EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Chairman, our territorial parks and special places have an important role to play in the protection and promotion of Nunavut’s outstanding natural and cultural heritage, and they provide positive recreation and tourism services to meet the needs of Nunavummiut and our visitors.
It is our intention that in the 2016-17 fiscal year, we will complete feasibility studies for a new park at Napaaqtulik on Axel Heiberg Island. Also, in keeping with our umbrella territorial parks Inuit impact and benefit agreement, we will commence infrastructure planning for new parks in Sanikiluaq, Arviat, and Clyde River.
It is also our intention to continue to monitor and maintain infrastructure in all of our territorial parks and campgrounds throughout Nunavut.
In closing, the Department of Environment’s capital plan is focused in the areas that clearly support the needs and priorities of Nunavummiut.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon again.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the Department of Environment’s proposed 2016-17 capital estimates.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year is $3.2 million.
The department’s capital budget for the 2015-16 [fiscal] year was $1.6 million.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2016-17 capital estimates include $1.2 million in funding to replace the wildlife office in Resolute Bay, $100,000 in funding to undertake wildlife office renovations in various communities, and $1.5 million in funding for the department’s small capital projects.
The department’s 2016-17 small capital budget includes funding for the replacement of mobile equipment and the development of infrastructure in territorial parks.
Members recognize that the territory’s parks provide recreational and tourism opportunities for local residents and tourists.
Members also recognize that the territorial parks require ongoing site maintenance and development.
In June of 2015, the Legislative Assembly approved $1,223,000 in capital carryover funding for a number of projects related to park maintenance and development.
During the minister’s appearance, members were informed that the department is experiencing project-specific delays in a number of its park maintenance and development projects.
Members encourage the department evaluate the current process by which it identifies and prioritizes park development projects to reflect the actual timelines that are required for each project and to explore ways to reduce the need for capital carryover funding for these projects to the greatest extent possible.
Members look forward to receiving ongoing updates on the department’s progress in this area.
The department’s proposed 2016-17 capital estimates include $1.2 million for the construction phase of the wildlife office replacement project in Resolute Bay.
Information provided to members indicates that the department intends to replace all 25 wildlife offices in all communities.
Information provided by the department indicates that its schedule will require the replacement of one office on an annual basis over the next 26 years.
In June of 2015, the Legislative Assembly approved $1,735,000 in capital carryover funding for the replacement of Pangnirtung’s wildlife office, $175,000 in capital carryover funding for the replacement of Repulse Bay’s wildlife office, and $140,000 in capital carryover funding for the replacement of Resolute Bay’s wildlife office.
During the minister’s recent appearance, members were informed that the aging wildlife offices across the territory require improvements and renovations.
Members were also informed that the department prioritizes its office renovations and replacement projects according to the needs assessments that are completed in collaboration with the Department of Community and Government Services.
Members raised concerns that a number of wildlife offices in the territory have deteriorated beyond reasonable use.
Members encourage the minister to evaluate the department’s schedule for office renovations and replacements to ensure that the current facilities are meeting the operational needs of conservation officers in each community.
Members look forward to receiving a detailed breakdown of which wildlife offices will receive funding for renovations during the upcoming fiscal year.
Members note that the department’s proposed 2016-17 capital estimates include $320,000 to replace mobile equipment for wildlife offices across the territory.
During the minister’s appearance, members raised concerns relating to the disposal of mobile equipment that has reached the end of its lifecycle but is still operational.
Members encourage the minister to explore options to distribute surplus equipment to local organizations, such as community search and rescue organizations.
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting on Environment.
I-3.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Even before I raised my hand, thank you for recognizing me.
Let me go back to your opening comments on page 1 in the middle paragraph in regard to the $370,000 on the replacement of old mobile equipment.
I believe that I have been asking this question numerously and I believe we have been asking about it because mobile equipment is replaced when they are still useful.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Minister: how do you deal with the surplus equipment? They are surplused when they are usable.
I also thank you for that question that has been posed quite a few times.
I can’t exactly remember when, but I would like to review this issue on the replacement of old mobile equipment to see how it could be set up better.
I can say at this time that we have not reviewed it completely.
Once the review is complete on the replacement of old mobile equipment… .
Because we usually replace the vehicles when they are a certain age, I stated that I would review it. I haven’t been able to do that.
I know that we will have to review it carefully and come up with a result later on.
Perhaps I’ll ask it from a different angle. The minister just commented on this and based on his comment about past statements for the review, the minister alluded to that previous review.
