EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Minister Simailak. If you wish to respond or get another ministers’ response, Mr. Simailak.
The Environment Minister please.
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Netser.
We are dealing with the supplementary appropriation and not with the CB beacons or transmitters.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Mr. Arvaluk
I’ll raise this question during Question Period because it would’ve been nice to see this, especially under the federal government.
Page 8. (interpretation ends) Environment.
Chairman: Total Program Management. $899,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Total Department. $899,000.
Chairman: Page 9. Page 10.
I have a couple of questions on this page, page 8, to uphold the water treatment and also the Kugluktuk Hamlet office building.
The hamlet office building substantiation sheets indicate that this is no longer a feasibility study and that construction of a new building will start in 2009.
I would like to ask the minister: what is the estimated total cost of the new hamlet office in Kugluktuk?
Hon. David Simailak: Ask this to the Minister of Community and Government Services, please.
Under 2006-07 it stays at $100,000. That was put aside. Total, $200,000.
It’s entirely up to you if you want assistance from your officials while looking up that information.
My next question is on that Kugluktuk water treatment. This project was in the 2001-02 capital estimates. The RFP for the detail design has closed.
My question is: what will the scope of the water treatment process be?
Minister Brown, I think you will be getting a number of questions. If you wish to go to the witness table along with your officials, it’s entirely up to you.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Yes, I agree.
Sergeant-at-Arms, can you please escort the minister and her officials to the witness table.
On my right is Deputy Minister Pam Hine, and to my left, Mike Rafter.
Going back to Mr. Evyagotailak’s question, can you respond please? Minister Brown.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to organize my papers first.
Going back to Mr. Evyagotailak’s question. Can you repeat your question?
Perhaps I can go back to the first question that I had because she had given me a couple of numbers. I’ll just go back to the hamlet office building.
My question is: what is the estimated total cost of the new hamlet office in Kugluktuk?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Evyagotailak. Minister Brown.
The total for the hamlet office in Kugluktuk at this time is $2,700,000.
Thank you, Madame Minister, for giving me a total.
My next question is with the Kugluktuk water treatment.
The RFP for the detailed design has closed. What will the scope of the water treatment project be?
The evaluations of the proposal this year are to be completed this month and a contract will then be issued to the successful proponent.
Design is scheduled to be completed in time to tender the construction of the water systems upgrade for the 2008 construction season.
During the investigations of the water treatment, how has the hamlet been involved throughout the investigation?
The regional staff in CGS continues to work with the Hamlet of Kugluktuk.
I’d like to thank the minister and I hope that this water treatment will be in proper operation because we have been going through a lot of problems with it.
I had brought you down to the intake water treatment during the time it was not in good shape. I hope that it will be in better shape for a long time because water treatment is very, very important to our community.
That’s all I have for the minister.
We will try and assist and I will send people to the community because I know they’re working very hard in Kugluktuk.
My question is under supplementary appropriation.
Because these were not completed under five-year capital plan, were they all under the five-year capital plan?
Mr. Evyagotailak mentioned that the water treatment in Kugluktuk in 2001-02, it was under capital plans and this hasn’t been worked on.
So I’m just wondering if all of these were under the five year capital plan.
Yes, these were all in the five-year capital plan.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s all I have for now.
As a committee chair of CGS in Rankin Inlet, the sewage treatment plan was in the capital plans but the carryover is 100 percent.
I wonder if the minister knows why they didn’t start the work last summer, and did they find a contractor?
Why didn’t they find this last summer? Because I think it’s delayed now.
Can the minister elaborate more on this?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Curley.
The Rankin Inlet water treatment… they reviewed and found that there needed to be more work so they have identified that July 31, 2007 because we have to wait for the licenses that we have to get from the Nunavut Water Board.
And they were delayed from six to nine months because of that.
But at this time the design is completed.
Yes, I understand that, perhaps the water board has completed their review and given the license to the municipality board, or are they almost near completion?
Minister Brown
The issue assessed was before the design has been completed.
Everything has been completed, so it will be given to the Nunavut Water Board.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Minister, Mr. Curley.
On the substantiation sheet for project #507074, the Pond Inlet major works for community hall/arena.
In the substantiation sheet, in the middle paragraph, it says that the existing arena was built in the early 70s in a simple steel shell. During winter it is often too cold to use the arena.
Support infrastructure, canteen, change rooms, center are also substandard.
Technical evaluation has confirmed that is more economical to build a new arena.
On this carryover from 2006-07, $849,000 has also it is budgeted another $960,000 for 2007-08, totalling $2,914,000.
Does that include building an arena adjacent to the community hall that is presently being constructed, 35 percent complete?
