EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
On Rankin Inlet specifically, some of the programs that we are planning on holding, and I will give a better overview in a month and a half’s time, we are going to move forward on the Plumbing Programs, the Oil Burner Mechanic, the Housing Maintainer, the Electrical Program, including an Electrical Apprenticeship. We are also looking at the Heavy Equipment Operator, the Heavy Equipment Mechanic, as well as the Automotive Mechanic and Small Engine Repair, which we will deliver through that trades school.
There are different start times: 2007, 2008, and 2009. We are looking this is 2006 right now; I would hope to be in a position to be able to announce in June with some authority that we will have the trades school facility open in late 2008, early 2009. Again, we have to get it up on the ship and so on.
At the same time, the work in Cambridge Bay, we should be able to move forward very quickly. We want to move forward with the mineworker program, which is inclusive of all the work that we heard of when we talk about mining.
So that will be moving forward, that’s the fall of 2007.
We are going to be moving forward with the Millwright Program, which is a very important program for mining in 2008 in Cambridge Bay. Here in Iqaluit, we are also moving forward with the Trades Access and the Carpentry Programs.
So that’s some of the good news that’s coming forward.
Chairman: Thank you, Minster.
I appreciate the minister’s report on the announcement on how the trades program is being planned.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a further question that is slightly related with respect to Rankin Inlet.
Last fall, it was approved in the amount of $450,000 for planning in, I believe it was design funding for accommodations that are required for the academic program.
Could the minister state to the committee if that process is ongoing and it is a separate program from the trades program.
We are moving forward, as the Member knows and the House knows, with the program of student accommodations in Rankin because of some of the issues that were raised in the House.
The money that was allocated within the budget framework will also be included now when we move forward with the trades school.
We need that extra money and I don’t want to get into the details of money because that money is not before the House, but the substantial sums of money that are needed in the community to move forward with family accommodations and to expedite, and be expeditious in planning.
So I will just leave it at that.
I am correct in understanding then that the $470,000 right now has been incorporated into the trades school and as a result of that, it was part of the announcement made recently in Rankin Inlet that the facilities for accommodations would need to be built.
So it’s a bit confusing from my side, my position, because I have not seen your capital briefing document with respect to the two, what was already announced for design and planning for accommodations, and also, I realize that we need accommodations for students that are entering into trades programs.
So am I correct then that they have been profiled into a single project?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Yes, he’s correct.
Mr. Curley: Am I correct then in assuming that the $470,000 has been, that we approved, has now been allocated primarily now for the trades school accommodations also to be supplied within these units for the academic side of the program?
The member is correct that the money allocated for student accommodations in Rankin Inlet will be used for student accommodations in Rankin Inlet and will be part and parcel of all program offerings by Nunavut Arctic College within the community.
In view of the fact then that the two programs have now been incorporated into one, it would seem, in my view, that you would need a slightly larger facility in order to meet the two needs.
Would that be part of that or…what I am trying to get at is the Assembly was provided with certain assumptions here that the academic side required a certain amount of family type units for students there that are taking courses, whether it be management courses or whatnot on the academic side.
Now, I am led to believe that what we were provided with in the fall had been amended and changed and now is being primarily directed to the trades school. Will it be larger slightly or the same plan that was approved in the fall will now be moved to the trades school?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Very good timing.
Yes, there is really no mystery here.
There was money in the budget for student accommodations in the community of Rankin Inlet. Those monies will be used for the accommodations that need to be brought forward. The program scope of things or programs being offered in the community have expanded, so therefore and thus, we need to be able to expand the budget of the accommodations at the same time.
I can tell the member that Mr. Shouldice has been working with us from the community and is aware of what the student accommodation needs are and we are incorporating those as we move forward.
We will take a short 10-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 17:38 and resumed at 17:53
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for returning. (interpretation ends) We are on Education.
Branch Summary. Adult Education and Post Secondary Services.
Mr. Peterson, we will allow you a few more questions.
I would like to ask the minister about page G-12, Student Financial Assistance: can the minister tell us how many students access that program in the north and in the south?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Just for clarification, is the member talking about the FANS program? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do believe so, but we’ll confirm that with Mr. Peterson.
I am referring to Student Financial Assistance.
Grants made to individuals supporting advanced and post secondary institutions. $5,607,000.
Page G-12.
The member is correct, and we can give the total number of applications and enrolments in the program.
For 2003-04, there were 1,073 applications. There were 840 enrolments. That’s an increase of 28 percent over the previous year which was 2002-03.
Total number of enrolments is inclusive and includes the total amount for both the fall term and the winter term.