Why hasn’t the minister been able to conduct that review? He just stated that he had mentioned it would be subject to a review. Why haven’t you been able to look into that?
I believe it has been over a month since I made that statement. We will look into this for sure. We will look into the policy for the replacement of old mobile equipment and this policy has to be followed, so we will definitely review it.
As I stated earlier, when I have the time, I will provide details.
Do I understand that time may be the reason why a review isn’t completed?
The minister stated only that if he has time, he would review it. He did not state that a review will commence. Do I understand that the minister may not have the time during the government’s mandate to review this matter?
As I stated, I would like to look into this. I believe it was in September that I made the statement that I wanted to review it this year. We have no choice but to review it, but I cannot give you a definite date as yet.
I don’t want to digress by sitting here waiting for an answer, so let me move on.
Your department has indicated that all wildlife offices will slowly be replaced with a plan to replace one office per fiscal year. If I understand this, it’s for a period of 26 years. If it all falls into place, by the time the last one is completed, I will be a very old man.
I wonder how this replacement process will be planned out and which policies will be followed to implement it.
Yes, we have completed one and eight communities in Nunavut already have new offices.
Pangnirtung and Resolute Bay have been identified to get offices.
The other communities that will be getting the offices are Gjoa Haven, Arctic Bay, Cape Dorset, Taloyoak, and Igloolik. We will just follow the list. That’s how our plan is set up.
Just to ask that question again: how do you set your priority and what criteria do you follow?
We try to follow the Department of Community and Government Services’ building maintainers’ reports and assessment of the buildings. As the buildings age and if there’s a need to replace a building, we follow the guidelines of the Department of Community and Government Services’ building maintenance.
As these items are being replaced, it is unfortunate that the projects initiated by this government are generally behind schedule and we always hear of this or that project being delayed or construction material shortfall result in deferring the project, perhaps to be built in the next year.
If we look at this over a 26-year lifespan, as an example for fiscal year 2017-18, any projects listed in those priorities, if the project requires more delays, then 2018-19 projects would seemingly be affected. Will these projects be delayed due to other projects not being completed?
With respect to these capital projects and capital plans, all departments have to work with CGS on the plans.
We don’t administer these projects. Some projects have valid reasoning in the communities for start dates and issues surrounding land availability or other reasons can slow it. Alternatively, when there are changes to the capital projects that have been planned, delays can result.
With respect to delayed projects, sometimes as just the Department of Environment, we can’t provide project management and due to the various reasons that pop up, it seems likely a project would have to be delayed from one fiscal year to the next based on the reasons for the delay.
I would like to rephrase my question.
For fiscal year 2018-19, if a project has been identified and if, for any reason… . I am not worried about the reasons or who is at fault for the delay as that is not a concern I hold. If a project is delayed or can’t be completed within the allotted time, would the next project in line be affected?
In your report, it states that the department is looking at a 26-year capital plan.
Do I understand that all projects behind the delayed projects would be impacted? Even with delays or incompletion of the previous project, based on your 26-year plan, would the next identified project proceed without delay?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): No.
For my own clarity on the matter, if one project is delayed, the next project in line listed in the next fiscal year would not be delayed. Did I understand that correctly?
You have understood exactly what is written.
On another matter I want to ask about, how many buildings were renovated?
Here I mean offices or workplace renovations for fiscal year 2014-15.
I will ask that my ADM be allowed to respond to that question.
We have one project in Clyde River that was begun in 2014-15 and it was completed this year in 2015-16.
For instance, the project in Clyde River, did that project follow within its budget?
That project went a little over budget because there were some materials that had to be flown into the community that we didn’t get on sealift, so it drove the shipping cost up.
You said it was slightly over budget. How much did it go over budget by?
Mr. Chairman, I’ll have my assistant deputy minister answer that question.
I don’t have the exact figures with me, but memory tells me that the project was initially around $700,000 and the final costing came in at a little over $800,000.
Also in your capital estimates for 2016-17, there is a request for $1.5 million for small capital items. Included in that is work done for parks.
In June, we had approved $1,223,000 in capital carryover funding for a number of park-related projects.
Can you indicate which of your department’s park projects are currently behind schedule today?
The capital carryovers were associated with about 10 different projects. I can go through the list if that’s a request. One was for the wildlife office replacement in Pangnirtung.
It was delayed by one year, so we requested a carryover. The second was the Resolute Bay project, which was $140,000 in carryover. The next was a holdback for the contract to complete the Naujaat Wildlife Office.
