EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I’m not aware and have not been made aware of anything different than that, Mr. Chairman.
So as far as my department and this government understand, those projects that are highlighted and will be highlighted will go ahead. I’ll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.
I’m just concerned with any of the money that is committed, 25 percent from the GN and 75 percent from the federal government.
However, we had an experience in Arctic Bay where an airstrip completion date has been delayed for several years, I think, for unforeseen problems.
If that happens, if the completion date is deferred and the federal money runs out, then what is the contingency plan of the Government of Nunavut to honour that commitment?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Chairman, I can only reiterate that as far as we know, the money is committed and I can’t speculate, Mr. Chairman.
All I could tell you and assure my colleague is that we have agreements with the federal government for those funds that I earlier stated. I have not heard anything different from that and we will go on that premise, Mr. Chairman.
Are there any further questions? Mr. Schell.
A question for Mr. Kusugak here. On February 17, 2009, the federal Competition Bureau publicly announced that criminal charges had been laid against a number of companies “accused of rigging bids to obtain Government of Canada contracts for information technology services.”
One of the companies that were charged was Donna Cona. In 2008-09, your department awarded $1,742,000 in contracts to this company.
What measures does your department have in place to ensure that the Government of Nunavut is not the victim of bid rigging?
We certainly spend a lot of time consulting with our colleagues federally and in other provincial jurisdictions.
There are certainly a lot of publications in the procurement business that allow professionals in that area to be informed about various things going on.
We are certainly aware of this particular charge, if you will, or case. Until it concludes, we have to wait and see what happens.
Certainly, the procurement process that this government undertook to get a standing offer in place with that company was open, transparent, and competitive.
Certainly, the process that the GN went through to hire that company and others allowed us some comparative price comparisons.
So we certainly believe that with that contract, we have some value for money and the process itself was quite transparent.
I think that until there is an actual conclusion to some of those matters, we would prefer not to speculate.
We would certainly be concerned, but our process was stellar and transparent.
What advice does your department provide to other GN departments and Crown corporations, including the Nunavut Housing Corporation, to help them avoid awarding contracts whose value has been over-inflated by bid rigging?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Schell. (interpretation) Who would like to respond?
Ms. Lausman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly discussed a lot.
This is a large territory but a small market.
It is a concern firstly for everyone who contracts within this territory that we are getting value for money and that we are, in fact, achieving what we set out to achieve at the end of our contracting practices. We certainly are concerned with the number of respondents we have to construction contracts.
I know that two of the concerns was housing. That means that we have to take measures to ensure that we’ve got more contractors interested in our work.
There are a number of ways that we have to do that. We must scrutinize prices. We must ask for price breakdowns.
So there are different methodologies that we undertake when we are certainly doing contracting.
I apologize for speaking for more specifically to construction because that’s where we do most of our work.
We are aware of it and we do discuss these issues amongst colleagues because we want the best value for Nunavut.
My next question is: when you find out what the results on these charges are, will you inform the House as to what decision has been made so that we can monitor this company if there are any charges?
There are already charges. It’s perhaps the outcome that you are asking about.
Certainly that would be of interest to ourselves and to the House, and we will certainly report back.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that the Petroleum Products Division of the Department of Community and Government Services spent approximately $195 million in 2008-09 on fuel resupply contracts.
It spent approximately $137 million in 2007-08. Approximately how much did it spend in the 2009-2010 fiscal year?
We just don’t have that information in front of us, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, we don’t have that detail with us today.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Kusugak.
Mr. Elliott: The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that Woodwards was paid approximately $167 million in fuel resupply contracts and NTCL was paid approximately $25 million in fuel resupply contracts in the 2008-09 fiscal year. These amounts were significantly higher than in 2007-08. How is the department monitoring these companies’ compliance with the terms and conditions of their contracts?
If I could have Kathleen answer that, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Lausman, please.
It’s certainly a bit of an art right now and actually over the past years to determine the cost of fuel, which is a huge part of that contract.
Bulk supply contracts, frankly, is the bulk of the cost.
Our PPD folks spend a lot of time monitoring the market and the stock market, and get expert advice on what’s happening both with the price of crude and also currency.
We have also taken effort to do early purchases to moderate the cost.
There isn’t a lot of time spent dealing with the contractors themselves. Certainly leading up to the resupply time, which is predominantly summer, there are volumes that are calculated as forecast for requirement at different times of year that are communicated back to the bulk contractors so that they have an idea of the volumes that the government will likely be purchasing.
There are folks who actually ride on the ships as the product is being delivered. There are different tests done of the fuel at the point of loading the ship, unloading the ship, and into the tanks, and so on.
