EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Believe me, I know that that is not the case in this situation, but that leaves a potential for that to happen and that is why we do that.
That’s why it’s approved every year.
I would like to thank you for coming forward and giving us the straight goods on it and saying that this is what it is. I have no problem with approving it, but I want assurances from the Minister of Finance that that will not happen, it shouldn’t happen, and it won’t happen again.
Unfortunately, that is one that we missed, it should not have happened and it will not happen again.
At this time I would like to ask Mr. Peterson if he would like to ask the question to the Minister of CLEY, or does he have a question to the Minister of Finance?
I would like to get clarification first from Mr. Peterson.
I can ask the question to the Minister of CLEY since he and his officials are here at the table.
Chairman: Mr. Peterson, please continue.
I welcome the minister’s witness to the witness table.
I was reading the substantiation sheets on the project Nunavut Heritage Centre. I was reading where you say that the third party funding in the amount of $50 million will need to be secured from potential third party funders.
I’d like to know for the record: what type potential third party funders you’re considering to approach to seek funding?
At this time, while we’re planning for the heritage centre, we will table… while we are requesting an individual who will work and he will be contracted out, and we’ll be looking for funding to pay for $50 million.
We’re looking at it twofold: the federal government funding. The prior government had previously approved it, but with this new government has not approved it yet.
Once we get an employee we’ll try and get some funding from the federal government, and we’ve also thought about private sectors.
While we are trying to collect money that this individual would work and I believe that this year, prior to this 2007-08 fiscal year is over, I believe that we will work on this issue.
And that’s what we’re planning on.
Minister, the total amount of the project appears to be $60 million. The Government of Nunavut is going to contribute $10 million, so you’re seeking an additional $50 million that will make the project $60 million. The construction of facilities are expected to occur in 2009-2010.
I’m wondering if you could give me any idea if you or your officials are concerned that you know, two years from now that inflation will probably and most likely will increase the cost of the project, and if you factoring that into the overall design and delivery of the project, and you may require additional funds beyond that $60 million, even if you’re successful in securing that additional $50 million.
I’m wondering if you could comment on the record for that.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, we are concerned, and those inflation factors are one of the driving factors that the amount goes to different occasions. But we are factoring that in when we are going through the request for proposal.
One of the things that we’ll be putting forward is to try and get an actual amount that would help towards identifying the full amounts right now. That amount is something that we are looking to secure but until we get close to that will we actually have the actual amount for the total project.
I thank the minister’s official for that answer.
In the event that you are unable to secure the funding, the additional $50 million, and then possibly more funding on top of that, prior to your scheduled start up time of 2009, what would your department do? Would you cancel the project, or delay it further until you try to secure the additional funding?
The Department of CLEY is not the only one that is working on the heritage centre. We are also working with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and we are working very closely with them.
In the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement under Article 33, there is a requirement to establish a heritage centre, and following those specifics, the Government of Nunavut is required to set up a heritage centre under the agreement under Article 33.
It is a requirement to have one established. Should we have any problems and should we not be able to set up the heritage centre, we will have to do something about it because there are specific requirements for the establishment of one.
With that specific mandate, we are going to try to make sure that it does get off the ground.
I understand what the minister is saying but my concern is that if you don’t raise the additional $50 million, or even a possible $60 or $70 million from other sources, and you have that requirement under the land claim agreement that your department, the Government of Nunavut, will have to fund it with our limited capital budget.
As we are already aware, the municipal deficit in Nunavut is $600 million which places demands across all government departments, and I think the most we have every year is like $100 million.
I’m worried that we may have to start funding the difference. If we have $10 million, but if we have to raise another $50, or $60, or $70 million on top of that, and if we can’t get it from third party funders, that we have to do it internally, and that is going to create a lot of difficulties for the other government departments that we’re looking at.
So I just thought I would raise that concern, and perhaps the minister could comment on the point I just raised.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): For example, there is the $10 million. There has already been an agreement signed with the federal government, and we can assure you that we have $10 million.
It is an agreement between the Liberal Government at that time, but at this time, since we now have the Conservatives, we’re on unsure footage.
If there are any changes in the dollars, we will have to go back to the House as we can’t make that decision alone as a department. We will have to ask for further instruction from the Legislative Assembly should we come to some kind of problem.
I would also like to ask the minister about this $10 million that the government has set aside.
My questions are in regard to whether we have people making plans for the heritage centre, if there are any staff in place, and if they’re any design plans in the works.
