EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
With the passing of the bill, will there be an increase in the requirement for staff or how will it be handled after the passing of this bill in terms of inspection of buildings to follow through with the building code?
Again in some questions, as I went out into the community and asked, there were talks about communities actually having to have building inspectors and whether they would be able to hire them.
So I want to alleviate any confusion that might have come from those discussions.
That is yet to be determined. It is hopeful that it will not cause any more hardship.
The good side about this is with the permitting process that will be enacted when this bill does come into effect, it will give us the ability to know that actual construction is being planned, where we don’t have that at present. Right now, if someone’s building a house, we find out the day before or the day out often with people calling for, let’s say, an electrician to come in and inspect their house.
Once this is enacted, we will know that there is a building being planned and/or constructed. In a sense, it will give us red or yellow flags to let us know that in due process, in time of whatever is being constructed, there will be a call for an inspector of sorts.
It should help in better planning to make sure that we do have electrical inspectors available, whether they are on staff or not.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that answers the question.
That definitely does help.
The hamlets do have quite a bit of responsibility and sometimes they have human capacity issues and whatnot as well.
In terms of the responsibility for individual hamlets with the passing of this bill, this shouldn’t increase their responsibility or workload or will it?
This shouldn’t bring any onus or responsibility to the municipalities over and above what they do now.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that.
That was one of the concerns that community members and people on hamlet council were worried about when I had asked them.
They don’t want any more responsibility and that they are trying as hard as they can to do the best job that they can, so they didn’t want any added responsibility or burden.
I guess my next question is based around the Government of Nunavut itself in terms of additional PYs. Is there a dollar value that’s assigned to this in terms of when we go back for O&M and whatnot through the next process?
Is there an increase in terms of administering this bill?
We don’t anticipate any at this time, but in saying that, it is not yet determined, Mr. Chairman.
For my last question, I’m not sure if you want me to wait until clause 23, but it’s based around the advisory committee that’s being set up with the 13 members and per diems and all that.
Is there a dollar value attached to that?
That’s sort of for the overall bill itself, but I can wait until clause 23 if you would like, Mr. Chairman.
My advice is to wait until clause 23 comes around.
Mr. Enook was raising questions earlier this morning when we were reviewing this issue as it related to construction projects here in Nunavut. One of his questions related to the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously.
When projects are numerous, various contractors have had to wait for other trades’ contractors to complete their jobs. So if this bill is going to be approved, then we need to clarify the parameters for these types of situations.
Can we expect that the past problems we have experienced here would largely be resolved were this bill to be approved in the current form?
That is a very good question, Mr. Ningeongan, as it is quite pertinent to our experience over the past few years where we had undertaken multiple construction projects throughout Nunavut.
When there are multiple projects, they seem to converge with these requirements.
Prior to this bill being reviewed by this committee and becoming legislation, any person could undertake a construction project upon approval of the local municipality.
With this bill, they will now have to notify the government of their intention to undertake any construction project.
For example, in Coral Harbour, let’s say that a project for three housing units is being contemplated.
Here I am just using a hypothetical situation.
The government would then be aware of these plans. We can then make monthly schedules for the various inspectors.
Let’s say when this month arrives, the electrical inspector would have to conduct inspections in Coral Harbour, and then there would also be other projects in Rankin Inlet requiring his attention.
This will allow CGS to better plan these schedules since the government will now be apprised of plans for construction in the communities.
Without this bill, any individual or organizational body is able to undertake construction projects without informing the government.
As a matter of fact, the department officials would receive calls at the last minute for inspections. Sometimes these calls arrive simultaneously. It is impossible to acquiesce to all of these demands, especially since most of these contractors want the inspections immediately.
Now, if this bill were enacted, our office would have this information earlier and accordingly plan the required inspections for the various trades.
Our vision for this legislation is to enable our government to better coordinate the needs of the construction sector, as long as we don’t run into other obstacles.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope I was sufficiently clear.
I wish to return to a question that was asked this morning with respect to the implementation of bills. To ensure Nunavut residents all understand this process, can the minister provide a timeline or the number of months required to implement Bill 30 if it were passed?
Again that’s a very good question by Mr. Ningeongan.
After the Committee of the Whole approves the entire bill, we will have to start implementing its regulations through the Department of Justice. Among these implementation items is the need to appoint members to the advisory council.
Once the items that we feel can be completed by this month, in this case, we envision a 12-month period prior to this legislation being enforced.
