EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
On average, a new project is normally around $90 million or so. Where are we going to find extra money for the new projects that we plan for the next coming years unless these projects are completed and free up capital dollars that we would need for the future?
Mr. Chairman, just to allay Mr. Curley’s concerns, these are all cash flow. The funding for these projects is budgeted from our annual allocation of the territorial formula financing.
So projects that would be approved in the fall for 2013-14 will come out of the funding that we receive in the appropriate fiscal year through the TFF.
So it’s all a matter of cash flow, and then monitoring projects and making sure that they don’t go over budget, and maintaining good project management.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation) Are there any more general comments to the opening comments? Mr. Elliott.
I thought I had finished asking questions, but with some of the comments that Mr. Peterson had made about the funds being tied to federal funds, I was just wondering: have we lost any funds?
My understanding is that if we don’t build them by a certain date, if it’s a 25-75 split and if we don’t finish it by certain dates, then we actually have to come up with that 75 percent.
To date, have we lost any funds to that type of situation?
Not to my knowledge, but we realized early on that, with respect to the BCF, if you wanted to transfer funds between one fiscal year, it wasn’t permissible. So we changed the process; we approved all of the projects in one fiscal year.
Going forward over a construction period of two to three years, if all the Building Canada projects were approved in the same fiscal year, then you could transfer funds from one project to another.
If you’re going to have some savings in one project, then you can use it on the other projects approved in the same fiscal year.
Are you confident that we will be able to meet the deadlines for all the other outstanding projects that are on the list?
Unfortunately, I’m the finance manager, so I’m not out there with my hammer and nails. I have been assured by my colleague who is responsible for all of the projects that the projects are moving along and they will be completed.
Like I said, they’re multi-year projects. There are issues that we have to deal with because of our unique situation in Nunavut, construction seasons, and barge seasons, and so on, labour shortages, and other issues.
I’m fairly confident that we will complete the projects.
You had mentioned, in regard to Mr. Curley’s concerns, about not having enough to do new projects and you had mentioned that it’s all through the territorial formula financing.
I understand that and see how it’s sort of safeguarded year after year.
In terms of negotiating new finance formulas, I know when we had you before us in the past, you were talking about doing different negotiations on different formula financing and talking to finance ministers, as well as the federal finance minister.
As Mr. Curley pointed out, we’re carrying over about as much money as we usually allocate on an annual basis for our total allocation for capital funding.
At some point, is the federal government going to look back and say, “Well, why are we giving you this much money if you can’t produce the infrastructure to be able to maintain that”? Has that discussion come up at all?
Mr. Chairman, not to my knowledge, and we do have good dialogue with Finance Canada. We tell Finance Canada the same information that we tell the members about carryovers and capital projects.
Office of the Legislative Assembly. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Assembly Operations.
Total Assembly Operations. $2,375,000. Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $2,375,000.
I was a little slow on that draw there.
My question is in regard to the Nunavut Arctic College Grise Fiord Community Learning Centre, the $50,000 that was carried over. Again, I hope my thinking is correct on this. This was $50,000 that was, I think, carried over from another carryover and it is for the Grise Fiord Hamlet Office once the community centre and new hamlet office are constructed.
I’m just concerned because in asking the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College in the past in this House whether the $50,000 and the work was done, my understanding is it’s for assessing what needs to be done within the hamlet office to make it accessible to the public for a community learning centre.
I was told that that was done.
So I’m assuming that the $50,000 was spent, but now it’s back here again.
So this $50,000 was spent in the past on doing the feasibility study and the initial planning and now this is an additional $50,000, so it’s $100,000 or is it just the $50,000 and I was sort of misled in where the money was spent or not spent in the past?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) I don’t think it was a matter of you being too slow on the draw; I think you were too fast on the draw because I don’t think we have gone to that page yet.
We weren’t quite done with page 4.  >>Laughter
I hate to tell you, but you might have to ask, retract, agree, and then ask again, if I may, Mr. Elliott.  Back to page 4.
My question to you was: Total Department. $2,375,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Page 5. (interpretation) Finance. Capital.
Total Centrally Administered Funds. $2,902,000.
If the minister wants, I could repeat my question, but if he doesn’t need me to, I will... .
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) Mr. Peterson, if you are willing and able to answer the previous question.
My memory span is short, but not that short.
Mr. Chairman, it was quite a story Mr. Elliott told.
I wasn’t quite sure how to follow it, but the briefing note I have, it says that there’s a carryover of $50,000. I’ll read exactly what I have been told here in the briefing note, and he can trust the briefing notes, of course.