There were park projects in Iqaluit for Sylvia Grinnell Park, a Clyde River park carryover of $125,000, Kugaaruk park development of $290,000, a Sanikiluaq park development carryover of $218,000, Napaaqtulik Axel Island park carryover of $215,000, and Arviat park development carryover of $216,000.
That’s quite a bit of money that had been carried over or delayed.
I know that there are probably different reasons. Maybe you’re taking on too much of what you can handle because that’s a huge amount to be carried over.
Are you trying to do too many projects at the same time?
We have no choice but to delay them if we can’t do the work.
It’s not that we cannot do the projects; we are working on it and it has been improving.
Even though that’s the case, there can be many different reasons for delay of projects.
I’ll get my assistant deputy minister to further clarify that.
We don’t believe that we have too many projects going on, but the delays are, as it was indicated, for various reasons for all the different projects. For the parks projects, most of the reasons are delays from approvals from regional Inuit associations for using Inuit owned land. The construction projects, it is various technical reasons and sometimes shipping delays.
I don’t believe that the delays are because we have too many projects happening.
I believe now that you are taking on too much work.
I think you are trying to do too many projects at once.
There is way too much money that has to be carried over because you were not able to complete and you weren’t even able to start some projects.
I’ll just leave it there and have a different thinking.
I would like clarification because I want clarity. Going back to the construction of wildlife offices, it will almost be my final question.
For 2015-16, if you were slated to build a wildlife office and the project didn’t go ahead for whatever reason, for 2016-17, would you be building two different wildlife offices?
Actually, what we were discussing were the various reasons for delaying different projects, but particular to territorial parks is the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for these parks as it encompasses all of our parks. It is called in English (interpretation ends) umbrella territorial parks IIBA. (interpretation) My assistant deputy minister identified some of the issues earlier.
With regard to the Inuit organizations that are our partners, the capacity isn’t there and the regular directors don’t have the mandate to deal with these issues at regular board meetings as it isn’t part of their agendas.
Nonetheless, the organizations’ annual meeting, at their (interpretation ends) AGM (interpretation) allows for discussions on the various agreements. This results in delays, particularly related to parks and appointments, which can only be completed during these meetings and communities have to be consulted on any type of new initiative or system.
I have noted that circumstances outside of our control end in these results, but sometimes you have no choice but to delay some of the appointments.
However, the process is moving forward based on the discussions on these issues, especially related to legal agreements and obligations, particularly with approvals outside of the government processes.
With respect to the member’s last question regarding reasons for delays, if the project has to be delayed a year, the funding for that would have to be available so that we can commence both projects simultaneously and that seems obvious.
Both projects would be constructed.
I understood earlier that both projects would be done and not tried to be done.
You said that they would be done.
That’s why I asked: if the 2016-17 project is delayed, would there be two projects? You have carried over and you will have 26 years to do your projects.
Yes, we would do two projects, if that was the case.
I would have to say it would be in most cases, but right now, I could say that we can work on the two projects.
I thought you were going to tell me that I have 60 seconds left.
I would like to tell the minister, and I have said it before in the House and so have my colleagues, that the Department of Environment’s wildlife offices that are no longer being used are still very useful.
It’s more of a comment to be taken for consideration by the minister.
I wish that your department’s equipment, if safe and if they’re not going to be used by the Department of Environment, could please be donated to the search and rescue organizations, for example. I repeat, only that equipment which is safe and still usable.
The search and rescue organizations are the poorest organizations in Nunavut and it would be very beneficial if that type of equipment could be donated.
We’re on Environment. Mr. Mike.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Yes, I understand exactly where you are coming from. I have indicated that I would review this matter.
I will have a meeting with the Minister of CGS.
We’re on Environment. Branch Summary.
Program Management. (interpretation) Following my list of names, Mr. Savikataaq.
The department is currently asking for $3.2 million in capital.
Last year, they carried over a little over $3.7 million in capital, which was 70 percent of their budget.
Mr. Pinksen stated the ten items that were the carryover.
I would just like to know: each one of those ten items, if that carryover was spent, is it gone?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): I apologize for saying the wrong title.
I will refer this question to my assistant deputy minister.
As of September 11, we expensed or committed $2,507,000 from our current capital budget, which is just shy of 50 percent.
The remaining projects are ongoing and we are on track to spend our money, but it’s not possible to predict if it will all be spent at this time.
You named off the ten carryovers. The first one was Sylvia Grinnell Park; Clyde River park development.
I wanted to know, line by line, if each one of those is spent or will be spent. Not generalized; just the monies allocated for each one of those ten line items.
Is the money spoken for or is there going to be some carryover again from certain projects from those ten items?