This isn’t really a question. I just want to indicate that when we reach clause 33, I will have additional questions.
Are there any more comments or questions on the opening comments?
My question was in regard to regulations; our colleague from Quttiktuq had that clarified.  Just a statement on local housing, especially various levels of government and their services: they must comply with fire and electrical safety.
So it was pleasing to see that Bill 30 would ensure that we would be meeting all the Canadian regulations, codes, and Acts.
I just want to verify that the safety and workplace access to Nunavummiut of various levels of governments that do provide essential services are rather quite important. Their quality of service and the service that they offer must be of easy access to Nunavummiut.
I just want to make a statement that it’s nice to see that this bill would enhance the building codes to make sure that they meet the National Building Code of Canada. Just a comment.
General comments. Mr. Tagak Curley.
I want to comment on several issues, but first of all, I want to thank you.
Additionally, thanks for that clarification.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I have a concern since the implementation items seem to have increased, particularly in relation to the need to appoint members to the council. The appearance is that they would require their own office, based on the minister’s comments. The issue I really want to question is why they require an office.
I ask in light of the fact that office space is at such a premium throughout Nunavut.
Does this office have to be separate? What changes will occur in their responsibilities once this becomes legislation?
I refer to the national standards that apply to trades, such as electrical, plumbing, and boiler codes, that we have to comply with. I don’t see anything wrong with these standards based on the reason that inspections can’t always occur.
I want to ask: is this office so important that it requires space of its own? That is my first question.
If I missed Mr. Curley’s point, he could ask another question.
Based on your question, my understanding of the matter is that no new office space shall be created.
The advisory council will meet occasionally when the need arises.
Therefore, no new office space will be created when this bill becomes law.
I appreciate that, but your opening comments do clearly indicate “the creation of a building official’s office.”
So if something is going to be created, my question is why it would have to be created when, in fact, the various officials responsible for overseeing the existing building codes appear to be functioning despite the fact that there’s a shortage of inspectors all around. So what more is needed?
Really, the difference needed to facilitate that and the only major change appears to be, in my view, a large advisory committee that will oversee it.
My question is: what additional role will this Building Code Act provide for overseeing building and construction of infrastructure, as well as boilers and pressure vessels, as alluded to in the Act?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, perhaps the actual terminology under “building official’s office staff” will be the main responsibility and the employees within the office will be focused primarily on inspections.
So with regard to the legislation, we are primarily talking about officials that would work under that legislation.
Perhaps if I could ask you, Mr. Chairman, to ask Ms. Lausman to provide more details.
Just to clarify, there are going to be two pursuits; one is the advisory council that the minister mentioned in his opening comments.
That advisory council will simply have a role in advising on different changes that Nunavummiut may want to address particular situations in Nunavut that are in addition to the National Building Code.
The building officials will be the inspectors.
We currently have electrical, boiler, and fire inspectors.
Building officials, for the most part, reside right now within CGS and most of the construction to date has been government facilities for, actually, the Government of Nunavut or hamlets.
In addition to electrical, boiler, and fire inspections would be things like energy construction, structural, whether it has got proper wind loading and snow loading designed into it, accessibility issues, and that sort of thing.
So we foresee, as Nunavut grows and economic activity increases over time, there will be more construction and over that period of time, through the permitting process, we will be able to determine the workload for building officials and inspectors and address it over time.
I wanted clarification on that because I think the last page of your statement clearly indicates, I think there was one page anyway, right in the middle of it that there will be “the creation of a building official’s office.”
That’s why I needed clarification on exactly who would be all in that building.
Now, the other change appears to be that’s a bit fuzzy to me with respect to one of the proposed amendments that change the current Act is that the responsibility of the inspector, whatever it be, electrical, in my view, it could be a building inspector or plumbing inspector, or at least an inspector, would not necessarily be to have full authority to what is required in terms of permit.
He’s going to have to check with the chief building official appointed by, no doubt about it, maybe the minister.
What more additional building officials do you really need when, in fact, the status quo appears to have functioned as it is?
I didn’t quite understand what the member was alluding to. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll clarify.
During the committee process or standing committee process, the proposed change was with respect clause 32(2), “Where an inspector is of that opinion that the installation of a plant,” blah-blah-blah, “the inspector may direct the owner to contact the chief building official appointed under the Building Code Act to learn whether a permit is required under that Act.”
I am always under the assumption that the inspector knows exactly when a permit is required.
