EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Chairman: Is the committee agreed to Bill 36 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 36 can immediately be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
Go to Bill 37, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) No. 4, 2007-2008.
I would now like to ask Minister Tapardjuk of the Department of Finance to make his opening remarks.
Bill 37 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2007-2008 – Consideration in Committee
Bill 37 will provide the necessary O&M funds to the Department of Health and Social Services to address a deficit of approximately $1.5 million.
This deficit is a result of allocating, for accounting purposes, the cost of the recent NEU Collective Agreement to departments and territorial corporations, as applicable.
It should be noted that the Department of Health and Social Services has a surplus of $500,000 before the cost of the recent NEU Collective Agreement is allocated. Approximately $2 million of compensation and benefits was allocated to the Department of Health and Social Services because of the recent NEU Collective Agreement.
As well, Bill 37 also provides an allocation to the Department of Education for contribution to the Nunavut Arctic College as a result of the recent NEU Collective Agreement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any general comments, but I will pose several questions at the appropriate time.
There are two items in the 2007-08 supplementary appropriation that they want considered.
After the government and the Nunavut Employees Union negotiated the collective agreement, we were informed that it would cost an additional $2 million. Further, with respect to the Nunavut Arctic College, another $232,000 will cover off the incremental costs of the agreement.
This will just be a contingency fund. There are quite a few departments who don’t appear to have had any incremental costs. Apparently, the contingency fund will cover these additional costs incurred by these departments.
I will be asking questions about Nunavut Arctic College and the Department of Health and Social Services. Perhaps they were the only departments that didn’t prepare for the additional costs required by the Nunavut Employees Union Collective Agreement as they didn’t plan for any additional costs inside their O&M budgets.
I will be asking questions with respect to these two departments at the appropriate time.
I think that was your general comment.
I will allow the other members to make general comments if they have any, and if not, we will go to page 4. 2007-08 Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) No. 4.
Total Adult Learning and Post Secondary Services. $232,000.
I just want to get some clarification on the minister’s opening comments. He stated that the Department of Health had a projected surplus of $500,000 and they have to be allocated approximately $2 million as a result of the NEU Collective Agreement, so they have a deficit of $1.5 million.
With respect to the Arctic College amount, are they in the same situation? Are we just adding this amount?
The Nunavut Arctic College manages their finances as approved by the government, even though they may have had enough surplus funds to cover these additional costs after the collective agreement was signed.
I will have my Deputy Minister, Mr. Ma, respond to that question. Thank you.
I think I understand the member’s question. To get to and also when we get to the appropriate monies, I’m just going to go back a little bit.
When we developed the budgets for 2007-08, we recognized at some point in time that we would settle with the NEU and that we would then have to allocate to each respective department an amount that would be reflective of the new collective agreement. However, because the collective agreement was signed after the year end was already done for 2007-08, we then had the luxury of actually going back and seeing where every department was in terms of their year end numbers.
So what we did then is, for budget purposes in the House, we of course exclude amortization depreciation with the non-cash items. So once we backed those out, we were then able to see where the department was in terms of lapses and the only department that would have had an over-expenditure because of the allocation of the new collective agreement was the Department of Health and Social Services, so that’s why there is an appropriation here for $1.5 million.
In the case of Nunavut Arctic College, what we did is, like we did for all of the departments, we took the people on staff and calculated the number going back to make sure there was the right amount. So that’s what we did with the college as well.
They would probably need about $232,000 to cover the new collective agreement.
So even if the Arctic College is an agency of the government, they actually were also reviewed on a need basis, not automatic, whatever the percent increase there is in the collective agreement. (interpretation) Thank you.
I apologize to the member. Yes, that is correct.
The revised contribution, if you will, will stipulate that it’s for the increase in the new collective agreement.
So if it turns up that they actually need a little bit less or a little bit more, we will obviously then adjust it within those parameters, but I would think the number we have is pretty accurate.
We spent quite a bit of time, or Diana has spent quite a bit of time working on these numbers and I’m pretty confident in those numbers.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ma. (interpretation) Are you finished?
(interpretation ends) I don’t think there are too many questions. 2007-08 Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) No. 4.
Chairman: Total Department. $232,000.
Total Directorate. $1.5 million.
Chairman: Total Department. $1.5 million.
Operations and Maintenance Appropriation. $1,732,000.
Chairman: Go back to Bill 37 in your legislation binder.
Bill 37, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2007-2008.
Chairman: Go back to page 2 of Bill 37.
Vote 1: Operations and Maintenance.
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriations. $1,732,000.