It’s the same line of questioning, so I’ll go directly to Mr. Pinksen.
I do have the detail for some of the projects. There was a large carryover of $1.7 million for the Pangnirtung Wildlife Office.
That project is on schedule to be completed in the current year, so that will be spent or expected to be spent.
The Resolute Bay Wildlife Office replacement, I don’t know if all of the money will be spent.
It’s in the planning design stages and there’s $140,000 in the budget.
They are underway.
Whether the entire budget will be spent, I can’t predict at this point in time.
I don’t have the level of detail being requested on all of the parks projects.
I’m afraid we don’t have that with us at this time, that level of up-to-date budgets.
For the wildlife office renovation project, you carried over $490,000 out of a $500,000 budget, and then Mr. Enook was asking about wildlife office renovation and you spent roughly $800,000.
Is that the $800,000 from that $495,000 carryover?
Is the assumption right to state that that money is gone?
For the project I described in Clyde River, the current year budget for that project was approximately $170,000.
This remaining fund is being used on projects in the current fiscal year in Iqaluit and Kugluktuk. We have one for Rankin Inlet as well, but due to leasing issues, that one may not take place this year.
I just want to go back to the Sylvia Grinnell Park carryover of $159,000. On your substantiation sheet here, the Sylvia Grinnell Park, you’re requesting $100,000 for 2016-17 and on, but according to the sheet on prior years, no money was spent.
I just want to know if this $159,000 was spent on there or if this is a different Sylvia Grinnell Park project.
I will refer this to my assistant deputy minister.
The project for the current year is ongoing and the budget is expected to be spent for Sylvia Grinnell.
Just for clarity then, that money should have been on your substantiation sheet. I’m not sure of the procedure and that’s why I’m asking.
According to your substantiation sheet, for Sylvia Grinnell Park, no money has been spent on it in prior years and that’s why I’m asking.
Again I will refer this to my assistant deputy minister.
I don’t have the substantiation sheets to refer to at the present time, but we have expended capital dollars under small capital at Sylvia Grinnell in almost all previous years.
I’m not sure why it would indicate otherwise. It’s an ongoing project.
I think the next time when the minister comes here, he should have that because all we have for everything is in front of us here.
We don’t have the information that you guys have from working on these projects.
All we have are the substantiation sheets in front of us. That’s all we have.
We assume that these are accurate and correct. This is all that we have. According to it, there’s no money has been spent.
I think, before the minister comes here again, you should check over the substantiation sheets and make sure that they’re up to date and correct.
That was just a comment on that part.
On the wildlife office replacement for Resolute Bay, you’re asking for $1.2 million for 2016-17, which would, in my mind, be tendered out for material if this budget is approved, yet it’s a class “D” estimate, which I believe is not much better than a class “X.” A class “X” is a concept of design.
Can the minister just clarify why it’s still a class “D” when it’s down here, when we have to decide now on this budget? Why is it still a class “D”?
The project management, the tendering, and the estimates are managed by CGS property management, so I can’t speak of the actual process they follow.
I do know that they are currently looking at the facility in Resolute Bay to determine if there may be options instead of new construction to look at cost savings, but I can’t speak to their process for the timing of refining the estimates from class “D.” Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In light of what Mr. Pinksen just said, he says they’re looking at the options. It sounds like they’re not sure if they’re going to build a new office now. You might renovate.
You’re asking us to approve this budget for a new replacement office, but it might not be replaced.
Did I hear correctly?
We are planning to build new in Resolute Bay. CGS has indicated that they always look at options when they’re planning capital projects.
At this point in time, we do intend to build a new facility in Resolute Bay.
Mr. Pinksen said that CGS is always looking at options.
The CGS minister happens to be in the House.
Can the CGS minister just tell me what those options are that he’s looking at?
As the CGS minister, I will have to look into it to respond to you properly.
We’re asked to approve this project to replace the wildlife office, which if they needed it, I would have no problems.
I just have concerns. CGS is going to be looking at options and I believe the minister stated that he’s not sure what the options are.
I guess there is a possibility that we could approve this budget and the office would not be built because of the options that are being explored.
I would think that all options would be looked at and eliminated before a project comes to the Committee of the Whole to ask for money to approve the budget for a new wildlife office when there are still options available.
I will just ask the minister again: will this Resolute Bay Wildlife Office be built?
That’s what we are requesting; for it to be built in the 2016-17 capital estimates.
That’s what we’re requesting.
If they request it to be built, it’s going to be built. We don’t need to hear what the options are from the CGS minister because the Minister of Environment has stated that it will be built anyway.