EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
At that time we tried to talk to the minister and tried to tell him to build larger schools in anticipation of the student population growth.
Are we going to be building schools that will be larger than the present case.
Are you going to be building additional classrooms in anticipation of the students that will be coming in or building two extra classrooms in anticipation of the growth.
I understand your question now.
When we build a school, they have to go through the planning process and we build it with a planned 70% to 85% occupation.
Those are the numbers that we use when we are going through the planning process of building a school.
With the rising cost of living and with the increased fuel prices, and increasing costs of equipment and the required supplies, for example, when we have to renovate a school and put in new pipes and so on in order to modernize the schools.
Is that included in the budget.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): I cannot really talk about that kind of inflation but just to remind you that the Cabinet, through the Bathurst Mandate, put education as a priority.
This budget has been increased because education has been placed as a first priority by our government.
I would like to go back to the building of the schools, to make it a little larger in anticipation of the student growth.
When we go clause by clause, I'm sure it's going to be here.
However, I just wanted to get the information ahead of time.
If I find a substantial increase in one of these numbers, I would want to know ahead what it's going to be used for.
I just wanted to know would you be using your 20-year plan.
Chairperson (interpretation): Did you want to respond Mr. Kilabuk.
I just want to concur with the member that once we go down to the pages, I'm sure that I'll be able to respond to him.
I still have names on my list.
Mr. McLean and then Mr. Iqaqrialu.
My questions and comments are directed towards the capital.
Looking at the back of the book, we have a 5-year Capital Plan in place and I'm surprised it's there.
Now that we have hired Mr. Levy to be working in, or you've hired him, or the department hired him, or the government hired him, to be the capital planner for the Department of Education, I think it is a good move on behalf of the education department for the simple fact that when other departments were doing it maybe they didn't really get into the details that this gentleman will be able to get into, which is a good move.
On that, is your department looking at developing a 20-year plan based on population growth, age of facilities, all the things that affect the capital plan. Because I want to go back and I'm not speaking down at anybody in the House or in the past Legislative Assembly.
But schools were put into ridings based on who's who.
I can personally say it happened in my region in the community.
Now we have inherited some of the difficulties involved in what happened.
So does your department plan and if they do plan this, is there going to be an evaluation of all schools in Nunavut in every community in a comprehensive 20-year plan coming within the next few years.
Our department has been able to identify that we need a 20-year plan and we have to analyze the 5-year plan too.
It's our goal to have a long-term plan for 20 years and our department is reviewing how we can improve by using this 20-year plan.
Chairperson (interpretation): Any other comments. Mr. McLean.
So what you are saying is that the 20-year plan that you are working on should be finalized within what, the next year, two years.
The 20-year plan is a forecast, a 20-year forecast to find out what we will need in those upcoming years.
For the 5-year Capital Plan we'll divide from the 20-year forecast to figure out what we need for capital items.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Kilabuk. Mr. McLean.
On that, I'm hoping we're around by the time it hits the table and I'm sure it will be with Mr. Levy there he'll be working hard on it.
The next thing on this is in regards to capital.
There seems to be an arms length working relationship with Arctic College, which is good, I guess.
We don't know if it's bad but we think it's good.
When you are doing your evaluation on capital projects and what facilities are needed in each community is Arctic College's needs going to be taken into effect for facilities in Nunavut or is that just going to be looked at differently.
They work closely together like Arctic College and the schools it's all learning. Are their plans and needs going to be looked at also by your department.
I caught myself speaking in English, but today they’re already included, the Arctic College is involved in preparation for capital projects and they’re already included in the budget.
Mr. McLean: I have a question behind that.
They’re already included in the capital plans, the 5-year Capital Plan, is it going to be a sort of evaluation of those in the communities again and a long term strategy that will be in place that really, if put in place because of the needs, of the future growth in the communities.
The Arctic College officials and our department will be working very closely together and they will also be included in our 20-year plan.
I don’t want to get anybody into trouble here or say the wrong thing.
But standards and criteria in regards to safety concerns and safety standards in buildings, they change every year and every year they get harder, or they don’t get harder, they get better, supposedly. But when things get better in regards to fire standards and safety standards and things like that the cost automatically goes up horrendously.
I know in the last couple of years, just talking to the people in Public Works, that the latest round of standards, fire safety standards and things like that, are driving the cost of buildings up.
The standards that we’re following and don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see us to build unsafe facilities but the standards that we are following, is that a national standard that has to be followed or are we setting standards higher than national standards.
