EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, the January 2009 federal budget announced the creation of a recreational infrastructure fund to provide $500 million “over two years to support construction of new community recreational facilities and upgrades to existing facilities across Canada.”
Members are strongly supportive of initiatives to improve the quality of recreational facilities in Nunavut given their important role in fostering health and wellness in our communities. The need for a new community arena in Pond Inlet, which I’ve mentioned over and over again, is just one example of a project that deserves consideration.
Members look forward to being kept informed of the GN’s success in accessing our territory’s share of this federal funding. Members also recommend that the department explore opportunities to undertake improvements to existing recreational facilities in order to increase the number of months that they can be used during the year. One example of such an improvement is the installation of artificial ice in arenas.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, members are pleased to note that while there was no funding for granular projects in the department’s 2007-08 capital estimates, $192,000 was budgeted in 2008-09 for granular projects across the territory and $300,000 is being budgeted in 2009-2010 for granular projects under the department’s small capital budget.
The department’s 2007-08 business plan indicated that one of its priorities was to “establish a granular program.” (interpretation ends) The department’s 2008-09 business plan indicated that it had “met with and consulted with communities, departments, and other levels of government to more accurately determine future aggregate needs.
We have examined various equipment and crushing program options and are considering the requirements and costs associated with necessary training and options implementation. The program methodology is in the draft stage; it is expected to be able to be made available for consideration next year.” (interpretation) Members look forward to regular updates on this important initiative.
Members also encourage the department to work closely with communities and the Nunavut Housing Corporation with respect to the issues of gravel supplies and lot surveying.
Mr. Chairman, the department has budgeted $7,365,000 in 2009-2010 for water system upgrades in the community of Kugluktuk. This is the department’s single largest capital project for 2009-2010.
The substantiation sheet for this project indicates that despite the community having received a new water treatment plant in 2003, Kugluktuk’s “filtered water does not meet the Canadian drinking water guidelines for turbidity.”
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, the provision of safe drinking water to our communities is a fundamental function of this government. It is unclear as to how many of Nunavut’s communities currently meet national guidelines for drinking water quality and how many do not.
During the Legislative Assembly’s consideration of this department’s 2008-09 capital estimates, a request was made for the minister to prepare a report on drinking water quality in Nunavut’s communities and to table this report in the Legislative Assembly. (interpretation) This has not yet been done and members recommend that the new minister commit to tabling such a report before the end of this calendar year.
(interpretation ends) The Municipal Training Organization, which is funded by this department, has developed a course for municipal water treatment plant operators in Nunavut. Members recommend that the minister also table a report in the Legislative Assembly on the success of this course. Members also recommend that the government periodically reports to the Legislative Assembly on its participation in the activities of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, the issue of sewage treatment in our communities is also important.
On February 17, 2009, a federal-provincial-territorial news release announced that:
(interpretation ends) “Ministers recognized the work done to date in developing the Canada-wide strategy for the management of municipal wastewater effluent developed by Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
A number of jurisdictions have endorsed the Strategy and are ready to begin implementation.
The strategy sets out a harmonized framework to manage discharges from more than 3,500 wastewater facilities in Canada, many of which are currently in need of repair and upgrading.”  Members note that the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent indicates that:
“Due to extreme climatic conditions and remoteness of Canada’s Far North, a viable means to improve human and environmental health protection needs to be carefully considered.
Therefore, a window of up to five years is provided to undertake research into factors that affect performance of wastewater facilities in northern conditions.
During this period of time, the governments of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government will work collaboratively to:
assess the performance of existing wastewater facilities…
In the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, agreements will be developed, taking into account the respective roles of the regulatory bodies.
These agreements will address the implementation of the standards over time, one-window regulatory reporting, public reporting and other management activities such as inspections and enforcements.”
Mr. Chairman, members recommend that the Ministers of CGS and Environment regularly update the Legislative Assembly on the government’s activities in this area.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2009-2010 capital estimates documentation indicates that $4.4 million will be provided to the City of Iqaluit in block funding through the federal government’s Building Canada Fund. In prior years, funding was provided to the city through a capital contribution agreement with the department.
(interpretation) Members recommend that the minister table an annual report on the city’s spending under this agreement so that all Members of the Legislative Assembly and the general public will have a clear picture of how the funds have actually been used.
