EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
There appears to be some representation in Ottawa from Nunavut, in terms of the Nunavut official there.
Is there a lease agreement of some kind in Ottawa as well, for offices?
Yes, the lease I was just talking about from my colleague’s question from Cambridge Bay, the offices that we lease through EIA for EIA use is the Delta Tower Suite in Ottawa.
That is what we considering as the GN offices in Ottawa.
Could the Minister maybe indicate, with respect to my comments yesterday, that it would be useful to have the type of contract mode that used to arrive at all these... I am not particularly interested unless you’re volunteering to inform us of exactly which ones have an option to renew, have a sunset clause or a lease to own term.
If we know a number of them have that, it will enable us to shape up the policy of the government because many of them were, I believe, negotiated deals that were very lucrative and in the industry are referred to as sweat heart deals.
Does the minister now see from this experience that we had.
Will we be prepared to tender publicly in an open tender process and do away with the sole source arrangements for amounts over $25 thousand or more.
As I indicated yesterday, out of 59 leases, six of those have been sole sourced and I will note my colleague’s comments regarding tendering publicly and try to adhere to that as much as possible.
I will note my colleague’s comments on this matter.
My other question has to do with part of the question that my colleague from Cambridge Bay alluded to with respect to long term plans for the Legislative Assembly building.
Speaking with the clerk of this house through other committees, we have tried to encourage him to begin talking about the kind of facility that would be here.
It is also important for us to look at the type of financing that will be required long term, for the legislative building.
Given the fact that the clerk has now agreed to consult with other departments including yours and finance, would your department have the ability to deal with trying to set out some criteria for raising financing, other than Government of Nunavut resources and to try and include guidelines for investment from the public and what not.
Has the department got that kind of expertise in your shop or would you have to hire a consultant to do that kind of planning.
My staff have had discussions with Mr. Clerk on this matter and we will again take the direction from the legislative committee on this matter.
We are also involving the Department of Finance and our own department, as well as the Legislative Assembly to look at this.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we are open to different types of funding arrangements if we can get good value for our money.
So, that option of partnering will definitely be considered.
Again, the Department of Finance is the lead on the funding options.
I will follow up on those with my colleagues at the cabinet level.
I don’t think it’s too early to start planning even it’s 10 years down the road.
For the record, I had said to our clerk that I’m not talking about the Development Corporation or any type of corporation that we have up here.
That will be up to the project management at that time to decide who they want the contract to do it.
What I’m talking about is raising financing from the financial market or public investment from individuals or even trying to include some of the pension funds that we do have in the part of the world that they invest into that kind of arrangement.
When we talk about financing, it’s generally known here in Nunavut to mean the Department of Finance or capital funds.
What I’m saying for the record is raising financing doesn’t mean and I think you should note that and close the door on this, that you will not entertain when you’re considering the legislative building that it will not include a museum.
That should be competitive for that, because it should be located in Rankin Inlet unless you’re going to move the headquarters to Rankin Inlet, then it would be okay to include that in Rankin Inlet.
In fairness to my colleague, the discussions that have taken place thus far have only dealt with the Legislative Assembly building issue and there have been no mentions of a cultural museum attached to the facility.
I will again point out my colleague’s statement in our communiqué.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I will not ask for assurance from the minister just yet.
I’m sure there will be more discussions on that matter later.
I do want to ask a question in view of the fact that the member for Arviat will not likely be arriving today.
The planes are cancelled from Rankin Inlet as well.
He did ask me whether I would kindly ask you what happened to the leases that you previously had with the former member of Arviat from the first assembly for the rental of four units for the housing corporation.
Those were under the Housing Corporation and would not appear in this report.
Mr. Curley: I will follow up then.
Do you still currently operate the existing leases or have they been cancelled as of now.
It has been a while since I’ve dealt with this issue and I don’t have that information readily available in front of me.
I’ll have to commit to providing that information to my colleague and the member from Arviat on the leases that were with the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Mr. Curley, thank you.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just going to start off my questioning reviewing yesterday’s Hansard.