Have you completed the work that is required beforehand?
We’re working with the Inuit Heritage Trust and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and we also have a working group doing the foot work at this point.
We will be asking for people out there who are interested in working for the proposed heritage centre and we’re also looking for a fundraiser. We’re also talking about whether there’s going to be a board, and so on.
We have not finalized those stages.
We also have to talk about the governance of the board and where we are going to get additional funds.
This is the work that is required prior to the establishment of the Heritage Trust.
We’re going to be looking for a person who will be a fundraiser, specifically.
We’ve got a little more information about what’s in the works for the heritage centre, and I’m sure that there’s going to be people interested in applying for this position.
I also have another question. Are we going to be able to raise the money?
Can we get the assurance as to when and if we’re going to be able to get the working partnership with the third parties? I am sure about the $10 million that is going to be put up by the Nunavut Government, but we’re not sure if we’re going to be able to get the money from the outside sources.
Can we scale it back to, let’s say $20 million?
Once we get the design and once the construction starts, then it’s going to be a little hard but it would be good to know how much it’s going to cost for the design phase and for the construction phase.
Just looking at the amount for the total construction and the inflation, and so on, we don’t know whether we are going to be able to put up the required amount.
Is it possible for your department to, let’s say get a drawing of the heritage centre and is it possible for the member to get feedback, or get some kind of information across to find out what’s happening with this project.
That’s my question, Mr. Minister.
We had the cultural resource and planning management work contracted in 2002 to look at the fiscal aspects of the Nunavut Heritage Centre so that we could get an idea of what price range it would cost.
So that is what we’re using to date.
We’ve been told by the private sector that they are more than willing to make contributions, or to give some kind of support in constructing this Nunavut Heritage Centre.
They would be willing to put in kind, like putting in the piles for the building. The Legislative Assembly in Yellowknife was put up by various sources of donations, in kind, and so on.
So we’re looking at that type to put up the construction, and with that, we are looking at getting a permanent position set in to do some fundraising.
I’m sure there is a consultant report, but I think it’s very general.
It was written in 2002, and the construction costs are probably way, like 10 percent more, with the construction and the price of gas and so on. They were talking about $50 million, and I’m sure that it’s doubled in 2007.
If we should build a heritage centre with the same costs... it was just a general plan, and I’m sure they were using Iqaluit as an example.
They were using Iqaluit costs per square foot. We can’t really tell how much it’s going to cost if we don’t know exactly how big the building is going to be.
So it’s up to the government to be very specific about the size of the building, and I think that’s the only that we’ll be able to sell this to the people of Nunavut.
Yes, like I said, we have to get somebody to construct the building.
We will be able to have somebody look over it to see how we can fix it, or whether we have to do the changes. I will be giving the briefing to the Members of the Cabinet if we have another need, or if we have to do some changes.
It’s a lot of work but it is expected that we will have to get a heritage centre. That’s where we are at right now.
We’re on (interpretation ends) Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #1, 2007-08.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Directorate. $3,382,000.
Chairman (interpretation): I’m sorry. Minister Simailak.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) We have to make one slight correction on this page, but my notes are over there. That is why I was trying to get your attention before you proceeded with these numbers.
I would like to thank Minister Tapardjuk and his staff.
Sergeant-at-Arms, can you please escort the minister and his officials so the Minister of Finance can return to the witness table, Mr. Greene and Mr. Ma included.
Welcome back, Minister of Finance and your officials.
I think we are going to be doing this for the time being in accordance with the questions from the members.
This first item on the last page about the Baker Lake Territorial Library it says $969,000. (interpretation) It has to be corrected. It is supposed to be $113,000. I think they put it in with the community, heritage, elders and youth centres.
(interpretation ends) So that correction should be made, please. The Baker Lake Territorial Library, $913,000, and then add in community, heritage, elders and youth centres, $856,000.
Unfortunately, those two items were added together and both went into Baker Lake Territorial Library on page 5.
We are just trying to understand whether the total is the same or amended.
The total will not change. It is still $3,382,000 for those items, but the Baker Lake Territorial Library should be $113,000 only. The difference is $856,000 community heritage, elder and youth centres.
Overall, it is the same total.
I think the members understand the correction.
Chairman (interpretation): We are at (interpretation ends) Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #1, 2007-08.
Chairman: Total Directorate. $3,382,000.
Chairman: Total Department. $3,382,000.
Page 6. (interpretation ends) Education.