Members also encourage the department to consider entering into such agreements with other communities that can demonstrate the capacity to manage such an arrangement.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I’m having a hard time opening the page.
(interpretation ends) Members note that the department’s 2009-2010 capital estimates include $4,060,000 in funding for small capital projects, which includes such items as heavy equipment acquisitions, community planning studies, block funding, and granular programs.
Members encourage the department to clearly list these projects in the annual capital estimates document which is tabled in the Legislative Assembly given that they amount to over 10 percent of the department’s total planned spending.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, from time to time, all Members of the Legislative Assembly receive official correspondence from the government that outlines budget transfers between capital projects that have occurred during the course of the fiscal year.
It is important that members be kept informed of the exact status of capital projects that have been impacted by such transfers and encourage the government to provide detailed information in these advisories.
(interpretation ends) Members recognize the need for the department to address the issue of bulk fuel storage in our communities. The growth of communities and more stringent federal regulations will require the department to modernize and expand existing storage facilities. Improvements in this area may, in the longer term, help to reduce the need to periodically resupply communities by air, as has been required in prior years.
We have seen that.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the 2009-2010 Capital Estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services. (interpretation) Thank you.
Mr. John Ningark.
I would also like to thank Minister Kusugak and his officials for their careful preparation of these capital plans which enable members to understand the process.
I also thank them for including the mayors and the councils in their planning.
On page 2 of your opening comments, near the bottom of the page, it alludes to the depletion of gravel in Nunavut. I’m in complete agreement with that assessment and the wording is quite comprehensible.
With respect to the depletion of gravel, we may have to revert to blasting hills and mountains which may affect the scenery of our lands whereas most Inuit prefer to live in scenic areas. We have also heard about some communities whose shorelines are eroding due to the warming climate in the Arctic.
We also hear about global warming which is alleged to be causing the seas to rise.
Perhaps when we start brainstorming on challenges such as the erosion of the shoreline, the rising of the seas, and maybe even the future changing of local scenery based on the needs of our growing communities, we ought to consider using concrete to meet our future requirements, assuming that concrete isn’t too dangerous to our environment, seas, lakes, rivers, oceans, and lands.
This is just an idea that I’m throwing out for your consideration. I’m not making a recommendation, just a comment.
I thank you as well, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rumbolt has a general comment.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Recognizing that CGS works with other GN departments in the capital planning process, I would like to make a brief opening comment on the subject of facility size.
It’s my belief that we need to plan for what our population will be in ten years time, not what it is today.
For example, when CGS is working with the Department of Education to plan the size of a school, we need to consider what the student population will be in 2019, not 2009.
I think that if we build new facilities in this manner, we can save money down the road as the government won’t have to look at renovating or expanding existing facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate hearing the minister’s thoughts on this issue.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt.
Next on my list is Mr. Adamee Komoartok.
Mr. Komoartok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question to the minister. He stated that we need more tank farms in most of the communities because of forced growth stemming from an increase in population.
The minister indicated that they’re currently reviewing the situation and plans will be prepared accordingly.
I think this is the third year in our community where we had to fly in fuel because we had depleted our stock.
Homeowners were forced to use avgas to heat their homes before the fuel resupply arrived by ship.
We’re lucky this year because it hasn’t been too cold, but new housing is being constructed by the Nunavut Housing Trust and they will require heating fuel. The new health centre that is built will require fuel as well.
I would like to ask the minister when the report that he indicated will be tabled in the House.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Adamee Komoartok.
As a reminder at this time, I asked for general comments from the members, not questions.
Members will have an opportunity to ask questions when we review the capital estimates.
At this time, I’ll just let Minister Kusugak respond to the question. Minister Kusugak, if you would like to respond to Mr. Adamee Komoartok’s question.
We will try to respond to those questions at the appropriate time.
But in any case, tank farms are not keeping up with the growth of the communities. With more schools, health centres, and community halls being built, demand is outstripping the capacity of tank farms.
Our staff is currently working on how they can keep up with the growth of communities.
It’s not only one community which is running short on fuel. We are currently working on this and prioritizing which communities will be dealt with first.
The floor is open for general comments and we will go to questions after that.
If there are no more general comments, we will go to page J-3 in the 2009-2010 capital estimates.
I don’t have a general comment, but I have a question on the opening comments of the minister before we get into questions during the page-by-page review if that’s okay with you.