The minister indicated that they would be able to provide us with copies of expiry dates of the leases.
I’m just wondering if he brought those here for us to look at along with this list.
I do have the information here with me, so if I can, I’d like assistance from your clerk to distribute these other pages in the matter that you would like to proceed, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Hand them out to the members please.
As I mentioned yesterday, I think I finished off my questioning in regards to the largest lease that is on the list and that is one for a building in Cambridge Bay, at over $1.1 million a year.
I pointed out yesterday that it is normal process if they take a look at different options five to seven years ahead of time and then the fact that nothing has been done and we won’t have a decision on different options until four to six months, as the minister indicated yesterday.
It was also mentioned yesterday that leases over $1 million require a Cabinet decision.
So my first question on this particular lease is. Was there any ministerial direction given on it prior to where we are now, or any Cabinet direction given on this particular lease over the last five years.
No Cabinet direction over the last five years.
The million dollar a year, and who knows it is just a large building.
I know most leases they come with so much a square foot lease cost.
Maybe if the minister has an idea of what the square footage, or cost of that facility, as outlined in the lease.
If the information that I have is correct, it is about 30,000 square feet.
I wasn’t looking for the total square footage of the building, but when leases are drawn up, usually it’s the cost of so much a square foot of what you are leasing.
I would just like to ask what the cost per square footage on this lease.
Again this is of a matter of a sensitive nature.
I’d be hesitant to go into revealing this information during this presentation at Committee of the Whole.
I can imagine why it is probably sensitive at that amount.
Is that one thing that the department looks at?
I know through the Housing Corporation and the department that does build structures in all Nunavut facilities, do they look at what the cost per square footage of the lease comparing to the average cost of square footage to build?
Maybe in this particular case, I get an indication whether it is slightly higher, substantially higher than what the average cost per square foot to construct, or other leases in that community.
Yes the department does look at the costs of space.
For the second part of his question, I am going to have to defer that to Mr. Clark.
Yes we do compare the cost of various leases per square foot.
You have to remember that the lease is made up, this particular lease, but many leases are net leases, which are made up of a base lease and operations and maintenance costs.
So the total sum square footage cost of the building is based on both of those.
One you can control and one you live with.
The one you live with is the base rent and the one you attempt to control is the operations and maintenance costs.
So, yes, we do look at this particular lease in comparison to every other lease that we have.
We do keep comparisons.
We look at particular communities. Like Iqaluit, for instance, we’ll look at the cost per square foot of the buildings and it’s difficult to compare Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay or the costs in Pond Inlet and the costs of Grise Fiord.
Where possible, we do make comparisons on both of the base rents and the operations.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr. Clark for that response.
The second part of the question would be is the cost of the square footage of that lease comparable to others for the same community.
Is it substantially higher or substantially lower in comparison to other leases in that community.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Mr. Clark.
The prices for that building are comparable to other buildings in that region.
As a matter of fact, the base rate for that particular building is favorable in comparison to the rates in Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet.
Mr. Chairman, another thing that was brought up yesterday was an indication that there were a number of items that went to arbitration because the parties disagreed on who was supposed to pay for what as outlined in the lease.
How long of a time period did that encompass. Did it go on for the complete life of the lease, the last two years or how long has that been going on.
Basically that occurred over a number of years.
There were issues that we addressed in 2002 which had accumulated from practices over the years, interpretations of what was and wasn’t acceptable.
It didn’t all start out at once.
As I said, basically it accumulated over a period of time.
We stopped that with the 2002 year.
Unfortunately we weren’t able to go backwards.
From a legal point it’s called Stop Al. We stopped it then and it’s not going forward in the future.
I’m very happy to hear that.
I’m glad that someone is out there keeping an eye on those things.
Are those costs that were looked at, those other clauses that are in there, are those included in the lease amount or are they over and above what’s recorded in the annual lease amount here in the report.