It’s quite a rigorous testing process that is undertaken throughout the whole fuel resupply. Once the fuel is in the tanks themselves, there is further rigour as the fuel gets consumed throughout the course of the year, and then ultimately gets delivered to individual consumers.
Managing those contracts is very important and it’s certainly important through that management that we get the best pricing and that we actually get fuel delivered to the communities.
There is quite a lot of contract management around both of them.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Lausman. Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In April of 2004, the Government of Nunavut filed a lawsuit against NTCL for approximately $7.5 million to recover costs incurred by the government for its “bad gas” compensation program.
In March of this year, the Nunavut Court of Justice issued a judgment in relation to this matter.
Without discussing the specifics of this case, when does the government anticipate that it will be finally resolved and is it satisfied that NTCL has successfully addressed the problems with gasoline quality that led to this lawsuit being filed?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) I remember that situation. It was challenging. Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of risk management and that whole issue, I think this question would be best asked by my colleague, the Minister responsible for Finance.
The minister is not here.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded a $38,000 sole source contract in 2008-09 to Aarluk Consulting to prepare a “Gas Tax Program Evaluation.”
What did this evaluation determine and will you commit to tabling it in the Legislative Assembly?
As part of the gas tax agreement, the program evaluation was required to be completed by March 31, 2009.
A standing offer agreement was in place with the contractor.
However, time constraints did not allow the full competitive process to be complete.
The sole source contract was necessary. The GN remains in full compliance with the gas tax agreement.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak. (interpretation ends) I think that my colleague asked when you plan to table this document as well. Minister Kusugak, can you respond to that?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: I’ll table it at an appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.
I take it tomorrow.
Just so I understand a little bit more and maybe if people have questions in terms of the Gas Tax Program, is it a reporting mechanism going back to the federal government saying where we spent?
My understanding of the Gas Tax Program is it’s for helping to build recreational facilities and stuff like that. Am I off?
Is that what it is? It’s reporting back to the federal government saying, “We spent the money on this, this, and this,” and reporting back to the federal government to meet requirements.
Who can respond?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe it’s to ensure that we are complying with the program.
I guess the next question then would be: why couldn’t your department perform this work if it was a matter of doing a report back on programs handled by your department?
We didn’t have the staff to be able to fulfill that work.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded three sole source contracts worth a total of $91,500 to an individual in 2008-09 to act as a contracts specialist for your department.
Why were these contracts awarded on a sole source basis?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) I think the contracts our colleague is referring to is C995, C1240, and C1282.
For the minister’s benefit, I am highlighting those particular items.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: I’ll ask Ms. Lausman to respond to that, Mr. Chairman.
This particular individual was formerly with PPD and I believe, actually before the division, provided the contracting expertise to PPD in negotiating their resupply contracts as well as the contracts with various distributor contractors by community.
This was absolutely to fill a vacancy and a void in PPD and ensure that these contracts and this work were completed for the fuel resupply.
This contractor is no longer used and it was for a specific period of time. That staff position has now been filled and we are pleased about that.
This is perhaps what contractors are used for, to plug gaps in business and make sure that we can get on with business while we staff positions.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Lausman. Are there any further questions on this section?
Just a while ago, you presented a report with regard to rental units in Arviat. In your report, it outlines that it would end by June 13, 2007.
Now this rent is $332,000 annually. This lease was from the Arviat Development Corporation. Apparently, the lease has expired and that development corporation has run out of money.
Last year, we approved a supplementary appropriation of $4.4 million in the Legislative Assembly and this was to allow the purchase of the Arviat Health Centre now that the Arviat Development Corporation has closed.
What I would like to raise in a question is with regard to these offices in Arviat that are owned by this corporation.
Are they going to be bought and if not, what’s the reason?
With regard to the issue that the member has raised with the health centre or the office in Arviat, we haven’t made a decision to buy that facility at this time.
Why haven’t you deliberated or considered the option as to whether you ought to purchase that facility? Are you still renting or leasing it?
If you haven’t purchased it, what’s the status?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): As far as we have been led to understand, we have not been informed by the operators or the managers of this facility as to whether we are supposed to operate that building.
That is what we understand.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to add with regard to Cambridge Bay.
There’s also a facility that you have been leasing and it’s supposed to end on March 31, 2027.
This was signed and agreed to in 1997. The cost of the facility is $1,110,022 annually.
Now, this lease is a 40-year lease and the accrued form would be $44 million over the life of the lease.
Have you looked at options? Have you learned from this long-term lease? It’s costing the government a lot and it was agreed to in 1997.
Have you considered other options?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): There are a lot of things that we have learned over the last ten years based on rentals and leases of private facilities. Because these are privately owned by the communities, it is the only way they create economic development and derive their income from that.
We are deliberating on the options and whether we will have to come up with a new lease agreement, especially for capital items or projects.