I apologize; if you have a question about the minister’s opening comments, I give you the floor.
On page 5 of his opening comments, at the top of the last page, he stated that the Government of Canada announced the creation of a recreational infrastructure fund.
However, they haven’t provided information on how the fund will be spent.
I would like to ask the minister if he is anticipating having those funds available before the shipping season.
The reason why I’m asking that question is because some of the communities have already planned for their recreational facilities, I believe they’re called shovel ready.
Will the Government of Canada have this fund available before the start of the shipping season?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you for asking that question, Mr. Arvaluk.
We have been waiting for a while now for the money from the recreational infrastructure fund.
We are expecting a response shortly in the next few days and hopefully we will get the details before the shipping season.
It may even be a little bit late today because we have to prepare for the shipping season.
To answer your question, yes, we would like to see this money being made available before summer and most importantly, to see exactly how much money will be provided.
We had a meeting a few days ago with our Member of Parliament, Ms. Aglukkaq, and we asked her to inform her colleagues of the urgency of our situation.
I don’t think you have any more questions, Mr. Arvaluk.
We are on page J-3 of the 2009-2010 capital estimates.
Going back to November, it was interesting when Mr. Kusugak was not asking for acronyms in terms of short forms for stuff, but he sure gave us a lot of them today.
Can we go back further to J-1?
I have a question about that and that’s the accounting structure chart for the department.
The question I have is under the Protection Services Division and then there’s the Safety Inspections.
Does that include your electrical inspectors and your building inspectors?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you for the question.
Mr. Elliott will note that with every acronym I gave him, I first gave him the long version of it, not wanting to make that same mistake as our briefing in November. To answer your question, yes.
In terms of employment, I have been sort of following the new Housing Trust and asking questions about why some of the slowdowns and why some of the problems, and that’s why I’m asking this question leading up to something else, which is: how many electrical inspectors are there and do we have a building inspector that’s hired at this time?
Minister Kusugak, if you would like to respond to that question.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Chairman, I believe we have three electrical inspector positions and two are currently hired, and I don’t think we have a building inspector right now.
I can give him more detail as I get it.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Kusugak.
I should remind members that perhaps if we can stick to the agenda here.
We’re dealing with page J-3. Capital Planning.
You may note that you may come across the issues that may be appropriate for you to ask the questions then.
I don’t know if I’m going to be turned on, am I?
Oh, I am allowed to go.
My final question in this line of questions is that I have heard that a number of people were hired and that’s what causes the slowdowns in construction and whatnot.
With all of the capital projects that are being done and being built and some of the holdbacks and drawbacks, is this going to affect the spending in terms of bringing the prices up for projects because they’re delayed, delayed, and delayed? Do you foresee that in the future?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, I will give the floor to Mr. Rumbolt.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to go back to the brief statement I made about the size of facilities being built for the future.
I’m just wondering if the minister is going to comment on my brief statement.
Minister Kusugak, if you would like to respond.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, I would like to respond to the question. (interpretation ends) Yes, in my opening comments and in previous discussions, I have often said that we would like to look at new approaches in our department in terms of standards and criteria on capital projects.
That encompasses a wide range of things and it includes current standardization of buildings that we become responsible for.
So I think now is a good time, when our department is looking at rethinking how we plan and go on with a design, to look at the possibility of designing buildings so that they are not too small by the time the construction of the building or buildings is done.
So that’s what we are looking at and that’s what I have directed our department to start taking a look at and see where possible that we could do things like that and those ideas that Mr. Rumbolt had.
We are on (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Branch Summary. Capital Planning. Total Capital Expenditures. $29,329.
I’m sorry, $29 million…
Chairman: Pardon me; I should have brought it to $29,329,000.
Go to page J-6. (interpretation ends) Petroleum Products Revolving Fund.
I would just like some clarification. This revolving fund is usually a huge amount. Is the department requesting this amount because they had to pay for additional resources and therefore the revolving fund was short by $6,865,000?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): No, I think it would be best if Roy can respond to that question.
The capital for the Petroleum Products Fund is financed outside of the revolving fund. The revolving fund is strictly for the purchase of fuel and paying for operating expenses. So any capital tank farms that were built for the communities are always funded outside under Vote 2, under CGS capital planning.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Green.
I’m not quite clear.