Chairman: Is the committee agreed to Bill 37 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 37 can immediately be place on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
Chairman: We will go on to Bill 38.
I would now like to ask Minister Tapardjuk of Finance to make his opening remarks.
Bill 38 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee
For the current fiscal year, 2008-09, Bill 38 will appropriate $8,786,000 for five capital projects.
These capital projects include:
An increase to the Rankin Inlet Airport Airside Surface Rehabilitation Project;
Repairs to the Gjoa Haven water line; and
Construction of a new bridge in Pangnirtung and removal of the old bridges damaged because of the spring flooding.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions that members may have.
Page 4 of the 2008-09 Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) No. 2.
Total Corporate Services. $300,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $300,000.
Special Warrants. Not Previously Authorized.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): During my opening comments, I made a comment in regard to Item 4 on page 5 and I would like to ask a question.
Is the GN providing new monies aside from what it already provides through its existing Capital Contribution Agreement to the City of Iqaluit for the road paving project?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): My Deputy Minister, Peter Ma, will respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.
The short answer to the member’s question is no, but it may be worthwhile to talk a bit about the contribution agreement so that it’s clear to all members. With respect to the City of Iqaluit, they get $2.4 million every year for the next five years in what we call sort of a flexible block arrangement.
So over the course of the five years, they get $12 million.
With the paving project that’s occurring here in the capital, there is a need to cash flow some of it a little bit sooner than is currently agreed to and that’s not unusual.
We do that from time to time and we do notify the Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability.
What’s a bit odd here and I’ll explain the background of why it looks a bit odd, in order to do the cash flow that I spoke earlier about, we’re taking I think it is eight projects from the 2003-04 fiscal year.
The Department of CGS at that time incorrectly recorded that as what we call deferred revenue.
In actual fact, what should have happened was that money should have been returned because it was voted as Vote 2 or capital money.
In the meantime, in order to do those eight projects, they weren’t able to get other funding from other sources such as CIFF and Aarluk, I think it is. So we felt it was most appropriate that we bring it back into the House and revote those monies to help cash flow the Iqaluit paving project, and that’s why you see $926,000.
We’re trying to follow our own procedures and also to be transparent within the House, so that’s why it looks a bit odd.
My second question is: the government has had indicated that it is transferring, as the deputy minister also alluded to some rearranging of funds, funds between existing capital projects in order to provide, and I quote, “advance to the city for this paving.”
What were the other capital projects that have been dealt with in this way and have any one of them been delayed in order to allow the Iqaluit paving to go ahead?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): My deputy minister will answer that question, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, two additional projects were re-profiled. There was $560,000 moved from the Rankin Inlet Water Treatment Plant and $800,000 from the Repulse Bay Garage.
We anticipate that we will replenish those funds in the next fiscal year, 2009-10.
It is my understanding from the Department of Community and Government Services that these projects will not be delayed.
My next question is: can the minister or his officials clearly state for the public record how other communities can receive assistance in order to pave their roads and establish a healthier community?
There is a process within government, it’s through the Department of Community and Government Services, whereby on an annual basis, I believe it is, they consult with all communities.
After that consultation and that discussion with each community, a list of priorities is done up with respect to capital projects. So like I said, it’s a close consultation between the Department of Community and Government Services and the respective communities.
That list then comes within government.
Within government, we have another process called ICCP, or Interdepartmental Committee on Capital Projects, that’s a group of officials.
They make recommendations, that gets carried forward into the capital plan, it goes to the Financial Management Board, who of course then makes further decisions, and then it goes to standing committee where the standing committee has further discussions with the government.
So that, Mr. Chairman, is generally the process.
Mr. Chairman, my second follow-up is really: in view of the fact that there were other communities’ projects that were reallocated in order to provide this advance to the Iqaluit Paving Project, did this particular project go through the process that the deputy minister just indicated to the committee?
As I stated earlier in answering one of the member’s questions earlier, in Iqaluit, they have what we call a flexible block funding. So we leave it with the city to determine their own priorities and if their priority is paving, or whatever it is, that’s their priority, so yes to his question.
I’m not really clear exactly what the answer was. The other communities basically have to go through the territorial-wide kind of approval process which involves all the departmental or other committees.
Did this particular project, in view of the fact that it impacts other capital projects, go through the same process as other communities normally are asked to abide by?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Mr. Ma will answer the question.
If I understand the member correctly, I think there are sort of two parts to his question and perhaps that is why my answer is not quite clear. Yes, in terms of the process, but the second is sort of a no, I guess, the city gets to determine their own priorities in terms of how they want to spend within the block funding that we provide them.