Yes, we know it’s quite expensive, but it’s also included in the operations and maintenance budget. We are trying to deal with the operations and how they would be dealt with when we are renting facilities or offices from the private sector.
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department’s Cape Dorset office awarded a contract for an indoor air quality investigation. What facility was looked at and what did the investigation conclude?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: If you would bear with me, Mr. Chairman, I’m trying to find which item number he is referring to, Mr. Chairman, so I can better answer his question.
The contract number is C546. So for the benefit of the minister and his officials, that’s where it’s being referred to. (interpretation) Who is going to respond to the question?
(interpretation ends) Again, it’s C546.
I know it’s hard to find because there is no page reference for these particular contracts, so it’s a challenge trying to find a particular item. If they were in sequence, it would be a little easier too. Perhaps that’s another lesson that your department can learn, to sequence these contracts so that it’s easier to find as you go.
I see some nodding, so hopefully that will improve.
I should remind my colleagues that when you are referring to a question, you should also identify the contract number so that they can get at least some advance notice on this.
(interpretation) To the question, Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: The reason I couldn’t find it here, Mr. Chairman, is because it wasn’t a sole source, it was a tender. I will have to get back to him as to which building it was. We may have to tender out or maybe sole source on how to organize these things better.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Kusugak. (interpretation) Questions?
The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department awarded a number of different contracts for air charters on a sole source basis. In what circumstances should departments obtain competitive quotes from different airlines and in what situations is it appropriate to sole source an air charter?
The sole sourcing in terms of air travel is usually based on availability at the time, Mr. Chairman. In terms of emergencies and stuff based on priority, the sole sourcing is done due to lack of availability of a certain plane at a certain time. It varies on a case-by-case situation, Mr. Chairman, but we do try to get more than one quote before a contract is done given time and space, Mr. Chairman.
This is referring to contract C864. The government’s most recent annual report on procurement activities indicates that your department paid $275,668 in 2008-09 for an all-wheel drive vehicle. Was only one vehicle purchased and what was its purpose?
Who wants to respond to that question?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I thank you for the question. (interpretation ends) This all-wheel drive vehicle is actually a typo; it should be all-wheel drive vehicles.
Those are, I believe, the amphibious machines that were purchased from our department for emergency services and search and rescue that were distributed throughout the territory.
I’m jogging my memory, but I think it’s like nine or ten, or I forget the exact number of those amphibious vehicles.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak. (interpretation ends) Are there any further questions on CG&S?
I do not see any further arms and I recognize the clock.
We’re close to six o’clock, so perhaps we can report progress and start with a new department tomorrow. (interpretation) Is that agreeable?
Chairman (interpretation): You are all agreed.
Thank you, Minister Kusugak. If you would like to make closing remarks, you have the floor.
I also thank our officials who were able to be here at the witness table because they deal with this daily. It’s quite challenging and complex to deal with these issues, so I thank them dearly. They work really hard to ensure that the contracts are dealt with fairly and they deal with all of the communities.
I want to thank all of my colleagues, especially for conducting a thorough review because it really helps us.
Whenever you have concerns or issues about these contracts, you can come and check with me either at the meeting or outside the meeting.
Thank you for being a very good chairperson, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your facilitation. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
I thank your officials for appearing before the committee.
Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could escort the minister and his officials out.
Your committee has been considering Tabled Documents 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2) and would like to report progress.
There is a motion on the floor. Is there a seconder? Mr. Arvaluk.