Corporate Services. $20,629, 000. (interpretation) Are there any questions?
Chairman: Thank you. Total Corporate Services. $20,629,000.
Total Department. $20,629,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Go to page 7. (interpretation ends) Health and Social Services.
Special Warrants. Not previously authorized.
Special Warrants. $21,527,000.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): On this page, in the explanation, it states that in Igloolik, the nursing station boiler had a leak.
Community and Government Services are talking with the people that built that nursing station in Igloolik.
That nursing station is exactly the same as the Pond Inlet Health Centre. Pond Inlet has the same problem as the Igloolik Health Centre.
I would like to ask why, when they had these problems with leaking, they went and built the one in Pond Inlet?
Mr. Simailak, who would like you to have answer the question?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the Minister of Health, please.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Simailak. Minister of Health, Ms. Aglukkaq.
I was going to ask you if you would like to have your officials in the House.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I think I can address the member’s question.
The member is correct in that the design of the two projects is the same for Pond Inlet as well as Igloolik.
As it is right now we are dealing with some of the deficiencies in the facilities. Once a building has been turned over, most units are inspected and deficiencies are dealt with over the year.
Why did we go with the design back, what is it, three or four years ago, five years ago, on these? I’m not sure of the rationale behind that, but I understand the deficiency of that design was a repeat for those two projects at the time.
Since that time there have been some concerns related to the building pipes freezing up and so on, and those are deficiencies that we’re working through with CGS at this time.
And, from what I’m aware of, we’re not looking at the same design at this point in time for other projects, is what I understand.
The health centre in Pond Inlet has been up for some time.
Didn’t you find out before you built the one in Igloolik that there would be some pipe freezing problems?
At the time, the health centre was completed I believe we had already proceeded with the Igloolik project before Pond Inlet was finished.
When the Pond Inlet Health Centre was completed, the whole process of turning over the facility to GN was the next phase where we worked with CGS to identify those deficiencies.
I believe at that point in time the Igloolik project had already proceeded in tender costs and so on.
The deficiencies in the Pond Inlet Health Centre continue to be addressed at this point in time with CGS and the contractors.
The exact rationale behind why: I can’t respond to that. I’m not aware of the decision at the time.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Lastly, Mr. Chairman; the government planners for capital projects have funding of $23 million.
Why wasn’t this noticed right away; the Pond Inlet Health Centre problems?
Why couldn’t they get it right away because they must’ve known there was going to be problems, because there is a lot of GN staff that do planning of buildings?
Maybe perhaps the GN planners should be able to notice something like that when there’s going to be deficiencies.
I didn’t hear a question, but would you like to respond? Ms. Aglukkaq.
The member raised a very good point and that is a concern and that is something that we have to work with, with the project managers and the architects, and so on, with the Department of CGS to try and resolve these issues.
Health and Social Services. Capital.
My question is about the Kivalliq Health Centre.
I think there’s three items I’d like to ask the minister, in regard to $700,000 for the Kivalliq Health Centres’ furniture, fixture, and equipment. Totalling those for the Kivalliq Health Centre, will you be able to open the doors of the health centre for patients to come in?
The items on page 7 relate capital projects that proved in November last year. These are carryovers into this fiscal year to complete the purchase of equipments, shipping of equipments, and testing of equipments.
At the same time, the carryovers from the capital projects approved in November relate to addressing deficiencies within the facility and so on.
The members’ concern related to operations and services. We are trying to move towards the opening of the facility outside the capital projects which involves O & M fundings, boarding homes, housing, and so on. So, eventually, that is the plan for the department to deal with some of that.
But right now, before us, is we’re dealing with the carry over of capital projects approved in November’s session.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the minister and her response.
Mainly because I wasn’t here during the fall session, during the capital estimates when they were presented, but I would assume all the equipment that are required there related to capital, that will actually help enable that facility to serve the people.
We had recently had a very unpleasant situation that happened because like the conditions like the person who died recently should’ve been in that hospital, should’ve been treated in that hospital before waiting until the last minute with the last breath of his life to happen.
So I’m asking the minister, will all these capital projects that are trying to get the operational requirements, will they enable it to actually function 24 hours a day? If not, why not?
Again, these items relate to, for instance, the 246 is an installation of electronic medical records systems within the health facility. Some of them relate to dealing with deficiencies in the building, for instance, the chimney situation. The other is equipment for use to be used for treating patients, and so on.