Perhaps what you’re saying is this has nothing to do with the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund. I thought that the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund was that you purchase the fuel and I, as a customer, buy it and at the end of the year, it’s supposed to come to zero.
If this is not a negative or there was not enough return, then the balance that you’re requesting from this Assembly is $6,865,000.
Can you explain to me again as to exactly what this is for?
I could understand that the funds provide a working capital to finance inventory.
Can you tell me that in my English language so that I can get a clear picture as to exactly what this $6,865,000 is for?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): I believe my deputy minister can respond in a language that you can comprehend.
I ask that David respond to the question.
What the member states is true.
As a government, we provide capital funding for tank farms and storage. The government spends monies to build the tank farms so that it doesn’t have an affect on the monies coming in or out.
The six million dollars on page J-7 will be used for tank farm construction, capacities, and code compliance. As a government, we provide funds for the construction of tank farms and that doesn’t affect operating revenues or cash flow.
So why is it called the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund?
Is that because after you make a profit, you use $6,865,000 to build tank farm resupply pipelines, capacity, and code compliance, etcetera, for those four communities?
If not, why is it called the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): It’s been called the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund for a long time. (interpretation ends) It’s just been the title.
We’re on page J-6. (interpretation ends) Total Capital Expenditures. $6,865,000.
Chairman (interpretation): The members agreed.
We will now go to page J-2. (interpretation ends) Department Summary.
Total Capital Expenditures. $36,194,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Do members agree that the Department of Community and Government Services is concluded?
Chairman (interpretation): I would like to thank the Minister of Community and Government Services and his officials.
If you have any closing remarks, Minister Kusugak, you may proceed.
I believe we should rename this fund and I will look into that, Mr. Arvaluk.
I wish to thank the committee for their lines of questioning with respect to my department. Working cooperatively in this Legislative Assembly and with the mayors, hamlets, and other organizations are the focus of our department’s operations. I commit to continuing this cooperation this year and in the future.
Hamlets work extremely hard to ensure that the aspirations of the communities and their operations are met. I, too, have experience as a mayor, as do a number of my colleagues, including our chairman.
We did not play around when we represented our communities. Hamlets work extremely hard to try and get all of the capital items they require, so I totally empathize with them.
Our departmental staff both here at the witness table and within our department work really hard to develop these capital plans, especially in developing Nunavut’s communities.
I thank my colleagues for their questions and I would like to collaborate with them this year to enhance Nunavut’s capacity.
Chairman (interpretation): I’m sorry but we forgot that Mr. Elliott had a question to ask.
Mr. Elliott, I give you the floor at this time.
Since this is a learning process for me, I need a couple of other questions answered.
I didn’t know as this is the first time we’re going through this process, so we went through day 3, day 4, and whatnot, and came up with that.
But when we initially went through and discussed this the last time we were down, we went through a big binder and the third party funding was in there as well.
I noticed it’s in the back at A-IV-4 and all of those projects in there as well.
Is it standard?
I don’t know since this is the first time I have been through this process. At what point do we ask questions about those?
Is it now a chance to ask questions about those as well or am I going to be told to ask them somewhere else?
Chairman (interpretation): I apologize, Mr. Elliott, you can ask your question to the minister at this time.
Mr. Elliott: My question was actually directed to everybody because I don’t know if everybody here understood that we were able to ask questions on these specific projects.
On A-IV-2, it talks about the Arctic Bay Sewage Lagoon and $500,000 is supposed to be put in there.
One of the questions I had was and I guess I learned this from this morning when it was explained to us that if a project was under $100,000, it would be I don’t know if it was open sourced or contracts would be sent out as invitations.
Since it’s under $100,000, will there be a request for proposals for that or will it just be invitation only?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Elliott.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Yes, we do issue tenders for projects like that.
I don’t know if my question was totally answered.
Will that be an open request for proposals or tender? I get my terminology wrong, I’m sorry. Will it be a public one or will it be an invitation because it’s under $100,000?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Yes, it will be going through the public tender process, Mr. Chairman.
One of the questions is in terms of the project that will be completed in Resolute Bay.
In the substantiation forms that were provided, it mentioned that at this time, it doesn’t reach the Canadian codes for the standard for sewage waste and whatnot.
Once the money is spent this year, will the project be up to the national standard?
If I could ask Mr. Green to respond to that.