A reminder for meetings for tomorrow, there is a meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislation at 8:30, followed by a meeting of the Regular Caucus at 10:30, and both meetings are being held in the Nanuq Room.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Clerk. This House stands adjourned until June 2 at 1:30 p.m.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Pages 2029 – 2089
Opening Prayer 2029
Ministers’ Statements 2029
Members’ Statements 2032
Oral Questions 2037
Revert to Item 5: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 2054
Tabling of Documents 2054
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2054
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2088
Orders of the Day 2088
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 2029
153 – 3(2): GN Contribution to Inuit Legal Challenge Against the European Union Seal Ban (Shewchuk) 2029
154 – 3(2): Recognition of Mike Vaydik, retiring General Manager Chamber of Mines (Taptuna) 2030
155 – 3(2): Provincial/Territorial Early Childhood Education Meetings in Iqaluit (Tapardjuk) 2030
156 – 3(2): New Research Vessel (Shewchuk) 2031
229 – 3(2): Baker Lake Nunavut Arctic College Graduates (Aupaluktuq) 2032
230 – 3(2): Pangnirtung High School Exchange Trip (Komoartok) 2032
231 – 3(2): On Guard and On Patrol: Operation Nunalivut 2010 (Elliott) 2033
232 – 3(2): Passing of Ben Arnarjuaq and Graduates of Ben Arnarjuaq School (Tapardjuk) 2034
233 – 3(2): Kugaaruk High School Graduates (Ningark) 2035
234 – 3(2): Taloyoak Walk against Tobacco Use and Other Activities (Ugyuk) 2035
235 – 3(2): In Appreciation of the Coral Harbour Men’s Group (Ningeongan) 2036
236 – 3(2): Graduates of Peter Pitseolak School (Schell) 2037
359 – 3(2): Status of Family Violence Shelters across Nunavut (Ningark) 2037
360 – 3(2): Status of Relocating the Medical Travel Office from Pangnirtung (Arvaluk) 2040
361 – 3(2): Status of a New Daycare Facility for Chesterfield Inlet (Ningeongan) 2041
362 – 3(2): Seismic Testing in the High Arctic (Elliott) 2042
363 – 3(2): Implementation of Qanukkanniq Report Card Recommendations (Ugyuk) 2044
364 – 3(2): New Research Vessel (Schell) 2045
365 – 3(2): New Food Mail Program (Okalik) 2046
366 – 3(2): Fuel Supply in Pangnirtung (Komoartok) 2048
367 – 3(2): New Research Vessel (Rumbolt) 2050
368 – 3(2): Social Advocacy Office (Elliott) 2051
369 – 3(2): Seismic Testing in Lancaster Sound (Arvaluk) 2052
161 – 3(2): Considerations Regarding an Open Market System for Annual Sealift – Summary Report – December 2009 (Kusugak) 2054
066 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Lease Activity Report – Consideration in Committee 2055
099 – 3(2): Contract Activity Report 2008-09 – Consideration in Committee 2055
100 – 3(2): Procurement Activity Report 2008-09 – Consideration in Committee 2055
Speaker (Hon. James Arreak) (interpretation): I would like to ask Mr. Ningark to say the opening prayer.
A very good afternoon, Premier, ministers, and Members of the Legislative Assembly, and Nunavummiut, especially the people of Qikiqtarjuaq.
Minister’s Statement 153 – 3(2): GN Contribution to Inuit Legal Challenge Against the European Union Seal Ban (Shewchuk)
I am pleased to announce that the Department of Environment, on behalf of the Government of Nunavut, has made a contribution of $25,000 in support of the European Court of Justice Challenge against the European Union Seal Ban.
The contribution was made in two equal amounts to two Nunavut organizations that are registered as plaintiffs in the case: the Nattivak Hunters and Trappers Association in Qikiqtarjuaq and the Pangnirtung HTA.
The contribution will be used to help offset the legal costs associated with the court case.
The Seal Ban Regulation, which will come into effect August 20, 2010, is directly responsible for the low sealskin prices over the past two years.
The regulation contains an exemption for traditional Inuit harvesting. However, many in Nunavut believe that the exemption will be meaningless. There is widespread concern that the implementation of the exemption will not be sufficient or timely enough to counteract the negative economic impacts that have already been caused by the regulation.
An application for annulment of the regulation was filed on January 11, 2010 by a group of 17 plaintiffs, including Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK), the Nattivak HTA, the Pangnirtung HTA, four individuals from Nunavut, the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Greenland, the Fur Institute of Canada, and the Atlantic sealing industry stakeholders.
If successful, this challenge will result in the complete nullification of the seal ban.
As you know, the Department of Environment has continued to support Nunavut seal hunters through the Sealskin Purchase Program, despite the poor market conditions caused by the EU ban. I believe that any constructive action that counters this misguided ban should gain the full support of all stakeholders in the sealing industry.
As such, we wish the plaintiffs success and commend the strong initiative they have taken in standing up for the sustainable, humane, and vitally important sector to our culture and economy.
Minister’s Statement 154 – 3(2): Recognition of Mike Vaydik, retiring General Manager Chamber of Mines (Taptuna)
I would like to take a moment to recognize an individual for his long-standing service to Nunavut and the north.
That person is Mike Vaydik, now retiring as the General Manager of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines.
Mike Vaydik is well known as the face and voice of the mining industry in our two territories.
Mike is a native of Yellowknife and has spent the better part of his career, nearly 40 years, involved with the resource sector in the north.
Through this time, he has called many communities his home, including Grise Fiord, Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay, Fort Smith, and Yellowknife.
General Manager of the Chamber of Mines since 1996, Mike helped pilot the annual geoscience meeting in Yellowknife, making it into the important forum it now is, and he has served as a director for our own Nunavut Mining Symposium.
Mr. Vaydik has been an eloquent and effective advocate, helping bridge the interests of the industry and the communities of the north. We wish him all continued success into his retirement.