Will these three items allow for that to be a full time facility? The answer to that question is no because these three items are not all that it takes to open that facility. We need other sources of funding: boarding homes, staff housing, salary dollars, and so on, to open the facility.
So if your question is related to these three items: will these three items achieve that ultimate goal?
No. There are other factors that we need to deal with, aside from these three areas.
Could the minister table, or at least present to us exactly what she means by deficiencies because I can tell the minister that all the deficiencies within the public buildings are normally the responsibility of the contractor. Exactly what do you mean by having to create an account and asking us to cover the contractor’s responsibility? It says, “Deficiencies are normally part of the total costs.”
Because there are normally stipulated by inspectors, and so on. Only the inspector can find deficiencies, whether it is engineering, or any other specs.
So how much and exactly what deficiencies is the minister alluding to?
Again, these figures are a carryover from approved capital projects from November.
One example I can share with the individual is that the Kivalliq Health Centre, $302,000, related to the air handling system that required some changes in order to work properly. Architectural and engineering services have been slow to respond to that request to correct the building deficiencies around that, as an example.
So it’s partially completed, and additional areas around parking space are not completed. Areas that were not completed in that fiscal year, that funding carryover for the project managers, CGS, to ensure that contractors finish off those projects, and so on.
In this area, $302,000, they’re telling me that the project, as approved in the capital, will be completed by this summer.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The significant amount of deficiencies for any project; to be given that amount of deficiencies, whether it be air handling unit, or what not, again, these should be covered by the warranty.
What percentage, if not all, will the minister’s budget staff recover from the contractor because I am sure these units are still under warranty?
Why should the GN cover 100 percent of the costs of these deficiency requirements? Are we not just paying double for some of these capital items, when in fact; they are the responsibility of the contractors to pay for these facilities?
Again, these are not any enhancements to the budget that was approved in November. The work that’s required to finish in this fiscal year is what’s being carried over. These were already budgeted into the system in November.
They’re not new money; they’re not new projects, but rather we need to carry the remaining fundings to this fiscal year to finish off the project, as approved in November.
So there is no new funding. This is part of the work that is required to finish off in this fiscal year.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the minister’s response.
I understand what you mean, but I assumed that the project when it is designed including all the mechanical and all the other technical specs, they are normally specified before the construction proceeds.
Therefore, the contractor has the responsibility to pay for these and bill the government for that.
My understanding is they have already been built or you have paid for them already. Why are you trying to, since last fall, agree to pay for them again when they are in fact the contractors’ responsibility to complete them.
Therefore, they are not new. They were part of the engineering or technical specs.
Were they not included in those regional specs, as a result, you are now paying for this additional expense?
Again, these are not new monies.
We are carrying over the project as approved in November. There is no new work with this.
We are carrying over money from one fiscal year to another to finish off a project as per the specs approved for the project.
So I do not know how much more clearly I can be on that in trying to explain that it is a carryover.
It is not new funding. It is to finish off the project as approved and as awarded in the contract some time ago.
I understand the minister fully. The minister earlier stated, to the committee, that these were to cover the deficiencies of some mechanical and their handling units.
I am trying to make a point that the contractor is responsible to cover the deficiency.
Why has the minister agreed to pay 100 percent of the deficiency when they are in fact the contractors’ responsibility?
Are they not the responsibility of the contractor?
Obviously, we have not paid 100 percent if we are asking for a carryover into this fiscal year.
The air handling system, we required some changes and we have asked for those changes.
We have not paid for that. It is their responsibility to address and fix those, but we have not paid for the project 100 percent.
We are asking the House to approve a carryover of those projects into this fiscal year so that we can proceed and complete the project.
Special Warrants. $28,527,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Not previously authorized. $17,845,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Special Warrants. $21,527,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. (interpretation ends) Special Warrants. $21,527,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Not previously authorized. $17,845,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Page 8.
Program Management.
Not previously authorized. $899,000.
It’s not directly here in this but I seem to understand that Nunavut parks; Uvajuq and Ijiralik Parks, concerning those.
There’s one in the Pond Inlet are; it’s a national park; the federal and GN, are they working together?
For this reason, in Pond Inlet, there’s a relay system that is used by CB. They don’t use a lot of these in that area because they’re used for the hunters only.
Can the environment people tell the federal government to use the equipment that are pertaining to the parks, or would they be helpful to the communities, particularly for the relay switches? We cannot use the CBs for long distance purpose because we have many mountainous areas.
Once we get behind them we cannot use these CBs.
Can they start to use these in our area?