The amounts are operations and maintenance amounts and yes they were included in the 1.18, 1.2 that was listed on the report.
I just wanted to make sure for the record that there were no other costs to that facility other than the costs that the Government of Nunavut paid, other than costs outlined here in the lease.
Yes, those amounts were included.
They are on that number.
I would like to point out though that we did recover costs from that arbitration which will reduce that figure of $1.2 million quite substantially.
Again, that is all from the operations and maintenance side of things.
Yes they were included, but yes it has been reduced.
When they get a finalized number and I’m sure they’re working on it now, will that updated information be included as an amendment to this document.
Because of stuff in progress it appears as though it is an asset and you can’t really blame them for work that is in progress.
I would like to see what the amended amount is so that we have accurate information.
Yes, as a matter of fact that will be included in the support material over the next month.
I want to go back to the whole process that I think normally starts five to seven years ahead of time when you’re looking at what options to pursue prior to a lease coming to an end.
One of the things that minister’s officials mentioned yesterday was that they look at the suitability of the existing space and that they’ve also completed a process in where they look at and determine what the requirements are going to be.
Do they have proficient capacity there to meet the needs and if not what are they.
They said yesterday that an analysis has been done to determine what the government’s needs are going to be in that community.
I’m wondering what the results were of that.
What we’ve been looking at are the options at the time of the expiry of the current lease on that facility.
Essentially we’ve identified five options that are being considered now and as we mentioned yesterday will be brought forward with a recommendation to the minister in the next four months or so.
One obviously, is another long term renewal of the lease.
The second is to have a short term renewal.
The third would be to terminate the lease and tender for other space and the last is to look at using other vacant Government of Nunavut owned space.
Some space is becoming vacant in the community which might be used for office space.
I might add that there is currently vacant office space in other buildings the Government of Nunavut uses in the community.
So we’re looking at that mixture of space.
It’s been of course, to our advantage that there has been recent building in that community which has provided some more options for us to look at in Cambridge Bay.
Realistically looking at it, given the timeframes involved, are our hands not tied?
If we decide to terminate the lease, how many people working in that facility, if we don’t have the existing office space to work out of?
Or if they decide that they want to re-tender, shouldn’t that be done at least a year ahead of time, so that anyone interested in supplying a bid, an RFP, or whatever, has an opportunity to do that prior to the year that its needed, because everything has to come up on the boat at least a year ahead of time.
With the construction and everything else they do need some lee time, they can’t wait.
That is something that really confuses me in this particular case where we have such a large facility, 30,000 square feet.
How many people do you have working in there?
To me those are all nice options that we are looking at, but do we really have a choice given the timeframe that is involved.
That is what I am wondering about.
I am wondering if I could get a response or an explanation for that.
I would like to remind the members that before you leave to make sure that we have a quorum.
That way I don’t ring the chimes again.
Just to remind you to make sure that everybody is here.
I agree with my colleague that there are some options that may not be realistic at this time in looking at the lease in question.
The two strongest surfacing options would be to look at, either short term renewal, and also using other vacant Government of Nunavut space, of course, the option of tendering for additional space would also be an option.
I think those options are the most obvious ones at this time.
I know that at least one that I can recall that in the recent past of an RFP going out for a facility or leased property was in Rankin Inlet.
That was for the Liquor Warehouse.
That seemed like it went out in a very short time.
The only ones that it was kind of made for was that someone already had a facility there in place that could be used for that.
There were other people who wanted to have a chance to bid on, but they couldn’t because they didn’t have the time to be able to do that, if you would allow more timing process.
We have learned that on our capital budget that by putting it in the fall, it would save us money, because we can plan further ahead and make arrangements.
You get more bang for your buck, which is what it’s all about.
If there is lee time into stuff like this so that people do have time to prepare then we will get a more competitive process in there so that someone knows that they are the only one in town and they are going to charge this and we have no choice but to take it because there is nothing else.
We are never going to get further ahead.