We now know that we’re going to have a bunch of inspectors who don’t know what they’re doing and they’re going to have to cross-check references with the chief building official to be appointed.
Aren’t we creating a bit of confusion or obligation?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley, for clarifying your question.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Thank you. (interpretation) Perhaps if I could ask Ms. Lausman to provide details because I believe she understands the technicalities, so if you can ask her, Mr. Chairman.
The need for that motion was really to align the current Technical Standards and Safety Act and that reference was actually to the construction of a boiler plant, the boiler itself, and that’s actually manufactured elsewhere.
We wanted to clarify in the Building Code Act that we were not to be and not intending to issue permits for constructing of boilers. The intent is for issuing permits for installation of boilers within buildings.
We just wanted to make sure that that particular point between the two Acts is clarified.
Would that then justify that you need to appoint a chief building official?
Doesn’t the current status quo work? There is no doubt about it, that it could be that the chief building official may be existing in one of the officials that would acquire new responsibilities.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Again, Mr. Chairman, if you could have Ms. Lausman answer that part of it.
The reason for the Building Code Act is to actually get an Act in place to allow enforcement of the entire building code.
Right now, we have an Act to enforce parts of the building code, but not the code in its entirety. We don’t have the opportunity to deal with structural, energy, and accessibility issues and a number of other ones as well. So the Building Code Act will allow that enforcement to happen.
There will now be an opportunity for folks who review plans and inspect buildings under the auspices of building official certification to set up a permitting process so that construction is monitored and notified so that there aren’t separate efforts to get building permits for boilers, electrical, and those different things.
We can continue. We will begin the clause-by-clause review of Bill 30.
It’s in your white legislation binder.
I believe we can continue.
I have the English copy, so I’ll read the title of the bill in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 30, Building Code Act.
Reprint. (interpretation) Clause 1.
I just want some clarification on this matter from the minister as to what the purpose of this advisory committee is.
Clause 23 speaks to the establishment of this advisory council.
Can the minister provide the purpose of this advisory committee? Should this bill be passed, how long will it take to establish this advisory committee?
Once the bill has been passed, the implementation work that would allow for the completion, as per our timeline, either late fall or early winter. That is when we would start searching for members of this advisory committee.
My questions are based around in terms of what it says in terms of the advisory committee being made up of 13 individuals.
It talks about expenses, honorariums, quorums, vacancies, and with the expenses and honorariums, it talks about reimbursing reasonable costs.
Looks like a lot of it will be handled over the phone and not necessarily in face-to-face meetings.
So I’m just wondering if there was a dollar value that the department has come up with in terms of what they will be looking at to spend on sort of hosting or maintaining the committee.
For those precise reasons that you gave, we are not able to give you a precise dollar; we’re very close to a ballpark figure at this time. It’s something that we are working on and we will have established before this goes forward.
Again, this question is based around the process. I want to make sure I understand. The Act creates the building code and then the requirements inside the building code.
I remember it had talked about, specifically, when we had discussed this in committee and the passing of letters back and forth, the idea of possibly… .
The Canadian building code has specific guidelines that we’re currently following. Under the new Act, we will be able to put in different requirements to maybe increase fire safety or individuals with disabilities, ensuring ramps and whatnot. Is this what the role of the advisory committee would be doing as well?
My colleague has the right assumptions on some of the responsibilities this committee would have.
You’re looking at snow loads, and so on and so forth.
Precisely so, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak. Continuing on. Clause 23.
Chairman (interpretation): I am sorry. Clause 32.
Mr. Chairman, I need clarification. Maybe if the minister could give us an example on how this would, in actual process, actually work.
The current wording is a bit confusing to me, whereas the building inspector appears to be playing a managing role, whether or not a permit is required, instead of vice versa.
In my view, a contractor building a plant or pressure building system would normally actually know exactly what permits they’re probably going to need in order to comply with the various inspections that are going to be required.
No doubt about it, the inspector is going to have, first of all, to look at whether appropriate codes have been obtained prior to building a plant, not after the fact.
Inspectors normally get involved, in most cases, after a certain phase of the development of the installation of plants or whatnot are underway.
It is an obligation of the owner, in my view, to obtain various permits required under the city, municipal government, or territorial government.
The wording confuses me because it says, “Where an inspector is of that opinion…” It has to be an opinion now that he’s going to tinker around with instead of inspection.
Why make assumptions whether or not a permit is required? He’s going to have to consult with the building officials, which seems to be the other way around. This is a very poorly worded provision, minister, and it will confuse.
