EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In some markets we have seen, for example, as noted by Minister Taptuna, in Baker Lake, one of the construction companies has been building houses. Some have been leased to the Nunavut Housing Corporation for use as staff housing.
Quite a number of these units have been rented privately at one point to Agnico-Eagle. They’re also being rented to private individuals.
So people can rent a house the same as they would down south.
Part of the challenge is to make it affordable. This one particular contractor has made houses available and attractive to private rental.
As we see more activity happening in some communities, especially on the mining front, there will be more and more opportunity for the private sector. So we very much encourage the private sector to start investing in these opportunities. We are very much willing to work with them in making this happen.
At this time, I have Mr. Schell.
I’m going to go back to one of the questions I asked yesterday of the minister.
It was in regard to the question I had asked back in May in regard to Kimmirut and Cape Dorset.
He made it quite clear at the time that Kimmirut didn’t qualify, but he blamed the issue of power in Cape Dorset.
I asked him again because I said that they were planning on doing a new power plant in Cape Dorset. He iterated again to make it clear that they have no power in Cape Dorset.
Yesterday, when I asked him that, he said that it doesn’t really matter because Cape Dorset doesn’t rate in there anyway. They’re at 18th or something.
Can the minister explain why he had a different answer yesterday than he had on May 16?
There are a number of different factors that played a role in this. Of course, I said yesterday that the methodology used didn’t allow Cape Dorset for allocations because it had a lesser need than most communities. I also mentioned that Cape Dorset was maxed out.
The generating capacity wouldn’t handle any other construction or more units within the community.
Well, he’s probably not aware, but they brought a temporary 1 Meg unit which will handle more than we will ever build in the next few years here.
My question is: if it’s not a power issue in Cape Dorset, if they have enough power to build houses, would that change the rating in Cape Dorset from 18th?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No.
Would the minister be willing to table the calculations that were used for each community with this new methodology so we will all understand why certain communities got units and other ones didn’t?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you. Yes. Thank you.
We have gone in circles in terms of how the numbers have been calculated in terms of the number of existing housing units, which is easy to determine because you just walk around town.
A lot seems to be depending on the waitlist.
As the minister pointed out yesterday, obviously, across the territory, communities are not calculating a waitlist or putting people on a waitlist the same way because we do have communities that have over 20 people in houses.
You have now made it publicly clear that over the next while, until things equalize, we will be taking the number of existing units with the waitlist, which begs the question: in terms of human nature, what’s going to stop people and housing associations from padding the waitlist?
How are you standardizing it across the territory to make sure that doesn’t happen? There’s nothing stopping Mr. Enook, who is very passionate about his community getting some, and then having the housing association put as many people on the list as possible because then the waitlist goes up. Is that not correct?
I realize we’re trying to make it fair across the territory so that allocation equalizes the number of houses and we’re all working towards the same goal, but sometimes people are willing to go different ways to get at certain goals. I’m just wondering and curious how the Nunavut Housing Corporation is going to deal with that.
When it comes to housing, everybody is quite passionate about housing for their communities and throughout Nunavut, including myself.
Mr. Chairman, with the new rent scale software that’s going to be initiated throughout all the communities in Nunavut, it will verify and validate accurate numbers that the housing corporation can use.
There’s very little opportunity for misleading data to be given to the Nunavut Housing Corporation. With the new software, we aim to make sure that that doesn’t happen.
In terms of the Nunavut Housing Trust and the Affordable Housing [Initiative], I remember that there were numbers, about 285, you mentioned yesterday.
Are all the houses now complete? Is everything finished on both the Nunavut Housing Trust and the Affordable Housing Initiative?
It just so happens that in one of his constituency of Grise Fiord, there is still construction happening and this construction is proposed to be finished by this week.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. (interpretation ends) Again I would like to remind the member that we are not trying to go back to what was.
We’re trying to deal with the current situation that has come before us, Minister’s Statement 299 – 3(3).
Mr. Elliott, perhaps you could make the circle a little bit smaller in that regard. (interpretation) Thank you.
The minister sort of answered part of the question where Grise Fiord just had two of its houses finished.
Are the numbers that you gave us in terms of calculation for housing allocation change the percentage for Grise Fiord?
I hope that brings that back to what we’re talking about because that means that we’re really good for houses up in Grise Fiord, Resolute Bay, and I need to keep pushing Arctic Bay, Mr. Chairman.
The Nunavut Housing Needs Survey was done while construction was happening and those numbers were factored in. Mr. Chairman, if I can get Mr. Barriault to verify and quantify some of these percentages for the member.
Well, I am very pleased to be able to report that once this last duplex is completed in Grise Fiord this week, it’s just waiting for an electrician who is flying up to make the final touches, the revised August 2013 waiting list of two should be eliminated.
