking us to approve? What are you going to be using that amount of money for? Would you be able to provide some information to this House on what kinds of things you are going to use it for?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will be able to provide you with the information on the breakdown of the amount of money and what it’s going to be used for. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I asked a question already, but I will have questions when we get to the capital estimates of CGS.
I would like to ask the minister some questions on the two things that we’re looking at right now, one being the Nunavut Heritage Centre.
You have contracted a firm to raise funds for this with your other hat.
Has that firm informed you of any funding sources besides NTI at the moment?
The federal government will have to be asked for some funding as well because they originally agreed to provide some funding.
We would like to be able to use the money wisely and we expect that the federal government will be able to provide some funding for the Nunavut Heritage Centre, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, if you could get the minister to provide more detail.
Have you found some more funding sources and who could be potential contributors?
I’m sure there are a number of sources out there waiting to be approached.
Is the firm that you have contracted to look for more funding achieved any success to date?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, the firm that we have a contract with has had success and know what is needed.
They have met two times and have given us a report on the planning that they have put together.
We anticipate that building the Nunavut Heritage Centre will be quite expensive. If we can obtain more funding from the Nunavut government, we feel that would facilitate finding third party funding.
If we already have some funding in place, we feel that we could leverage more funding from third parties.
We have prepared plans on how we will find more funding and the firm that we have contracted is doing a great job.
I would like to ask the minister: yesterday there was a question from one of the members in the House and the minister stated that it might reach $65,000 and possibly more.
For that reason, $5 million seems like a lot of money for planning and design.
Where are you at with the planning and design of this project?
We had a consultant working on the design of that project, which was Lord Consultant.
They drafted the initial designs and the cost estimates, so we’re considering those at this time.
We have been looking at the project to see whether we could build it for less, perhaps build it in phases - build the storage spaces first and once that’s completed, we would build the display areas and the areas where visitors would go.
Those are the types of things that we have been looking at and we feel that this project has to start as soon as possible, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to get some clarification. The people who are looking for funding, are they solely looking for contributions or do they have to decide on whether or not there can be investors for the project?
I know that there has to be legislation in place in order to have investments. If there is no legislation, they have to be able to borrow funds from elsewhere.
It’s going to cost about $50 million or $65 million, so it would appear that fund-raising alone would not result in sufficient funds.
So I wonder what the minister’s thoughts are on including an investment component.
It appears that they can include an investment component in there but only if it’s identified in legislation.
The working group comprised of NTI, Heritage Trust, and the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth are constantly looking at sources of funding.
I’m sure that they’re doing the best that they can to try to do some planning to build the heritage centre.
They have given us some information for our consideration on the Nunavut Heritage Centre project, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned earlier that even if there is no legislation, the government said that the project would continue.
As I just stated, having investors for the project would really help to expedite this project. You should amend legislation, policies, or guidelines to be able to do that because I think there are individuals waiting for you to see how it will be set up and it would expedite everything else.
Yesterday, I asked a question on an issue separate from this particular question, the $14 million for the folk school.
We were told that there has to be a process in place and priorities set, in other words, we have to have legislation in place.
It’s apparent that the lack of plans and legislation in place is holding up the heritage centre project. Are you consulting with your staff to ensure that there is a governance structure in place for the Nunavut Heritage Centre?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you. The working group is looking at whether the heritage centre is going to have its own board members, what that structure is going to be with that board, if it’s going to be at arms-length from the government, and how it will be operated.
The working group will be making a presentation to us. Once that presentation is given, we will seek Cabinet approval for the operation of the heritage centre and whether or not it’s going to be run by a board. All of that is being reviewed by the working group.
They will then provide us with recommendations on the best way to set it up, so that’s what we’re waiting for. Once we receive their report, we will have to seek approval of Cabinet on how the heritage centre will be operated, who will run it, and where the members will come from. All those structures will be within that, Mr. Chairman.
Can I ask the minister, if he could respond, I would appreciate it, when does he expect to have the governance structure completed for the Nunavut Heritage Centre?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I believe the working group will be able to provide us with a governance structure some time within this fiscal year, 2008-09.
The funding that we want to utilize is going to be very useful for planning purposes, Mr. Chairman.
We’re on (interpretation ends) page 5.
Total Directorate. $10,864,000.
Total Department. $10,864,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Page 6 and 7. (interpretation) They are together. (interpretation ends) Department.
Capital. Corporate Services.
Not Previously Authorized. $45,486,000.
Total Corporate Services. $45,486,000.
Total Department. $45,486,000.
Page 8. Health and Social Services.
Perhaps just for clarification purposes, I am not sure about page 8 regarding the (interpretation ends) Pond Inlet - Health Centre Replacement for $40,000.
How do you replace a health centre for $40,000? I don’t know.
The health centre is only five years old and five years ago, it cost approximately $14 million.
Can you explain to me a little bit more on how you will replace a health centre $40,000?