I think you also asked sort of in a roundabout way whether the two projects I just mentioned, I think the Rankin Inlet Water Treatment and I can’t remember what the other one is... we do have the flexibility with the way it is currently set up to re-cash flow things and then, like I said, we typically would notify the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability.
My next question is: is the GN in discussions at all with the federal government to provide funding for this Iqaluit Paving Project and if so, when will it receive a final answer from Ottawa?
That is actually a really good question.
We, being the Department of Community and Government Services, have been in discussions with Infrastructure Canada officials.
I’m going by memory a little bit, but I think the last discussion we had with them was in May. We brought up this and a number of other projects that could perhaps be funded under the Building Canada Fund.
If my memory serves me correctly, at this point in time, the reaction is favourable.
Since that time, Infrastructure Canada has a new assistant deputy minister in that area. If I recall correctly, the Department of Community and Government Services will be meeting with the new ADM I believe on October 2.
Recognizing the fact that we’re also in the federal election, it may slow some things down, but we’re hoping not. At least at the officials’ level, we will continue to move the file along as quickly as possible.
With respect to a conclusion date, that was one of the questions the member asked, I’m afraid I can’t answer that at this point in time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) To pay for these special warrants and not previously authorized requests, what projects have been cancelled to accommodate this?
I haven’t got my arena yet. What other projects that you have slated for 2008-09 have been cancelled?
With respect to the bridge in Pangnirtung, we have not cancelled any projects at this point in time.
All told, we’re spending $5 million to rectify the situation in Pangnirtung, $4.5 million of that was through capital and another $500,000 was through O&M.
That said though, because this was, if you will, a disaster type of situation, we may be able to recover a portion of that under federal programs. Our Department of Community and Government Services is working towards recovering as much as they can from the feds in this respect.
That’s different from Infrastructure Canada, gas tax, and that’s a completely different source of funding from the federal government?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will have Mr. Ma answer the question.
I believe the fund is called the Disaster Relief Fund, I could be wrong and I may stand to be corrected in that respect. So it is different from MRIF and CSIF, and other federal programs such as that.
Just in relation to the disaster in Pangnirtung, I think that’s another good example for our friends south of the boarder of global warming.
For the bridge replacement project here, was that for the new bridge or for the old bridge that got washed away?
I’ll try my best to answer the member’s question.
I may have to rely on my colleagues from the Department of Community and Government Services. Initially, when we had the situation in Pangnirtung, we needed to come to some sort of a solution, I guess, to provide services to the community.
If I recall, at that point in time, we put up a temporary bridge.
So the special warrant was initially done to deal with that situation.
The Department of Community and Government Services also realized that, going forward, we would have to replace that bridge, so there was an order made I think with a firm in London, England.
That bridge was brought over to Canada and the initial plan was to bring it up, I think, through Newfoundland and then on up to Pangnirtung.
When the bridge actually got here, we recognized that the barge or the ship that was going to be going up there was not available anymore. So we looked at other options and an option was to go from here to Pangnirtung to do that.
So basically that’s the plan we’re on now to get the bridge replaced in Pangnirtung and we obviously need to get it done as quickly as possible.
I’m just wondering if Mr. Ma could clarify if it was the London Bridge that fell down there...
... or was it the old bridge that was there already that was getting addressed.
I think he’s asking me a ‘Humpty Dumpty’ question, but no, seriously, just in the way of background I guess, there were actually two bridges in Pangnirtung, one was an old bridge and the second bridge was a bridge that was in the process of being built.
Because of the severity of what happened in Pangnirtung, if I recall correctly, both bridges ended up being washed out.
So I guess the short answer to your question, it would be that both bridges are being replaced now.
I thank Mr. Ma for that response.
He had indicated that that one bridge was being built and the new one was being built.
Has that bridge been completed and turned over to basically become the property of the GN at that point in time or was it still in the hands of the contractor?
If that bridge had not been commissioned over to the Government of Nunavut at that point in time, it would have still been with the contractor, although I could stand to be corrected and I will verify that for you.
I guess given that it’s still not the property at that point of the government and if it hadn’t been turned over, would that not be the contractor’s asset or responsibility to replace? I’m sure they would have had insurance or something to go after for such events.
If it wasn’t our asset at that point in time, would it be our responsibility to pay for repairing it?
I actually don’t know the answer, but I suspect it would be an act of God and I don’t know what the contract had in place. Again, I commit to getting back to the member on that question.
I’m not saying it wasn’t an act or whatever, if it wasn’t our asset or our property at that point in time, then I’m sure the contractor would have said, “It still belongs to us.”