I guess the other question I have is the number that came up was something like $470,000 per housing unit, but I know you said that depending on location, gravel, and whether it is built on a hill, there are different prices.
At one time, we had about $3 million worth of sea cans lying around, which would roughly be six new housing units that could be built if we could free that money up. I know I have asked about this many times. Some people want to buy the sea cans, some people don’t want to buy the sea cans, and some people still think that they are owned by the housing corporation.
Is there any way of retrieving that $3 million and maybe building some more houses?
I will have Mr. Barriault respond to that question.
The local housing organizations of the Nunavut Housing Corporation in many communities require upgrades, additions, and replacements of warehousing.
If I recall correctly, the last warehouse that was built in Nunavut for local housing organizations was in Arctic Bay around 1995, if I remember correctly.
Many of our communities have grown substantially. Just between the Nunavut Housing Trust and Canada’s Economic Action Plan, we have added 25 percent to our housing stock. We have gone from 4,000 public housing units to almost 5,000 public housing units, but we have not increased our warehousing during that time.
We have incorporated some plans to provide new warehousing in the GN’s capital forecast. However, until that time, we have a need for additional storage. Our first use of these sea cans is for that storage until we can provide more warehousing.
In the Baffin region in particular, we have now identified all of the sea cans that are required by our LHOs for temporary storage. In the Kitikmeot, all of our sea cans, which were very few, are now in use by our LHOs. We have made available to the GN any surplus sea cans we have in the Baffin region at this point, and then from there, we will start making them available to the public and that will be within the next few weeks.
Kivalliq construction did continue with the economic action plan and the Nunavut Housing Trust for longer than in the Baffin region.
As sea can needs are being identified, they would be made available for sale as well. Some have been sold. The ones provided to the GN are being sold at $3,000 each and those monies are being brought back into the capital budget for housing purposes.
I have no more names on my list. Does the committee agree that we have concluded with the review of Minister’s Statement 299 – 3(3)?
I would like to thank Minister Taptuna, Mr. Barriault, and Mr. Lysy for appearing at the witness table.
Minister, if you have any closing remarks, you may proceed.
I appreciate the scrutiny and discussions from the committee members.
Mr. Chairman, housing is always a challenge in Nunavut and always will be for a long time. We’re in dire straits.
We still need over 3,500 units within Nunavut.
I appreciate the fact that my colleagues from both sides of the table have been writing letters to Ottawa to indicate that this is a very serious situation in Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my staff here and the chairman of the board in working very hard to expeditiously find a fair method of allocating units from this $100 million. Once that was announced, everybody went to work at the Nunavut Housing Corporation and I really appreciate the hard work that has been put into this.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. I also thank your witnesses. I thank the members for asking very good questions.
At this time, Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out.
Thank you. Members, we will take a five-minute break while we prepare ourselves to deal with Bill 68.
>>Committee recessed at 17:14 and resumed at 17:26
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): We can proceed with the Committee of the Whole.
We will just go ahead with our agenda and we will be dealing with Bill 68.
Bill 68 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2013-2014 – Consideration in Committee
To my right is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister for the Department of Finance, and to my left is Peter Tumilty, Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy and [Planning].
I welcome your officials. Minister Peterson, as we begin our deliberation on Bill 68, I give you an opportunity to make your opening comments.
I am pleased to present Bill 68, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2013-2014.
Bill 68 is for the capital supplementary appropriation for 2013-14 totalling $13,753,000.
This appropriation is for adjustments to the capital carryover amounts previously approved from the 2012-13 fiscal year to the 2013-14 fiscal year in addition to several new requests for project funding.
$1,900,000 for the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs in a budget reallocation from Vote 1 to Vote 2 for office renovations and the procurement of office equipment for the Aeroplex Building;
$181,000 for the Department of Finance and it includes a reallocation of $184,000 from Vote 1 to Vote 2 for renovations of the Helen Maksagak Building in Cambridge Bay, as well as a $3,000 decrease to the capital carryover amount for the Kitikmeot Campus, residence, and daycare project for Nunavut Arctic College;
$93,000 in adjustments to capital carryovers for seven projects for the Department of Education, covering four school projects, some minor capital, and the school and special needs assessment programs;
$4,674,000 in three projects for the Department of Health, which includes $4 million in an anticipated budget shortfall for the Taloyoak Health Centre;
$700,000 to upgrade the structured wiring and telephone systems in community health centres;
$26,000 reduction in the capital carryover amount for the Baffin hospital renovation project;
-$31,000 for the Department of Environment, which is a decrease in the capital carryover amounts of the Sylvia Grinnell and Clyde River park projects;
$7,416,000 in 17 projects for the Department of Community and Government Services, covering capital carryover adjustments of $610,000 for various municipal and community infrastructure projects, $780,000 for roof repairs to the Kugaaruk Hamlet Office, and $6,026,000 for the arena upgrades in Pangnirtung, Taloyoak, and Whale Cove; and
-$480,000 in five projects for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, covering decreases in the capital carryover amounts for the airport improvement projects in Iqaluit, Qikiqtarjuaq, Chesterfield Inlet, and Baker Lake.