The project has been delayed because of delays for the construction of the new hamlet office. This project is a proposed renovation of the existing Grise Fiord Hamlet Office. The initiation and planning for this project will be conducted this fiscal year.
So that’s the information I have.
I guess the minister could correct me if I’m wrong.
The initiation and planning of the project has not actually happened.
That’s what he has in his briefing note.
Yes, and I have to trust that the people who are putting this information together had provided us with correct information.
Again, I do remember asking the minister in the past about this.
To me, once the initiation and planning is done, with that planning, you would possibly need an allocation of more money to do renovations to actually make the building adequate for a community learning centre. So I don’t know if the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College could explain what the plan is in the future.
The bottom line of what I’m concerned about and what I think the residents in Grise Fiord are concerned about is education is very important to them.
There is a really high standard of education in the community and they want to be able to provide quality programs through the community learning centre. They are using rented space right now and are under the impression that once the community hall and the hamlet office is constructed, then the planning goes hand in hand with the community learning centre that would be opening around the same time.
In terms of the capital planning process, you have to have the initiation and planning, and then after the planning, you have to have the money allocated for actually doing any renovations.
That hasn’t happened. It was my understanding that the initial planning was already done so that the construction could happen at the same time, so that the CLC was ready to go, so that learning could continue in the community.
So if the minister responsible could give me an update so that I can then go back and tell the community of Grise Fiord what’s actually happening.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliott for his question. Mr. Chairman, the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College would like to answer that question.
The way he has put the question is a little confusing, but I assure him that there’s not two $50,000 pots.
This is for the initiation and planning stage of the learning centre. That has not taken place yet.
If you sense that you got a different message from me, I apologize for that. It is going to be happening this year.
As you well know, being from the community, that this all is dependent upon a new hamlet office being constructed in the community and Nunavut Arctic College taking over that space and doing the planning and designing for that space to see what needs to be done.
I can assure you that this project is going to be carried out. It’s important.
I think what’s important to also state here is that I agree with my colleague that we all would like to see community learning centres in all communities, but in the interim, we’re doing our best and we do supply adult learning in communities.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under Nunavut Arctic College, Rankin Inlet, I would like to know what HEO simulator is, which costs $836,000.
I believe that is the heavy equipment operator simulator that was approved last year.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation) We’re on page 5.
Finance. Capital.
Centrally Administered Funds. Total Centrally Administered Funds. $2,902,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $2,902,000.
Justice. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Directorate. Total Directorate. $216,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Corrections. Total Corrections. $4,373,000.
I was just wondering if we can get an update as to what exactly that $4,373,000 is going to.
Maybe I’m mistaken in what I’m hearing, obviously earlier, with me not listening to the proper line item being talked to. Obviously, I don’t always hear things the way they come out.
My understanding was that this facility was supposed to be open and operational in September 2011, then it was pushed to November, then it was pushed to January, and then it was pushed to June or July to actually open. Training was supposed to go on.
Why is there still $4 million worth of work left to be done on the building if it was supposed to be open almost a year ago?
I thank Mr. Elliott for the question and his concerns.
I understand, being the former Minister of Justice, we did think it would be finished last year. Unfortunately, there were some delays.
The information that I have before me is related to carryovers requested, the $4,373,000, but that would be for warranty inspections and if there are any deficiencies identified from the construction company that have to be completed this current fiscal year.
There is some seasonal work that has to be incorporated into the contract or is pending…(inaudible)…receptacles, some changes to the mechanical room, and then there’s a purchase of building equipment and furniture.
Page 6. Total Corrections. $4,373,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $4,589,000.
Total Corporate Services. $6,539,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $6,539,000.
Total Directorate. $24,199,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $24,199,000.
Total Program Management. $3,429,000.
Total Department. $3,429,000.
On page 10, I have a question that is not into finances, but I’m asking questions in regard to Rankin Inlet’s new arena.
On page 2 of 4 of your substantiation sheets, the figure seems to be different when we’re just talking about the arena.
In the (interpretation ends) new arena community hall building, new arena, renovate existing community hall into arena space, and new arena, future community hall addition. (interpretation) I believe my colleagues remember that we made a motion to oppose the proposal for a multi-purpose complex.
It seems like in the substantiation sheets, it elaborates not only for the use of the arena.
Mr. Chairman, I need clarification. Are we just talking about an arena or are we talking about another complex? $500,000 is quite huge to get an arena in Rankin Inlet.
I want everyone to know that I’m not against the community obtaining the arena.