I will have the Minister of Health and Social Services Minister to respond. Ms. Aglukkaq.
I believe the title of that is just a continuation of how it was described in the capital estimates when the project started.
The $40,000 is being carried over to finish off the roof and the building deficiencies that we were not able to complete in the 2007-08 main estimates, so we’re carrying it over to this fiscal year to finish it off.
So I understand then that the health centre, when it’s still new, has deficiencies.
An example, it’s the same design as Igloolik; Pond Inlet has the same design and has the same deficiencies. They tore up the whole side and worked on the insulation and piping or something along that line, the electrical, so I guess the design is okay.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Mr. Arvaluk, are you finished? (interpretation ends) Page 8.
Health and Social Services. Capital. Directorate.
I would like to ask a question that is not contained in here, if I could ask my question with your indulgence.
Mr. Chairman, for many years now, there have been complaints made annually with regards to the elders’ 24-hour care facility in Baker Lake being too hot in the spring and summer.
The building is so hot for the elders and the windows that can open are about this size, they are very small. They have made complaints about this issue many times.
What’s the status of it? Have you looked into that? It’s not written in the capital estimates.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Simailak. (interpretation ends) Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Aglukkaq.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Chairman, we’re dealing with the supplementary bills for existing projects, not any new projects at this point in time.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Are we going to be dealing with supplementary appropriations so that Mr. Simailak’s question can be answered?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I don’t quite understand what the question is. Can he clarify his question, Mr. Chairman?
If I can read the page we’re on, Health and Social Services. At the top, it says, “Government of Nunavut.” At the bottom, it says, “2008-09 Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) No. 1.”
As the Health Minister said, when we start dealing with supplementary appropriations, then she will be able to respond to that question.
What we’re dealing with has the same title.
I saw a health centre replacement for $40,000. Perhaps it’s the same explanation because they’re using the old title from the first time and we’re just doing the carryover, so I would like a response on that.
Please provide clarification, Minister Aglukkaq.
My response related to the fact that in the description for the supplementary appropriation for capital, it states under Directorate, “to provide funding of $13 million for the carryover of project money from the previous fiscal year,” and so, to answer the situation related to Pond Inlet, my response to his original question was we’re carrying over old money into the new fiscal year to finish off the Pond Inlet Health Facility.
Now, the member’s question from Baker Lake related to new capital projects, which is not part of the carryover supplementary bills and I don’t have that information. I do know that the capital estimates for 2008-09 were discussed and debated in the legislature in November.
So that was my response to the member from Baker Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) Health and Social Services.
Total Directorate. $13,279,000.
Total Department. $13,279,000.
Total Program Management. Special Warrants. $1,463,000.
Chairman: Not Previously Authorized. $272,000.
Chairman: Total Department. Special Warrants. $1,463,000.
Not Previously Authorized. $272,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Page 10 and 11.
Community and Government Services. Capital Planning.
On page 10, Capital Planning, Community and Government Services, Capital, on the second line, it says, “Gjoa Haven - Emergency Water Line Repairs.”
My question is: for $907,000, if it’s an emergency, why is it carried over? Why didn’t you deal with the emergency right away if it was an emergency?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation) I’ll have the Minister of Community and Government Services respond to that question. Minister Brown.
We have to use this funding for emergency work and… just a moment. I don’t understand why it was carried over, but there was emergency work in December and we had to utilize the funding in Gjoa Haven.
If it was an emergency in December, in Gjoa Haven, then why do we say, “To provide funding of $7,716,000 for the carryover of the following capital projects”? On the bottom it says, “The net effect on government operations will be nil, as funding is being transferred from prior year capital appropriations.”
I understand the minister’s answer is that something happened in December in Gjoa Haven where we had to do some work real quick and we spent $907,000. It seems to...
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for waking me up.
It seems that there is a conflict between the minister’s answer and this page.
Perhaps the Minister of Finance can help me understand that.
Was there emergency spending required, and if so, why is it called a “carryover”?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have my deputy, Mr. Ma, respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.
As the member himself just put it, it was an emergency that needed to be dealt with in I think early January.
At the time, it was dealt with and the repairs were done.
The reason why it shows as a carryover is that there were no monies in place for this particular project, so it was approved to put money towards fixing the water line problem and because of that, we need to bring forward what’s called a carryover or sup bill to deal with that particular amount of $907,000.
To my knowledge and recollection, that water line repair has been dealt with as of today.
For Resolute Bay, the immediate repairs requirement, $109,000, is a similar situation in Gjoa Haven; that money had to be spent.
If so, why is it not listed under Special Warrants and not as a carryover?
Actually, there were a number of emergency repairs that all occurred right around the same time. Resolute Bay and Gjoa Haven were two that occurred at the same time.
Because there were no monies in place for those two particular projects, we approved the money and now, we’re coming to the House to get the supplementary appropriation for those two particular repairs.
Then if there are other sup bills on this page that I did not catch, it simply doesn’t say emergency or immediate repairs requirement. There may be some others, for example, in Arviat - Maintenance Shop Fire Damage.