Now it seems like we are in the same kind of a situation that we are finding ourselves in with this particular lease.
We have to make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen because we do have limited resources.
It is up to us to make sure that we spread those as far as we can.
This whole process is like a way not allowing us to do it, for whatever reason which probably will always remain a mystery that this happened in this case.
Something that I would really like to know is why.
That is something that is the largest lease that is in there and its 30,000 square feet.
That is not something going to be overlooked and forgotten about.
That isn’t something that we have to do something about this before it’s too late.
Well it is too late.
I am sure that there are different things that have happened.
The complexity of leases, arbitration, and all this kind of stuff, but that still should not have slowed down the process.
That whole process of analyzing that is supposed to happen far in advance, five to seven years.
That is something that didn’t happen until about four years and kind of got bogged down again for another year.
Now what is being done is that we are just looking at it and a decision is going to come out six months prior to the end of the lease.
I think our options, unfortunately, are limited.
I just fail to understand how we got ourselves boxed in to this kind of a corner is this particular situation.
I am just wondering if I could just get some kind of response from the minister or his officials on that.
I hear my colleague’s concern about this process and also the fact that the process and timelines that we were talking about yesterday, five to seven years and the fact that the expiry date is coming upon us for that lease.
The five to seven years is pretty much how long this governments been in existence, about six years to be exact.
Yes, under those circumstances that process should have been started at about that time.
Unfortunately, as it is very obvious today that it had not.
So the concern that my colleague expresses on this issue regarding the short timeframe and as a result the reduced options that we have for this lease.
Under normal circumstances we wouldn’t want to be in this situation, but we are.
To move forward the biggest factor in the decision process will be the fact that it’s based on needs.
The options that we just went through are probably the most realistic option that is being considered at this time to meet that need for the office space in that community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tootoo, your time has expired and I don’t have any more names on the list.
All those in favour of the motion. Those opposed.
The chair of the committee, Mr. Evygotailak.
Mr. Evygotailak: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Your committee has been considering Tabled Document 102-2(2), and would like to report progress.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move that the report of this committee be agreed to.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Evygotailak.
The motion is carred.
Going to the orders of the day. Item 21.
Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A reminder of a number of meetings.
At half past two today, a meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules in Tuktu.
Tomorrow afternoon, at half past one, the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit.
On Monday a reminder of the meeting of Full Caucus at 10 o’ clock, followed by meeting of the Regular Caucus at 11 o’clock.
Orders of the day for Monday, May 2nd:
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
This House stands adjourned until Monday, May 2, 2005, at 1:30.
>>Session adjourned at 14:05  Nunavut Canada
Monday May 02, 2005
Pages 2497 – 2566
Opening Prayer 2497
Ministers’ Statements 2497
Members’ Statements 2502
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 2508
Oral Questions 2509
Reports of Standing and Special Committees 2530
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills 2531
Tabling of Documents 2532
Second Reading of Bills 2533
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2535
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2564
Third Reading of Bills 2564