I don’t have the number with me of how many are within Nunavut or actually in other universities, whether it is down south or in other jurisdictions.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. A valiant effort anyways.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would presume the minister and his staff can get that information and table it at some point.
The $5,607,000 that you are budgeting, would that cover all expenses for our students and their families for tuition, books, travel to university or college, living expenses, rent?
The member is correct; those costs would be inclusive.
Another question, Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Minister.
The reason that I asked the question, I had an opportunity with the Standing Committee of Health and Education to meet with the students in Cambridge Bay.
It was interesting that some students from out of town were talking about dropping out or not returning to Cambridge Bay after this year because apparently, they can’t return home during the school year, or if they do return home, they have a family of six; they have to leave a few kids in Cambridge Bay. They say travel doesn’t cover all of them.
I am seeking clarification for that. It seems a little bit strange that you would not assist the students to get home for Christmas or if you did, they couldn’t take their entire family.
Mr. Chairman, the FANS Program is not set up to provide a lot of transportation back and forth, to and from colleges, or universities, or programs. As an example, if we have a student who is taking the program in Edmonton, at the University of Edmonton, we would not be flying that person back and forth to Iqaluit on a regular basis.
What the program does is provide airfare, airplane tickets, for the recipient to the recognized educational institution and return flights home.
That is no different than many other programs that we are offering in Nunavut.
I will allow you to use your final question and then we will move on to another member who hasn’t raised a question. Mr. Peterson.
It might be advisable to the minister to inform the students that participate in that program that the program doesn’t fund mid-year or mid-term trips home for the entire family. When we met with them, some of them were saying that they were definitely planning to drop out of the course. A lot of them don’t want to drop out, but if they knew up-front, it would certainly be helpful.
My last question on the, unless you give me some more time later on, is on the college contributions. There is $15,899,000 budgeted and it looks like a $700,000 decrease.
I wonder if the minister could comment on why there is a decrease in the funding for the college when, in the past, there was a trend upwards.
Just very quickly on the two questions. On the FANS Program, every student that takes a program applies to FANS through their community adult educator. The program is explained to them and what benefits they’re supposed to receive, what those entitlements are, including trips and so on.
Quickly on the number in the books is a reduction, that’s because of the contribution agreement out of the program area under the O&M expenses.
I think the member is remembering when we were talking about before where we transferred the costs, for example, of operating, oil, and so on, have been picked up directly by the college; those costs were transferred out to the Department of Community and Government Services.
I think that’s the amount that’s reflected there and some of the changes that have been asked about.
I would like to ask a question under G-12, on Early Learning and Childcare Trust Fund. There was funding under 2005-06 revised estimates. There’s no money allocated to that.
I would like to know why there is no money allocated to it this year.
Chairman: Just from observation, good question Mr. Barnabas.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are the dollar amounts that were available to us from the Trust Fund by the federal government. As most of the members are aware now, with the new federal government in place, that program is being scrapped by the federal government thus the amount there is nil.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the department, are you going to try and get this money back from the federal government?
There have been ongoing negotiations and I have written our federal counterparts to try to set up a meeting with that person in the next couple of weeks to discuss issues around the Early Learning and Childcare Program and the new program the federal government is bringing forward.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the Trades Program; I have a question on that subject.
Under 2005-06 in the main estimates, the $148,000 was used. Now they have taken out $25,000 from this funding out of the planning. How come this funding was deleted from that area?
That was a program shift within the department. The money hasn’t increased or decreased. The money was shifted to a new program called Skills Can; Skills Program Canada, which operates training programs, and so on.
There’s no reduction here. It’s just a change in that line item.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any more questions.
We are on Education.
Branch Summary. Adult Learning and Post-secondary Services.
Chairman: We’ll allow you one final question on this page, Mr. Peterson. Go ahead.
I guess I better make it a good question since we are talking about $24 million.
Can the minister tell us how the Nunavut Arctic College is accountable for all the funding it receives?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are several checks and balances within the system to help make Nunavut Arctic College accountable.
First and foremost is an annual audit by Auditor General for Canada, which is found in the annual report; which was tabled in the House and made public as a public document.
The second check and balance which makes Nunavut Arctic College accountable is included and inclusive with the board of governors of the college under the auspices of the college board of governors and operation of the college.
The third aspect is through the Crown Agency Council of the Government of Nunavut, which works with all Crown agencies of the government and puts in place directional letters and expectant letters of what is expected of the Crown agencies within those auspices.
The fourth check and balance is put forward again through this public forum in the House when budgets are debated and so on.
Even though we may be working to rule, I enjoy my privileges as an MLA and asking questions.