Will the arena be built immediately after the community hall is completed because I have not seen the foundation or the steel piles being done for the arena that is supposed to be connected to the community hall as per this substantiation sheet?
The design of the arena and the specifications are 65 percent complete.
That’s what it shows. I will have Mr. Rafter respond.
So by combining the two facilities there are economies of scale and the local government will save money. So it is approximately 35 percent completed.
I understand that only the community hall is 35 percent completed, and the arena, I believe, is also budgeted in the capital plan as per the substantiation sheet.
Even the steel piles or any kind of foundation is not being done.
Are you saying that 35 percent is only reflected into the community hall and not the arena?
Yes, that’s correct. That’s how it is: 35 percent.
Then when are you going to start putting percentages into the arena because even if you completely finish the community hall, you will only be 50 percent complete because the arena is not being built yet.
It’s not being built at the same time.
When will you specify that the arena will be built?
Are you going to wait until you completely finish the community hall first, and then start building the foundation, or drilling the steel piles for the arena?
I’ll have Mr. Rafter respond.
The regular member is correct. The overall project is about 35 percent complete.
Sometimes it’s difficult to envision exactly how that is if we don’t see physical structures fully on the ground. But, the overall project is 35 percent completed. The arena and the complex are expected to have substantial work completed over the course of the 2007 summer.
I hope that fully responds to the member’s question.
So for your total project of $2,914,000, also include the arena part of the complex.
Yes, that’s how it is, and you’re correct, Mr. Arvaluk.
I welcome the minister and her officials to the witness table.
I’d like to follow up on some comments my colleague from Rankin Inlet was asking earlier, specifically with a project that needed water board approval. As we are all aware from the media reports, the executive director of the water board and three or four of his senior staff quit recently, and they’re trying to hire new staff.
I noted in the supplementary appropriation there are a number of carryovers that are specific to water.
My question for the minister and her officials is: have they determined what impact the water board’s current staffing situation would have on the timelines for these water related Government of Nunavut projects, in terms of being approved and completed?
I’ll have Mr. Rafter respond to the question.
It is, to answer the member’s question, expected to have a negative impact on a number of projects that do require regulatory approval.
Could Mr. Rafter clarify what he means by “negative impact”?
Mr. Rafter: I apologize for that statement.
It will delay certain projects. Some projects will be delayed, possibly significantly.
It really depends on how quickly positions are staffed, and how quickly regulatory approvals are able to be received.
I am wondering if the minister or Mr. Rafter can give us a quick rundown on which of these projects are currently before the Nunavut Water Board, and which could face significant delays.
I will try and explain.
In Rankin Inlet, that’s what we just spoke to, I think that would be delayed due to the Nunavut Water Board.
While we’re waiting for Nunavut Water Board decision, and also Kugaaruk sewage lagoon; that project will have to wait for Nunavut Water Board approval.
Also in Cape Dorset, the sewage lagoon will have to be completed, too.
Ones that pertain to the land and/or the water; if the assessed projects are going to have an impact on the land or the water, then they require the water board’s approval.
These are the three projects that I can identify.
Have you discussed these projects where the potential delays are? Have you discussed them with the community councils in the communities where they are going to be developed?
Our regional staff and CGS staff have direct communication with the hamlet councils in the communities.
I hope that they are not delayed too long. They are very important projects for the communities.
I went through the binder you gave us with all the substantiation sheets and I was working my way down the list. I came to one called a Nanisivik facilities technical evaluation for $200,000 in the binder that came with our package.
It is not really a substantiation sheet that I am familiar with, but it identifies the project as a Nanisivik facilities technical evaluation.
Over in the area where you described the project, it says that this carry over request does not meet Financial Administration Manual under section 302-5 paragraph 4.3 because the project has not started nor contractual or financial commitments exist and no funds are being spent.
In fact, there are two projects like that.
There is another one called the Nunavut Management Program that has the same description. It does seem odd it’s in there in your capital appropriation submission carryover; there’s these projects. The relevant sections does not meet the FAM and the FAM is of course, I have the directive here it says that the capital carryover does not meet 4.3… project has not started nor contractual or financial commitments exist and no funds are being spent will be considered a new request.
It should be either re-phased into the five-year capital plan or presented to the Financial Management Board as a new project.
I am just wondering if the minister or her officials could clarify what that is all about so that we understand what the process is here.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms, Brown.
Sometimes there are projects that do not technically qualify for carryover criteria in every aspect of it. These are in fact two examples.
There is inherent value still in the projects with respect to the Nanisivik facilities projects. It will see a facility salvaged from Nanisivik and relocated to Arctic Bay for use either by the hamlet or used by the Arctic airport at such time that it is relocated.