I have no names on my list. We will now go to page 4.
Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. Capital. Not Previously Authorized.
Directorate. Total Directorate. $1,900,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $1,900,000.
Comptrollership. Total Comptrollership. $184,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Centrally Administered Funds. Total Centrally Administered Funds. -$3,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $181,000.
Education. Capital. Not Previously Authorized.
Total Corporate Services. $93,000.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the Repulse Bay High School, $4,000, what is that going to be used for?
Mr. Chairman, the information we have is that this would be part of the design phase of the Repulse Bay High School. It’s a multi-year project.
Corporate Services. Total Corporate Services. $93,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $93,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Turn the page. Page 7.
Health. Capital. Not Previously Authorized.
Total Directorate. $4,674,000.
I would like to ask the minister the question exactly who the contractor is that is building that requires additional funding of $4 million to replace the health centre.
Mr. Chairman, the contractor is Kudlik Construction.
This is the same contractor that built the Repulse Bay Health Centre. To my knowledge and information provided, they have not started the construction yet. The information the minister gave to the committee the other day was that they were the only bidders.
Can the minister indicate exactly what the amount of their bid was to the Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Chairman, there’s an RFP process. It was a competitive bidding process. When the bids closed, there was only one company, which was Kudlik Construction, and the information I have is their bid was $25,866,800.
The company obviously has not spent a penny on the $25 million yet or the government.
Now, why would they need an additional $4 million in anticipated budget shortfalls? Have they requested that?
Just to clarify, the contract was awarded.
Construction materials were ordered. I believe construction is underway.
The issue here is not on the construction side; it’s the budget shortfall in the overall projects, which includes architectural engineering, project management fees, furniture, fixtures and equipment, and contingencies.
It would appear to be that it was using the same architectural designs and so on that there would have been a cost savings rather than an anticipated additional $4 million shortfall.
How does this rationale fit in trying to explain to us to use the same architectural designs and all that, including not only Repulse Bay, I think that also applies for the Arctic Bay Health Centre eventually, that the additional $4 million is really actually needed?
Are we not just really picking an amount of dollars up in the air and just saying that we should allocate that amount even before the shortfalls have been requested or justified?
Part of the issue that’s identified with this particular project is, although it is a common design in Taloyoak, it’s a different site location. So we had to make some adjustments to allow the building to fit on a different location than it is in Repulse Bay.
Also, the cost is quite simple. The construction costs came in higher than the three years earlier when Kudlik bid on the Repulse Bay project.
Inflation costs, construction inflation, and a different community to require to ship different materials into.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $4,674,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Turn the page. Page 8. Environment.
Capital. Not Previously Authorized. Program Management.
Total Program Management. -$31,000.
Total Department. -$31,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Page 9.
Total Capital Planning. $7,436,000.
Total Petroleum Products Division. -$20,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $7,416,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Turn the page. Page 10.
Transportation. Total Transportation. Mr. Elliott.
I just had a question in terms of we had approved funding, actually, over the last two capital periods for resurfacing of the Grise Fiord Airport. I see it’s not on here as a capital carryover, yet in communicating with airport directors and the Hamlet of Grise Fiord, they’re being told the work is not going to be done this year in Grise Fiord because there is no money.
I was wondering if I could just get a clarification. If they’re being told there’s no money in the community and it’s not showing up here as a decrease or an increase of money or a capital carryover, then I would like to know where that money is.
Mr. Chairman, these are adjustments to the approved capital carryovers only. It has nothing to do with carryover funding. These are just adjustments.
I realize that. Like I said, if there was an adjustment that needed to be made, it would show up on this page, and that’s what I’m saying. I know the Minister of ED&T is on the other side over there and he’s just really excited to tell me what’s happening with the project.
Again, we’re getting mixed messages from the community and from ED&T staff saying the money is not there. They’re being told that their department doesn’t have the money to do the project.
If I could get an update as to why they’re being told there isn’t the money because, according to what Mr. Peterson just pointed out, the money should be there. If I could get clarification.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) Clarification, please, Minister Peterson.
Mr. Elliott is asking me questions and I don’t have any information in front of me. I wish he would give me an opportunity to be prepared. I don’t know what the community is telling Mr. Elliott, but the information that we are working with today is the adjustments to the capital carryovers.
I have no information about what he is referring to.
I realize that, but I mentioned that I didn’t expect the minister to have that level and detailed information.
That is why I asked if he could defer the question to the minister who could answer that question because he is sitting across from us.