That is maybe the cause of the cost of buildings, especially schools that are going up in Nunavut.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): Yes thank you Mr. Chairman.
At this time, the Nunavut school plans and concerns have been raised because of the expense of constructing schools with the standards and codes.
The Fire Marshal is now discussing this point and I don’t know what stage they’re at now but as we speak they’re dealing with this issue.
Because I just reiterated earlier that the standards that are being set, are they again a national building standard or are we taking it upon ourselves in this government to set the standards higher.
Are we meeting or exceeding the standards, that’s probably what I’m trying to ask here.
Are we exceeding the standards, or is it the insurance companies that are making these standards.
I’ll ask Lorne Levy to respond to the question.
Chairperson: Mr. Levy, go ahead.
Mr. Lorne Levy: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The standards that we are being asked to follow currently, have been challenged by the Department of Public Works as being too high.
But in discussions with the Fire Marshal, when comparing our standards with rural areas in southern Canada as opposed to urban areas, they match.
This is the latest discussion we’ve had with the Fire Marshal.
So the Fire Marshal is insisting that because of the nature of fire prevention infrastructure in communities, it shouldn't be compared with cities in the south, it should be compared with rural areas and he's insisting that they do meet those national standards.
That is currently where we are at with our discussion.
So, we're meeting the national standards for rural schools.
Correct. That's correct.
That's what you said, I think, are we meeting national standards in regards to urban.
Chairperson: Mr. Levy.
Mr. Levy: We're now being told the latest readings on our requirements for fire safety standards would meet the rural standards at a national level.
Mr. McLean: When did this come into effect.
Chairperson (interpretation): Which one of you is going to respond.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I will ask my DM to respond because he's been working in the other provinces outside of Nunavut.
So, I'll ask him to respond.
A couple of comments in regards to Mr. McLean's question Mr. Chairman.
Since Nunavut has come into being there has been an increased awareness of fire prevention and fire suppression standards in our territory.
As members will recall we have had two very significant fire disasters in schools.
In recent memory in Pangnirtung and Cambridge Bay.
Cambridge Bay happened in August 1998 just before we became a territory.
So, it's raised everybody's awareness of, if a fire starts in one of our buildings it's very difficult to put it out because water supply is a challenge in most of our communities and climate is a major challenge in most of the year in communities, and also because of the degree of readiness of the fire services in our territory.
If I could take the question outside of Nunavut and put it somewhere else in Canada the same questions that the Department of Education or Department of Public Works or Fire Marshals would ask would be the same questions we ask here.
What's the building to be used for.
What's the potential hazard.
Schools are the ones that are getting top priority because they are occupied by a great number of people and to a large extent most of the time these people are not what we would call adults.
So, the standards tend to be very rigorous for schools everywhere in Canada and the standards are actually tougher based on other factors like climate, water supply, fire service regularity, professionalism.
So it almost boils down to Mr. Chairman, when building schools in Nunavut we have to look at them on a one by one basis and be very careful.
I know that the Fire Marshal here in Nunavut as well as other jurisdictions never compromise safety when it comes to our students and our schools.
The final comment I would offer Mr. Chairman is, I know it is an increasing trend all across Canada to increase standards of construction and prevention in all schools all across Canada.
I've had experience in other jurisdictions both from a Department of Education point of view and also as a member of the fire service.
So it's been something that's happening, new materials are found out substitutes are made.
Things that have a slower burn time if they are continually updated so, while I recognize that Mr. Chairman, members are concerned about costs this is something that all jurisdictions face because schools are a very high risk.
I don't want to skimp on school construction whatsoever.
Construction has changed in the last 30 years.
In the last 30 years that I have been up here I don't remember a school catching on fire while the students are in it.
One in Pangnirtung if I remember correctly it burnt down when it was being constructed by a Herman Nelson.
That was under construction when the heaters went off and burnt the building down and the one in Cambridge Bay was set externally.
There were no children in it at the time.
I don’t remember any school in this territory ever catching on fire.
There have been scares for smoke and air and things like that, and like I say the school in Baker Lake, I'll take it as an example.
It was built in 1957 and it is the oldest school in Nunavut and if that thing ever caught fire it would be down in about two minutes because it is all plywood, plywood construction and timber and beams.
New school construction today is drywall, which doesn't burn and steel studs.
Flooring made of a different material.
I am not an architect or anything like that.
Any type of stuff that is used in construction today is very, very fire proof.