So I just want to make sure that we’re not really paying for something that wasn’t ours and we’re not paying for something twice.
If there are other options by the contractor to recoup any losses or whatever through any other avenues, if you could also look in to see if that has been explored as well.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Perhaps Mr. Ma can respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ma
I fully understand what the member is saying to me, so I will look into the matter.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Ma. (interpretation) Are you finished?
(interpretation ends) Questions?
Capital Planning. Total Capital Planning.
Special Warrants. $2.5 million.
Chairman: Not Previously Authorized. $3,976,000.
Economic Development and Transportation. Capital.
Transportation. Total Transportation. $2,010,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $2,010,000.
Chairman: Go back to page 2. Schedule 1.
Capital Appropriation. $8,786,000.
Chairman: Go to Bill 38 in your legislation binder.
Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009, Bill 38.
Chairman: Now go to page 2 of Bill 38. Schedule.
Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2009.
Vote 2: Capital.
Total Capital. $8,786,000.
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriation. $8,786,000.
Chairman: Clause 6. Agreed?
Chairman: Clause 7. Agreed?
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 38 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree that pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 38 can immediately be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
Chairman: Thank you. We’re on Bill 39.
I would like to ask Minister Tapardjuk of the Department of Finance to make his opening remarks.
Bill 39 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee
Bill 39 will provide $43,005,000 in supplemental O&M funding in 2008-09 for:
Departments and territorial corporations to deal with the recent fuel price increases;
Departments and territorial corporations to absorb the cost of the recent NEU Collective Agreement; and
An increase in the federal contribution to the Non-Insured Health Benefits program.
Chairman: Bill 39, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2008-2009.
Total Office of the Clerk. $135,000.
Chairman: Expenditures on Behalf of Members.
Total Expenditures on Behalf of Members. $249,000.
Chairman: Office of the Speaker.
Total Office of the Speaker. $5,000.
I wish I could have more than that.
Chairman: We will go to page 5.
Total Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. $15,000.
Chairman: Offices of Independent Commissioners.
Total Offices of Independent Commissioners. $17,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Total Department. $421,000.
Total Directorate. $177,000.
Chairman: Statistical Services.
Total Statistical Services. $33,000.
Chairman: Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
Total Policy, Planning and Evaluation. $93,000.
Total Nunavut Cabinet. $216,000.
Chairman: Commissioner of Nunavut.
Total Commissioner of Nunavut. $10,000.
Total Intergovernmental Affairs. $69,000.
Total Aboriginal and Circumpolar Affairs. $20,000. Agreed?
Chairman: Devolution.
Total Devolution. $48,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $656,000.
Total Directorate. $378,000.
Chairman: Policy and Planning.
Total Policy and Planning. $231,000.
Chairman: Financial Management.
Total Financial Management. $214,000.
Total Internal Audit Services. $77,000.
Total Comptrollership. $907,000.
Chairman: Centrally Administered Funds.
Total Centrally Administered Funds.
In here, they’re providing funding of $2 million to the Qulliq Energy Corporation for the development of the hydroelectric project.
I’m just wondering if the minister or the Minister of Energy could give us a breakdown on what those funds will be used for specifically.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Perhaps Minister Picco can answer that question since he holds that portfolio.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Tapardjuk. (interpretation) Minister Picco, please respond.
I thank the member for the question. $100,000 of $2.1 million is used for a desktop study for the Kivalliq region. What that means is basically, from the concerns raised by the members in the House, there are hydroelectric possibilities outside of this region as an example.
The first step of a hydroelectric study is to do a desktop study and that’s where you actually look at cartographic maps, you look at geographic locations, and start looking at potentials. One of the areas that we’re looking at is in Coral Harbour as an example.
We already have identified previously sites in the Kivalliq region, south of Arviat and indeed close to Rankin Inlet.
Those would be followed up further.
The additional $2 million also for the Power Corporation is on the Iqaluit project and that’s to follow up some of the good work that has been done to date.
As the members know, you can’t just go there and start a power plant. Indeed, you have to look at the hydrological studies, the amount of water flow; you have to do geotechnical work to see if the structure of the ground, for example, would be able to hold a dam, what type of fault and underlying strata is in place, and so on. So this money would be to help facilitate that.
However, if the Department of Finance has any more detail on the $2 million, they could add some, too.
Mr. Minister, I’m sure the only thing that the Department of Finance might be able to add to that is what the underground strata are over there.
I know that this is something that has been going on for quite some time and I know that there have been some concerns raised at the local level over the site.