The timing, unfortunately, with this it was not able to be completed in this past fiscal year. It was entirely dependent on the mine operator’s schedule.
The second part to the question with respect to the Nunavut energy management projects; this is a relatively large project that was started some time ago. Investment grade feasibility studies have been completed with respect to that project.
Over the course of this 2007-08 fiscal year, it is expected that the project will be concluded with a combination of two types of projects: additional investment grade feasibility studies examining an inventorying technology that will save energy in government owned facilities across the territory, as well as paying down investment in these facilities allocated in Iqaluit.
These certainly seem to be worthy projects worthy of funding from the Legislative Assembly, but there is the policy in the Financial Administration Manual, which clearly says that they should already be rephased into the five-year capital plan or presented to the Financial Management Board as a new project.
This is information you guys provided to us, so what policy, or procedure, or clause allows you to include these two projects in this capital supplemental appropriation application?
I will direct Mr. Rafter to respond to that question please.
Mr. Rafter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The inherent value on the projects is what carried those forward.
The management board does have the discretion to approve projects that are technically non-compliant, but still have merit, by deconstructing the garage in Nanisivik and relocating it to Arctic Bay, is a substantial savings to the government in the future.  As with the energy management program, it will be substantial savings to government in the order of $10 million in as many years.
And the sooner those projects are implemented, the sooner savings will occur, particularly with the energy management program. So while it does generate carryovers into the next fiscal year, they are, in effect, using government resources effectively.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank Mr. Rafter for the answer.
What I’m trying to ask Mr. Rafter, or the minister, is there something written down somewhere that you could provide us to reassure us that there something written down somewhere that defines inherent value, particularly in your department or the FMB, used to justify including them into supplementary appropriation.
Overall the department was compliant with most of the carryovers, I believe in excess of 95 percent of the carryover brought forward for consideration.
These were, and continue to be the exception to the rule.
The Financial Management Board does have the discretion to make the recommendation to the facility to carry the funds forward if the management board feels that there is a financial and a substantial reason for doing so.  And in this case the Financial Management Board felt, based on the departmental recommendations, that there was value in bringing these forward to the fiscal year.
The comments are understood though.
I thank the minister and Mr. Rafter for their answer.
I’m not quite sure how to interpret all that, but I’ll ask the minister, if you’re asking us to approve supplementary appropriation today. I don’t know if we’ll get around to approving it, will we be breaking any laws in the Legislative Assembly?
If these two projects, as it says, don’t qualify under section 302-5 paragraph 4.3, would we be breaking laws, our laws, if we were to approve those two projects?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Ms. Brown.
No, we will not be breaking any laws.
I can reassure you that.
At this time I will have the bells rang, as we don’t have a quorum anymore.
I guess, also with the questions raised by Mr. Peterson, I don’t know if the Financial Administration Manual that is broken is breaking the rules I guess not the law but the rules. By us approving this, it’s asking us to break the rules.
It says, if we didn’t stumble upon this, we wouldn’t even know that we were doing that.
The whole thing, I’m not arguing whether there’s merit or not. Is there a record of decision or something that we can be made aware of to show that those other steps were taken.
If it just went through like this, I’d like to ask Sheila Fraser what she would have to say if she ran across something like that.
I don’t know; I wish she was here to ask her.
But I don’t feel very comfortable with that, and even if I identified that issue with CLEY earlier and then now this one, its total is $1.2 million right here that we’ve never seen or heard anything about. According to the bill that we’re looking at, the supplementary appropriation bill, and I’ll read it for that whole page. The top part says to “provide funding of $15,189,000 for the carryover of the following capital projects.”
Well, that’s not exactly true.
Two of those are not carry over projects. I don’t know.
Maybe if the Chair of the Financial Management Board who had approved those changes could explain to us why we weren’t informed or made aware of that during our briefing.
Just to me, having it worded like that is inaccurate.
It says right here that the substantiation sheets were not carryovers; they don’t meet the criteria for the carryover project.
Unless Mr. Picco has a better answer or an explanation that could clarify for us, this could explain why. Maybe there is a good explanation for that but I’d like to hear it.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends).
The department is recommending that we proceed, and we understand your concerns.
However, maybe if the Chairman of the FMB could allude to that answer.
Unfortunately, this was an oversight on our behalf when we were at the FMB meeting approving these carryovers, and I apologize for it. They are good projects; they are valuable projects.
I can’t really say any more on that. It was an oversight on our part, and we apologize for it.
It’s entirely my fault.
I appreciate the minister’s comment there but they’re not carryover projects and it says that there.
I don’t know how that could be missed, or not felt that it was important. These are brand new projects, by the looks of it.
Maybe I can ask the departmental officials if they could explain the sheet that we have here.