I will ask Minister Taptuna if he is prepared to answer that question for Mr. Elliott.
An Hon. Member: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Not at all to try and disrupt anything or progress, but the item is not on the document that’s in front of us.
So the question raised by my colleague here is completely unrelated to the estimates submitted and, therefore, should be ruled out of order.
Chairman: For clarification purposes, if I may, Mr. Elliott, will you ask the question again so I can make a ruling on it?
My understanding of the way the supplements work is we’re either removing money from projects or adding money to projects because there needs to be shifts in money being allocated to projects or money taken away.
So if the government does a good job and goes under budget, then there’s extra money in the pot that gets reallocated.
I know that over the past two capital periods of allocating money, so for the last two years of passing money in this House, we have all voted on money going to Grise Fiord for the resurfacing of the runway there.
My understanding of the way the system works is if we’re being told there is no money for a project, then it needs to show up in these supplementary appropriations to say that the money is being allocated and shifted somewhere else. So I guess maybe that’s my question and I thought I asked that.
If it’s not here, where is the money?
Chairman: Please allow me to get a handle on this and I’ll take a few minutes to consult with our staff here.
(interpretation) Thank you for your patience.
I will disallow the question that was posed because it’s not related to what we’re discussing.
If you ask that question during question period, it may be much easier for you, Mr. Elliott.
Since I don’t see any reference to the issue you raised and since it isn’t encapsulated within the supplementary appropriation documentation, I will have to bar that particular question.
Do you have any further questions on that page, Mr. Elliott?
Mr. Elliott: I thought I did, Mr. Chairman, but obviously I didn’t.
I will respect the wish of the Chair.
Chairman: And I appreciate you respecting the Chair.
Mr. Aupaluktuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the Department of Economic Development and Transportation under Airport Improvements - Baker Lake, $6,000, I just want to ask what’s happening with the airport improvements.
Again, the -$6,000 is a technical adjustment to the capital carryover from 2012-13 to 2013-14.
Total Transportation. -$480,000.
Total Department. -$480,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Go back to page 2. Schedule 1. Capital.
Capital Appropriation. $13,753,000.
Go to Bill 68 in your legislation binder. We will be doing a clause-by-clause review of the bill.
I believe you all have a copy of it in front of you.
I will be following the English version. (interpretation ends) Bill 68, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2013-2014.
Chairman (interpretation): We will go to Schedule on page 3. (interpretation ends) Schedule. Vote 2: Capital.
Total Capital. $13,753,000. Total Supplementary Appropriation. $13,753,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go back to page 1. Clause 5.
Does the committee agree to Bill 68 as a whole?
Does the committee that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 68 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
We have completed Bill 68.
In view of time, I move that the committee report progress.
Your committee has been considering Minister’s Statement 299 – 3(3) and Bill 68 and would like to report that Minister’s Statement 299 – 3(3) is concluded and that Bill 68 is now ready for third reading.
Bill 68 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2013-2014 – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Arviat, that Bill 68, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2013-2014, be read for the third time.
As such, Bill 68 has been read for the third time and is ready for assent.
A reminder that tomorrow morning at nine o’clock, there’s a meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislation in the Tuktu Boardroom.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, very much.
Members, this House stands adjourned until Wednesday, September 11, at 1:30 p.m.
DAY 89
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Pages 4884 – 4935
Jayko Ishulutak
Opening Prayer 4884
Ministers’ Statements 4884
Members’ Statements 4889
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4892
Oral Questions 4893
Tabling of Documents 4908
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 4909
Point of Order 4926
Report of the Committee of the Whole 4933
Third Reading of Bills 4934
Orders of the Day 4934
Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4884
319 – 3(3): Long-term Sustainable Planning for Community Infrastructure (Kusugak) 4884
320 – 3(3): Congratulations to Peesee Pitseolak-Stephens: 36 Years of Service (Shewchuk) 4885
321 – 3(3): Be Safe!
And RespectED Resources (Aariak) 4885
322 – 3(3): Baffin Island Caribou Workshop and Management Planning (Arreak) 4886
323 – 3(3): Remembering Doctor Eric Prosh (Taptuna) 4887
324 – 3(3): 2013 Laura Ulluriaq Gauthier Scholarship (Ell) 4888
325 – 3(3): New Application Forms for Career Development Programs (Ell) 4888
551 – 3(3): Caring for the Animals in our Communities (Aupaluktuq) 4889
552 – 3(3): Strengthening Public Confidence in the Health Care System (Ningark) 4890
553 – 3(3): Unresolved Issue of Compensation of Hall Beach Elders (Tapardjuk) 4890
554 – 3(3): Tunnganangniq and Elders (Curley) 4891
722 – 3(3): RCMP Services in Nunavut (Aupaluktuq) 4893