It is very hard to find something that will burn in a building constructed today, other than the exterior to put metal siding on the outside and drywall on the inside.
Metal stud installation.
There has to be plywood in it somewhere but the burn factor in a building today it takes a lot longer to ignite.
Like I say I am not trying to ask to skimp on or even say maybe skimp on something like children's safety because I have children in the school system.
What I am getting into is are we making the standard so high that it is going to be prohibitive and if we are forecasting a 20-year plan are we going to forecast or make it so stringent that we are not going to be building anything.
That is the point I am getting to.
Like I say it is sort of like a catch 22 situation.
This government since I have been in it we put brand new fire trucks in quite a few communities and you know there are pump houses and stuff like that.
So everything is getting better which I think it is good.
There is nothing wrong with joining the 20th century up here.
You know it is far to often we haven't had fire trucks in communities and stuff. It is just a comment of mine and you said earlier that Public Works is in some kind of disagreement with the Fire Marshal at this time.
Maybe that is bad.
Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up here today.
What percentage do you know, do you have a rough figure what percentage do you do fire standards of the cost over the last standards that we inherited from GNWT because I know the new sprinkler systems are worth millions.
And that it is it. That is my final question today.
I think we would be just estimating or we would just be guessing if we were to respond right now.
It would be just a guess, so I cannot provide you with an answer.
Chairperson (interpretation): Are you done, Mr. McLean.
I'd like to remind the members to stay on the topic that we are dealing with.
Under details of expenditures.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question.
I think we are still on 9-5. I think we are on 9-5.
If you go on to 9-7 and 9-8 we're dealing with details of expenditures of 29 million dollars, which has to do with those two pages.
Is it the total under capital expenditures.
Under 9-8, the total capital expenditures are 29 million dollars.
So that's a total, Mr. Chairman.
Under 9-5, before we approve that, I think we can go through 9-7 and 9-8 to go through each region or if we approve 9-5, I think we'd be missing out on asking questions on 9-7 and 9-8.
Chairperson (interpretation): Just to clarify to the members we're on 9-5.
We are dealing with questions on 9-5.
If there are no more questions we won't be asking members to approve that page we'll just go onto the next page.
You will be able to ask questions on the upcoming pages.
We're dealing with details of expenditures.
You won't be approving that page once you've completed it, we'll just go onto the next page.
If you have any questions.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): On 9-5, I'd like to ask you if we could go onto page 9-7.
Chairperson (interpretation): We are still on 9-5.
There are still three other members that would like to pose questions.
Again I just want to go back and comment on the capital projects and the future capital projects.
I know we've talked a lot about community-based training programs, which in the future will require facilities in each community.
Also, don't get me wrong on this, I'm not trying to take anything off of the regional spaces or headquarters in regards to facilities that are needed for long-term training programs.
There's mention here about student accommodations for Arctic College in headquarters or it may be even at the regional level.
But in the future if we are talking about community-based training, we might have to re-visit those numbers in regards to the students' accommodations that slowly we'll be getting away from that when we are talking about community-based training.
I'm not trying to take anything away, I just want you to be aware, we are aware that we are going to be working towards community-based training and in the future, hopefully we will get slowly away from the Arctic College students' accommodations in the future.
I just want to point that out to consider in the first place because when we are looking at that in here in these communities, we're short of classrooms for the Arctic College students.
But in the future I want to make sure of that when we visit this again when we are talking about student's accommodations.
I think that was just a comment the member made and I will just note those comments.
We are now on 9-5.
Mr. Chairman, we're looking at the overall capital and you know you can't isolate the fact we’re in year one of the 5-year plan.
I'm sure that the minister is now aware of after question period some of the concerns that I raised earlier.
I also recognize that a capital plan over that long a period of time is a living thing.
It changes, you can't predict what types of things may happen or may not happen.
Mr. Chairman, I need to ask the minister, with that in mind, if there was any new information or any health and safety issues or forced growth issues that the department became aware of not just here in Iqaluit but also in every other, any other communities.
If those were things that they would take into consideration and look at addressing those issues when and if they arise in the future.
Regarding safety and health issues, the 5-year Capital Plan is a plan outlining areas or projects and expenditures and when safety comes up we deal with them right away.
When those types of unexpected things come up, we'll deal with them right away.
Chairperson: Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Chairman, would that be the same if things were, and I'll use one of the topics that was inquired about earlier, are there any code violations, anything like that those types of issues, that may at some point be identified within a school.
Again not only health and safety but also forced growth issues as well too.