The Nunavut Management Program is all it says; the sheet that was in our substantiation sheets. It says it’s $1,005,000 and its $932,000 in here.
It says, “The RFP is currently under review and will be issued shortly. Unique nature of RFPs causes delays.
FMB approved the quest to initiate this project in the fall of 2006.” I would assume. “All projects will improve the efficiency of GN buildings and guarantee savings.’
Then it goes on to say, “This carryover request does not meet FAM under section 302-5 paragraph 4.3 because the project has not started. No contractual or financial commitments exist, and no funds have been expensed.”
And that’s the exact same thing it says for the other one.
How can you say that those are carryover projects if they don’t meet the section of the Act if they have to go as new projects? I am just wondering how. One thing here it is saying that they’re not carryovers.
They don’t meet the criteria for a carryover. And then we’re here saying that it is a carryover. The document before was saying it was a carryover project.
So maybe I could get an explanation as to how they can consider these carryover projects.
Hon. David Simailak: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. The member is entirely correct.
It is our mistake. They do not meet FAM. They should not have been listed in here as carryovers.
So if need be we can pull the two out and bring them back in the fall session.
They are very good projects but they do not meet FAM. Like we were told earlier, they can’t technically be done here but the member is absolutely correct, they do not meet FAM, so we should pull the two out and bring them back later in the fall.
I don’t know. It’s not up to me, but if we can have that page of the bill amended to actually show what is really there and the fact that those are not previously authorized projects with new money.
Again, I’m not arguing the merits or anything of the project, but this is not accurate information that we’re looking at.
I don’t know if I want to approve inaccurate information.
Would the minister commit to coming back maybe tomorrow with an amended page 9 that would show those not as carryovers but as actually new projects? Maybe we could go from there.
This is definitely not a carryover project.
I’d just ask if maybe that’s something that the minister would be willing to correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the members will have to consider these.
If you want to respond, Minister Picco.
The member has raised a couple of issues here.
The project itself should not have been identified as a capital carryover, specifically to the amount of dollar values that are available there.
What I would ask for, with the member’s indulgence since the member wants an explanation, there are concerns raised with being FAM admissible.
If I could ask Minister Simailak, along with the minister’s staff, to go to the witness table to explain the process of the financial issues under FAM and the amount of dollar values that have been brought forward in this supplementary, because again, there is a prerogative under the Financial Management Board to be able to bring monies forward.
However, the identification of said monies has a capital carryover and the supplementary is incorrect.
But, if I could get Minister Simailak to go to the table with Mr. Ma and the staff, I think it would be good for everyone to understand what is occurring on the file.
That’s not how it should be. The Minister of Finance has already indicated that. The House Leader has already indicated that.
Like I said, if he could just come back with an amended page that shows accurately and reflects what things actually are, then I would be prepared to move forward, but I’m not going to approve something that is inaccurate.
If it was the old Finance Minister, maybe I would think it was done on purpose.
Or the old, old Finance Minister. The one that is not here anymore. Not you, the other guy.
That’s the one thing about being in here; we’re protected. We are not willing to do that.
I wouldn’t want to say to Ms. Fraser, “you are right, Ms. Fraser, we agree, we do things that are incorrect.”
This Bill is inaccurate that is before us. It was an honest mistake, or whatever, but I think it should be fixed before we approve it.
So maybe with that, Mr. Chairman, that will give the minister and the House Leader the time to talk about it, and maybe contemplate on what to do.
Ed’s having a hard time hearing these days. So make sure that he gets it explained to him very well.
I would like to recognize the clock and report progress.
There is a motion to report progress that is not debatable.
I’m asking the members if they are in agreement to report progress.
Thank you, Minister Brown, and your officials.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister and her officials.
We have to vote in agreement with the motion to report progress.
Your committee has been considering Bill 10 and would like to report progress. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be agreed to.
There is a motion on the floor. [Is there a seconder?]
Orders of the Day Item 21.
Orders for the Day for June 1:
Motion 14 – 2(4)
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Clerk. This House stands adjourned until Friday, June 1, at ten o’clock in the morning.
>>House adjourned at 17:58
Friday, June 1, 2007
Pages 1428 – 1477
Opening Prayer 1428
Ministers’ Statements 1428
Members’ Statements 1431
Oral Questions 1440
Tabled Documents 1460
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 1461
Motions 1462
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 1470
Report of the Committee of the Whole 1476
Orders of the Day 1476
Friday, June 1, 2007 1428
062 – 2(4): Land Titles Modernization (Okalik) 1428
063 – 2(4): Directors of Income Support Annual Meeting (Picco) 1429
064 – 2(4): Inuit Societal Values Pilot Project (Tapardjuk) 1429