I can tell you that it seems to be the cart before the horse.
So why are you changing the current system that appears to work? Permits are normally obtained first before the inspector runs around. If you look at the second part, (b), he or she may refuse to issue a certificate of inspection, not having maybe obtained an opinion or having an opinion.
So it kind of confuses me, Mr. Chairman, what the amendment is proposing.
It may be very good in a bureaucratic sense, but in a practically technical world, the building contractors are not going to like that.
If I could have Mr. Wong clarify that section for Mr. Curley, through you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Mr. Wong.
Mr. Wong: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This consequential amendment is specific to the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act and it’s a coordination amendment to go along with the new proposed Building Code Act.  In terms of the word “inspector,” in this case, it is referring to an inspector under the Boilers Act.
Typically, the status quo is a person would come for a plant, meaning “device,” apply for a boiler permit, and the inspector would determine whether or not a permit is granted under that Act, the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act.
The key amendment line here is “Where an inspector is of that opinion that the installation of a plant would be considered construction under the Building Code Act, the inspector,” meaning the boiler inspector, “may direct the owner to contact the chief building official appointed under the Building Code Act to learn whether a permit is required under that Act.”
This coordination aspect has to do with, in some cases, a person installing a new device and upgraded plant, furnace, and boiler into their facility, which requires installation changes to the building.
The building itself may have to be physically altered to allow this new device to be installed, which is beyond the permitting requirements of the boiler itself. We’re talking about changes to the facility.
So that’s why, where that inspector, the boiler inspector, is of that opinion that the installation of that plant would be considered construction under the new Building Code Act, he wants to coordinate it with the building official’s office to see if a permit is required under that office.
So therefore, that installation would be vetted for National Building Code aspects.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Wong.
Mr. Chairman, my contention is that the builders themselves can do that; they can contact the building official in the government, in that office, whether or not they require a permit.
Why do you need an inspector to tell that part of the responsibility of the builder whether they require a permit or not? So that confuses me.
If you look at another amendment to clause 34(2), it’s the same thing. Now, the building proponent of a plant, whether it be reconstruction of the plant that is being burned out or whatnot, instead of going directly to the building officials appointed under this Act and the chief building official, they’re going to have to go through the inspector, whether or not he is of the opinion that the permit is required. Why couldn’t the builder or the proponent of a plant go directly to the chief building official?
Wouldn’t that accomplish the same thing or cut bureaucratic red tape by at least 50 percent?
For the contractors and people who work through these regulations, it’s really quite simple, I think.
What this is trying to say is what it is saying and I stand to be corrected, but I think I understand it quite clearly.
If I’m renovating my house and I want to get a bigger boiler than what’s there, the boiler inspector needs to go in there and inspect the boiler that I am installing [to see if it] is adequate.
It might be a good boiler, but maybe my floorboards, for example, maybe my floor and foundation for the house where the boiler is being installed is too weak or too worn out. So that would not require the boiler inspector; he doesn’t know whether the foundation and the building can sustain the weight of this boiler.
They would need the building inspector to go in to make that it is capable of holding this facility. The boiler inspector can only inspect the boiler.
He’s not certified to decide whether the floor is strong enough to hold this facility. I think that is what this is saying.
Maybe that makes sense, maybe not.
Yes, it clarifies it in some way, but it seems to be rather bureaucratic. If and when a permit is required, it should be right up front.
It’s clearly stated in the building code, to revamp a plant, a boiler, or renovating the electrical system.
It should be made mandatory if it is required that it be in the building code, “a permit is required,” so the inspector doesn’t have to fool around, whether or not he has to now be engaged in a thought-provoking idea of whether or not a permit is required.
He himself has to contact the chief building official in the government. That really should be the obligation of the proponent or company prior to getting building plans assigned to the architectural or building engineer.
It appears to be bureaucratic red tape, in my view, because building contractors normally like to know exactly what permits they require so that they have the specs and all that, engineers’ approval of stamps for every major thing. I would be concerned if they have permits as well. What I’m trying to get at is: isn’t this a bit confusing?
Most often, contractors don’t want any bureaucratic red tape, as my colleague from Cambridge Bay was saying.  Could you have your legal people clarify whether or not my proposition makes sense, another opinion?
Our officials have gone over this with the legal people.
Hopefully, through the whole processing stuff, this may not need to be used, but if it does need to be used, then it’s there.