I do have a grandchild living in Rankin Inlet who plays ice hockey there. I would just like to get clarification.
I’m not opposing the proposal here.  I just want to point out that the information on page 10 here and the substantiation sheets vary.
I just need further clarification and I know that the funding has been approved in the past, (interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Thank you.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Ningeongan for the question.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Community and Government Services has signalled that he would like to respond to that question.
I believe we’re looking at different information here.
Under the substantiation sheet that I have, it has not been changed from the previous for design.
I only know of the design of the hockey arena.
This line item was approved last year and this line item is going to be used for the same purpose.
With regard to future planning, that’s not part of that. We told our department that we’re requesting (interpretation ends) planning and design for an arena only. (interpretation)That’s my understanding.
Perhaps in the future, the Minister of Finance can take it into consideration. I believe it’s going to be ideal to have substantiation sheets and the supplementary appropriation information be correlated together and that they support each other rather than having different information.
That’s why I wanted to ask for clarification.
If we’re going to have a supplementary appropriation, the information that is contained in the supplementary appropriation should be exactly the same as the ones in the substantiation sheet.
We would then have fewer questions when they correlate.
I understand Minister Kusugak’s statement that the intent has not been changed; I just want everything to be the same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. Just to let Minister Kusugak know that regular members have that information in their substantiation sheet. Thank you for elaborating further that nothing has been changed, but according to the substantiation sheets we had questions on, perhaps they provided us with incomplete substantiation sheets. (interpretation ends) Mr. Peterson, did you have a comment on this?
The Department of Finance receives a lot of information in preparation for capital carryovers.
This particular capital substantiation was May 17, 2012.
If you look on page 3 of 4, it does say $99,000 and it does correlate with the number that’s here, the $99,000.
We will take Mr. Ningeongan’s advice under consideration in the future.
I just want to make a comment.
In the members’ projects, I believe I don’t want to make changes to old projects.
If there’s going to be a new project, then we deem it as a new project with this $568,000.
We cannot stop the community from amending or updating their buildings. If the building is a fire hazard or if it needs modernization, I believe that we don’t have to delay any projects that are required.
I know that in Rankin Inlet, the community hall is over 30 years old and it will need to be renovated in a few years.
I don’t know if they can do it all together. In regard to the motion that was passed, I would like to see the motion, if at all possible.
I would like to see that it doesn’t require any amendment or if it’s to stay the same.
I think that was just a comment, not a question.
Please direct me, Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I don’t believe the motion says that if it’s old, it does not say it should not be renovated.
The multi-complex had to have an Olympic-size swimming pool, but that you wanted design only for the arena, and this is what the $568,000 is for.
There’s an old building, however, in our community. Perhaps in the future, are you going to stop that (interpretation ends) during the term of the Assembly?
(interpretation) I don’t believe the motion is worded that way. So therefore, through you, Mr. Chairman, I would request that you table the motion so that all the committee members can see it.
I think Mr. Kusugak would like to respond. Mr. Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Chairman, (interpretation) in regard to Mr. Curley’s comments, I believe them.
Sometimes it gets confusing from left to right, but the funding we’re talking about, the $568,000, is for Rankin Inlet’s water pipeline.
We’re talking about $99,000 for Rankin Inlet’s hockey arena design.
That part hasn’t changed, as Mr. Ningeongan has stated. Also, they are exactly the same as in the motion that was passed last winter.
However, what you’re referencing is the passageway between the community hall and the arena. The subject here is just the water piping system.
I believe that it is now quite clear to Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for that clarification, Minister Kusugak.
Just to clarify, the original amount was $500,000, so $401,000 has been spent in the last fiscal year on this project.
It would mean we’re carrying over $99,000 for this fiscal year.
As the member opposite the minister, Member for Nanulik, stated, these funds for the renovation of older buildings seem to be specifically mentioned.
I don’t recall that motion including that reference to renovations. At least that is what I thought I heard the member say when he was talking about the substantiation sheet.
If that is the case, I don’t recall the motion as mentioning renovation of older buildings.
In order to clear that up, the motion should be read for our benefit while we are in Committee of the Whole.
Can we concur, since Minister Kusugak provided clarification, as well as Minister Peterson, that we agree on the matter?
Does the member believe that the previous motion should be tabled and read to the committee? Let me ask that question to members.
It seemed there were attempts to clarify this matter. Is this matter still muddy enough that we should read the old motion? Mr. Curley.
Perhaps if the Member for Nanulik can clarify whether or not he agrees with the substantiation sheets and if it should include renovations, as I thought he referred to that.