Was that also money that had to be found right away before the Legislative Assembly opened for $182,000?
Can these be listed in a different category so that I’m not fooled, or my constituents are not fooled, that these were monies that was not spent last year and called carryovers, maybe for future reference, when we are dealing with capitals?
It’s very hard to identify which one is new money that is needed and which one had money but had to be carried over because the work was not done.
It is very hard for me to tell the difference, it’s so bad I guess I can’t tell the difference.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have my deputy also respond to that question.
Chairman (interpretation). Thank you, Minister.
I do have to check my recollection but we may have brought some of this forward in the February-March sitting in the case of Gjoa Haven and Resolute Bay.
I do believe there was a sup bill for 2007-08 and I think we actually identified it at that time, but because of the short timeframe between the end of the fiscal year and when that sup bill was brought forward, I believe that’s why it’s a carryover.
I would have to check my memory.
But that said, the member does raise a very good point in terms of the descriptions and I do have to apologize on behalf of the department.
We normally, as you know, have these sup bills near the tail end of our proceedings here, but we’re at the front end, so we were a little bit pressed for time, I do apologize to the member. We will make a better effort to identify those types of situations in the future to the House.
I appreciate that answer and perhaps I should have been with the substantiation sheet and maybe it’s explained there, but sometimes it’s not there either.
So it’s fairly important that we get these columns of different categories and what the importance is, and what money is needed for emergencies and what was not done last year that had to be carried over, etcetera.
My last question, Mr. Chairman, is on the Pond Inlet Community Hall.
I think the minister will appreciate that he came to Pond Inlet with our invitation. We really appreciated his attendance there when we opened the new community hall because it was completed.
However, there is a carryover of $71,000 from the previous year.
Is that for the new baseball diamond I have been barking about?
If not, there was a gentleman’s agreement between the hamlet and the government that if the government were to build a community hall on the baseball diamond, then they would build a new baseball diamond beside the school.
We have been waiting for a baseball diamond for two years now and it’s very important for the community, not just young people but adults, too, especially young people in the spring and summer, there is adult participation by coaching, the RCMP and other adults are doing that, to help the kids with their summer community activities.
Can she clarify to me what this $71,000 is for? Will the baseball diamond be funded elsewhere and on which page will that be listed under?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. We’re on page 10 and 11. If you have any questions on page 10 and 11, please feel free to ask.
I will have the (interpretation ends) Minister of Community and Government Services (interpretation) respond to your question. Ms. Brown.
With regards to your question, this figure of $71,000 was used by CGS to pay for the contractor and the contractor has been paid.
For your other question regarding the baseball diamond, I clearly remember that there was an agreement between the government and the hamlet to build a baseball diamond.
It is currently in the works and we will identify where the baseball diamond will be located this coming summer. The regional staff is currently working with the people of Pond Inlet to identify where the baseball diamond will be located.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Just for further clarity, I believe there was a gentleman’s agreement between Community and Government Services and the hamlet.
When the minister arrived to our community, the hamlet didn’t mind if the baseball diamond was built in front of the school.
Has there been a change of plans?
You’re indicating that you’re looking at where it would be located and you said that the regional staff is currently up there looking for an appropriate location. Has there been a change in the agreement?
The information that I have from my briefing notes and from the staff from CGS is that the community of Pond Inlet had requested funding to assist in building a new baseball diamond this summer.
The department had agreed to this request and will work with the community to locate a site and build a new baseball diamond for community recreation use.
(interpretation) It will be up to the people of Pond Inlet as to where the location of the baseball diamond will be. CGS will be working with the hamlet council, and once we find out where the location will be and if it’s approved or agreed to, I would most certainly go along with it.
I will approve of it as long as it’s not on top of the runway.
Of course, it will cost money and I’m sure that it is going to be a small amount.
It will have to show up somewhere in the supplementary appropriation.
Where will the figure be written on Page 10 or 11?
I asked a question as to why the figures weren’t here. I was told that it was under $30,000 and it would be under small capital.
Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) Pages 10 and 11.
Community and Government Services. Capital Planning. Not Previously Authorized.
A quick comment first that the Pond Inlet Community Hall for $71,000, I believe that the warranty expenditure was $71,000. It’s warranty for one year maybe or five years. To build a baseball diamond, it’s $30,000.
It seems like it’s cheaper than the paperwork.
On page 11, is that similar? Maybe I should ask the Minister of Finance, Qikiqtarjuaq - Fuel Spill, we didn’t clean it up right away and we’re going to clean it up this year for $46,000.
Is that the similar explanation that we cleaned it up when we had no money, so we’re now asking you for $40,000 but we are calling it a carryover?
My recollection with respect to Qikiqtarjuaq is because it’s under $50,000 and the money hasn’t been spent, we have to specifically bring it back in the House because it’s under $50,000 to carry it forward into the next fiscal year.