Orders of the Day 2564
Monday, May 2, 2005 2497
116 – 2(2): Nunavut Teacher Education Program at Nunavut Arctic College (Picco) 2497
117 – 2(2): Climate Change and Our Arctic Warning (Akesuk) 2498
118 – 2(2): Hairdressing Program – Territorial Skills Competition (Picco) 2499
119 – 2(2): Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit Katimajiit (Tapardjuk) 2499
120 – 2(2): Crown Agency Letters of Expectation (Aglukkaq) 2500
121 – 2(2): North American Occupational Safety & Health Week (Akesuk) 2501
306 – 2(2): Congratulations to Isuma Productions (Tapardjuk) 2502
307 - 2(2): Education System in Nunavut (Barnabas) 2502
308 – 2(2): Fund Raising Event in Kugluktuk (Evyagotailak) 2503
309 – 2(2): Language of Instruction (Netser) 2504
310 – 2(2): Iqaluit Swim Team (Tootoo) 2505
311 – 2(2): Panniqtuuq Students Land Trip (Kilabuk) 2506
312 – 2(2): Photo Shoot on the Ice (Picco) 2507
313 – 2(2): Back in Iqaluit (Alagalak) 2507
388 – 2(2): Number of Reports on Workplace Harassment (Tootoo) 2509
389 – 2(2): New Positions to the Schools (Peterson) 2510
390 – 2(2): New Positions for Grise Fiord (Barnabas) 2513
391 – 2(2): Cargo Inspections (Netser) 2515
392 – 2(2): Bad Gasoline Report (Kattuk) 2516
393 – 2(2): Fuel Re-Supply (Tootoo) 2518
394 – 2(2): Passport Photos (Barnabas) 2520
395 – 2(2): Funding for Fish Plants (Netser) 2522
396 – 2(2): Water Rates in Cambridge Bay (Peterson) 2523
397 – 2(2): Commercial Power Rates (Kattuk) 2525
398 – 2(2): Education System (Tootoo) 2527
Committee Report 005 – 2(2): Report of the Rules Committee (Tootoo) 2530
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills  005 - 2(2): Bill 18 – Powers of Attorney Act (Mapsalak) 2531
133 - 2(2): Nunavut Energy Management Program Pamphlet (Kilabuk) 2532
134 - 2(2): Ministerial Meeting Report – Northern Premiers Forum, April 16, 2005 (Okalik) 2532
135 - 2(2): Letters of Expectation (Aglukkaq) 2532
136 - 2(2): Government of Nunavut Department of Community and Government Services Gasoline Survey and Follow-up. (Kilabuk) 2532
021 – 2(2): Bill 19 “Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act” to Committee of the Whole (Aglukkaq) 2534
009 – 2(2): Amendment to Clause 5 – Bill 18 Powers of Attorney Act 2537
Bill 15 – Act to Amend the Wildlife Act – Second Reading 2533
Bill 19 – Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendments Act – Second Reading 2533
Bill 18 – Powers of Attorney Act – Third Reading 2564
Monday, May 2, 2005
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq, Hon. Olayuk Akesuk, Mr. David Alagalak, Mr. Levi Barnabas, Hon. Levinia Brown, Mr. Joe Allan Evyagotailak, Mr. Peter Kattuk, Hon. Peter Kilabuk, Mr. Steve Mapsalak, Mr. Patterk Netser, Hon. Jobie Nutarak, Hon. Paul Okalik, Mr. Keith Peterson, Hon. Edward Picco, Hon. David Simailak, Hon. Louis Tapardjuk, Mr. Hunter Tootoo.
Good afternoon, Premier, Ministers and Members.
Minister’s Statement 116 – 2(2): Nunavut Teacher Education Program at Nunavut Arctic College
I would like to inform my colleagues that this year marks the 25th Anniversary of the Nunavut Teacher Education Program, or NTEP.
Mr. Speaker, the Nunavut Teacher Education Program has been in place since 1979.
This program is designed to prepare Nunavummiut to become classroom teachers.
I am proud to inform the House that to this day we have had 228 qualified teachers graduate from this program, and of those 107 have furthered their education to obtain the Bachelor of Education Degree with McGill University.
We currently have 159 teachers who have graduated from NTEP that are currently teaching of in principal’s positions across Nunavut.
There isn’t very much in this world that is 100 percent guaranteed, but graduating from NTEP almost guarantees you a job and a career.
Mr. Speaker, one of the four very first NTEP graduates was Ms. Peesee Pitsuilak.
Ms. Pitsuilak is now the Campus Director for the Nunatta Campus of Nunavut Arctic College here in Iqaluit.
Another graduate of NTEP is Ooloota Maatuisi, who is now the principal for the Nunavut Teacher Education Program at Nunatta Campus.
Other examples include the Deputy Minister for Human Resources, and our own Education Assistant Deputy Minister, Ms. Phoebe Hainnu, who are also graduates of the program.