That is why I mentioned that as that was my assumption. The motion, as per the Minister of Community and Government Services’ comments, does not include that word.
What I’m worried about, as a regular member for Rankin Inlet, is if the motion also stopped renovations from occurring. I would be in complete disagreement and that is why I wanted the motion tabled for our benefit.
This motion will have to be reworded because the entrance becomes dangerous when a blizzard strikes, especially for elders, as it becomes extremely slippery since it faces north. It is quite obvious that this will have to be renovated in order to lessen the danger in light of the building’s age.
I’m just trying to clarify that.
If the motion included renovations, then it would be problematic.
I want to mention that I was involved in the drafting of that motion.
I believe I can be truthful in my recollection that the motion did not mention that subject. However, if the member believes the motion should be read here, I am only confused about the best manner to table the old motion. Nonetheless, having been part of the group, I believe I am being truthful when I state that this word was not included.
At this time, I want to allow Mr. Ningeongan an opportunity to clarify his previous comments on the matter.
Sometimes it feels as if I am going to be called a minister.
The motion that we passed specified a standalone arena. That much is obvious.
However, the substantiation sheet information that was provided to members is what I was talking about.
I’m not trying to make it difficult or to stop it, but if regular members could take a look at the sheet under CGS, if you open it to the page titled, “Rankin Inlet,” under Community and Government Services, (interpretation ends) talks about, “…renovate the existing community hall,” (interpretation) that’s what I was talking about.
The other figure of $500,000 which was previously approved is not even part of my question.
I just wanted to understand where these amounts came from and Minister Kusugak was kind enough to elaborate on the details. I wanted to say that I could agree with that since the motion was just speaking to a new arena at that time.
Yes, there is a little bit of confusion and I might be contributing to it, so I have asked my deputy to provide some clarity.
He works with these numbers all the time and he assures me that he can bring clarity to the debate.
Mr. D’Arcy, if you’re so brave, please clarify.
No pressure there. Mr. Chairman, we’re dealing with a couple of fiscal years in this case. In the very beginning, there was $100,000 that was dedicated to this project to take a look at what was going on and that was in the 2011-12 fiscal year.
So members would have looked at it in the capital plan in 2010.
At the time, the substantiation sheet that is included in your packages today was the substantiation sheet that had all of the information in it with respect to the bigger facility.
Members will remember that when we talked about the capital plan for 2012-13, there was concern with the $500,000 and the rather larger facility.
That was removed and then we brought back a supplementary appropriation that clarified it with an additional substantiation sheet that showed only the arena.
We’re now talking about capital carryovers because the department was not able to use the $100,000 from two cycles ago that was originally intended for this project.
Because of that, the department included the original capital substantiation sheet in this book as opposed to going back and redoing this so that it equalled exactly what the members were talking about for the $500,000.
There is no intent to change anything.
The only difference is that this sheet was the exact sheet that members approved at the time the $100,000 was approved. So for clarity, we could have gone back and adjusted to reflect the current reality. Unfortunately we didn’t.
Hopefully that clears it up.
Mr. Ningeongan, do you have anything else on that?
That was the point I was trying to make earlier. If you had provided me that today, there would be less confusion because, at the bottom of this page, revised on 5/24/2012, I had to rely on that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. (interpretation ends) Point taken.
On the same note of what Mr. Ningeongan was talking about, it looks like he said that we have to work with the information that was provided to us and the minister responsible said that there’s a different substantiation sheet.
My only question is: can we be provided with a copy of the new substantiation sheet for our records?
Hon. Keith Peterson: I think we can.
Minister Kusugak is shaking his head.
As I said, the information is changing all the time. We get a lot of information.
So I apologize for what has occurred today, but we will make sure it’s corrected.
I tried to keep track of the names on my list, but I apologize if it’s not in exact order.
The next one is Ms. Ugyuk.
We were a little bit confused. I also remember that it was just directed only for the arena.
We’re not being affected.
It was moved by a motion.
I think that’s just a comment.
Page 10. Community and Government Services. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Page 11. Community and Government Services.
Not Previously Authorized. On page 12. Community and Government Services.
Total Capital Planning. $39,073,000.
Petroleum Products Division. Total Petroleum Products Division. $7,199,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $46,272,000.
Transportation. Go to page 14.
Economic Development and Transportation. Capital. Not Previously Authorized.
Transportation. Total Transportation. $12,081,000. Do you agree?
Let me repeat. Total Transportation. $12,081,000. Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Total Department. $12,081,000.
We will go back to page 2.
Schedule 1. Capital. Total Capital Appropriation. $102,386,000.