If any new information comes forward or any information that the department may receive, since they have developed their 5-year plan, if on those issues that maybe something that the minister can commit to looking at those issues as they arise.
I just brought up health issues and safety issues but it also has to do with code violation.
If there were a technical problem that had to be dealt with right away we would follow the rules that we have.
We would make sure all rules are followed or the safety regulations are followed to deal with any other problems that may arise.
The minister has answered to a couple of the areas that I have enquired about and I just like to also ask him again of an example of more above to what they predicted as far as enrolment happens in certain communities and there is unexpected demand or growth they hadn't planned it to be as high.
Would that be something that they would take a look at as those numbers coming forward as well.
Who is going to respond.
In regards to forced growth and unexpected things that might happen in the school or if there is something like that, yes, we look at those too.
Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that it is a factor that they would look at.
I guess all three of those things that you just indicated that they would look at it if it comes up.
If the need arises, those types of issues could potentially have an impact on what the 5- year capital plan looks like now and what it looks like if these types of situations arise.
Perhaps I must have misunderstood the question.
But, I don't seem to hear a question.
So, can you ask your question again Mr. Tootoo.
Chairperson (interpretation): Mr. Tootoo can you ask your question again, if you had a question.
Can you clarify your question.
Mr. Tootoo (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, these types of things that the minister indicated, health and safety and any major problems that may come up.
Regulatory problems and forced growth issues, these types of issues if they come up could have an impact on what the 5-year plan based on new information or unexpected information down the road.
Projects identified under these areas as they come up could have an impact and could be included into the 5-year plan if necessary.
What we do is we plan what we think the priorities are and the concerns that we have as to health and safety and the priorities that we have to include what other new stuff that might be coming up.
I guess these are types of issues that we’re talking about for schools, so is the minister then saying yes, that these types of issues could potentially have any impact on the 5-year capital plan, is that what he is saying.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes, those are the types of things that we plan in a 5-year capital plan.
On top of that, if something comes up that we have not thought of, we could also include them.
Mr. Chairperson: Anything else, is that it.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman.
We have been told to smile once in awhile.
I’m glad to see the minister and his staff.
Perhaps if I could put a preamble to my question first.
I just wondered about the process when you go to the communities to ask them about capital planning.
I know that Mr. Levy will be dealing with that and I’m happy that he’s been hired and I know that they will be planning schools properly now.
When they do the design and planning of a school and when they finally construct the school then it’s too small for the classrooms for the number of students.
My first question is, when the community states that they need to plan with your department, do you go to the communities.
I will use this example, when we are going to be looking at 5-year Capital Plan, we would hear from various people such as the principal or the local education authority and consult with them along with Public Works.
If the school is a concern to the community because the age of the school, then our staff would go to the community to take a look at the school.
So we want to be able to be responsive to the local education authority or the community. We have always said that we would go to every community but we have asked for input from the communities.
When we hear from the communities then we go and take a look for ourselves.
Chairperson: Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for the response and for saying that you want to hear more from the communities instead of just telling them how to do their business or how to run their community.
In my community of Resolute Bay, one of my constituents recently said there were five officials from the government that came to Resolute Bay and I wondered how much money they used up for their airfare.
They went up there to talk about education but one person talked and the four others never said anything.
Only one out of the five spoke to tell the community that they couldn't make an addition to the school.
They stated that we cannot make an addition to your community and some of your children will have to utilize the gymnasium as a classroom for some time.
The gymnasium will be used as a classroom for the smaller grades for about a year.
They stated that they will not be adding to the school.
I would just like the department to consider that once again after a year because of the five staff that came up to Resolute Bay.
They must have used up a lot of money for airfare and that's a problem that the community has when they can't add to the schools and there's five employees that go there and one person spoke.
Maybe the member and myself have a completely different understanding of the situation.
I have been told that the people of Resolute Bay are aware that this is still in the planning process, the possibility of an addition. We have that in place.
Chairperson (interpretation): Ms. Williams.
If they just keep on planning this for the school, the design of the school then they can finally build the addition to the school in 2003.
There's not going to be any school addition this coming fall.
Chairperson (interpretation): I think that was just a comment, not a question.
I just want to get some clarification, the 5-year Capital Plan is for schools in the communities or is that for curriculum as well.
Is that within the 5-year Capital Plan.
Is that what it includes.
This is the 5-year Capital Plan for the schools and additions of schools, not for curriculum.
Yes, I understand and thank you for the clarification from the minister.