I alluded earlier, I think it was yesterday during my opening comments or question to the minister that the Arctic College had accumulated a deficit of over $1 million, and $1.5 million or more, and the minister indicated, through his announcement, that the college now has a deficit of only $310,000.
That is minus $1.2 million in one year. I don’t know what kind of managers or financial officers Arctic College has.
If any other business had an accumulated deficit of $1.5 million, they could probably use some advice that your financial officer has in order to wipe out a deficit of that size to only $310,000. How did they do it Mr. Minister?
Hon. Ed. Picco: I think I’ve tried to explain as best as I could in Question Period in the House. As the members know, the college was given an extra $1.3 million for the 2004-05 fiscal year to strengthen its financial situation. The board of governors then directed the management to apply that directly to the deficit and that reduced the deficit from $1.6 million to $300,000 that we’ve talked about.
So to keep those costs in line, reduce the deficit, the college looked at some other economies of scale, some administration savings within the administration, and kept that deficit to $300,000.
So the quick answer is: the supplementary appropriation from the government to the college reduced the deficit from $1.6 million to $310,000.
I don’t know where exactly the additional contribution was made.
Was that reflected through the supplementary estimates available because surely we’re not seeing it here?
Even the current contribution to Nunavut Arctic College is about $60,000 less than last year. So exactly where was it recorded, and when did we approve it?
Was it through last spring’s supplementary? Maybe the minister can help us out a bit on that.
In the last budget cycle, again, I stated for the record, for the fiscal year ending 2004-05, the college received the additional monies, as I have stated and restated, $1.3 million to strengthen their financial situation.
The board of governors looked at that and directed it to be applied to the deficit as outlined. It went through the proper procedures, which means it went through the Financial Management Board to the House and was approved.
So that’s my understanding of it.
I appreciate the minister’s helping us out on that.
Were there any specific conditions where some of the recommendations that were made by the consultant, were they part of the condition in wiping out the $1.2 million at least contribution towards the deficit reduction because I know it’s very unusual where a deficit has been incurred, whether it be communities or hamlets, that there are normally tonnes of conditions.
What specific kinds of conditions were attached; if the minister may give us some ideas?
I thank the member for his question. After the external review of the college, some different items were in there. One of them, for example, was issues around the deficit coming out of the external review of the college; that’s when the money was appropriated to reduce that deficit.
I asked, as the Minister Education, asked the college to prepare a Deficit Reduction Plan.
The management then discussed with the board of governors about the accumulated deficit of the college and how it could be reduced, and eventually eliminated.
They have done good work, as we’ve said we’re down to $300,000. We’ve talked to them about some economies of scale, as well as looking at do I need to increase the administration fee charged by the college, and any monies raised from the administration fee charged by the college, the third party contract would be applied directly against the current deficit.
The college has come forward and balanced its budget.
I also asked that on a conservative basis, is there an amount that could be charged for a contract administration fee. How much of that would be available to us if we did that. For budgeting purposes, any additional fees received by the college to be used to put against the amounts available to control the deficit.
I also asked the college to look after the need for a tuition fee. Any increases in tuition fees, again, would be put towards the Deficit Reduction Program. I know that Aurora College, in the western territory, has had two increases since 1999 on their fees.
They have increased to $865 from $720.
Right now they’re up to $1,040 in 2004.
So those are some of the ideas that have come forward; the contract administration fee; the tuition fee increase to be used to put toward the actual remaining deficit that’s available; for a total of little over $300,000.
The amount received on the contract administration fee would be around $175,000 and the amount for the tuition fee increases would be about $130,000.
Education. Branch Summary. Adult Learning and Post Secondary Services.
Chairman: Thank you. Education.
Branch Summary. Career and Early Childhood Services.
My question to the minister is on the Daycare Contributions.
Early Childhood Program Daycare Contribution in the amount of $1.5 million; that’s pretty steady throughout the last three years at least, as well as this coming fiscal year.
My question to the minister is; could he give us exactly when the federal program will be cut because my understanding that they’ll be continuing on with it for an additional one year, but the minister had made it appear to sound that it’s not going to be available this coming fiscal year and yet there appears to be some conflicting statement from the federal side that it could be continued for one more year, and so on.
Could we get a precise understanding whether or not the $700,000 that he has announced through the House last year will be coming in this coming fiscal year now?
Just a reminder before we proceed, G-14 and G-15 are the two pages we’re working on right now.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Clendenning for his good service with us today and while we are dealing with the post-secondary budget and I take this opportunity to invite Ms. Pam Hine, the Deputy Minister for the Department of Education back to the witness table with the indulgence of the committee.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. I see everybody is in agreement.
So I take this time to welcome Ms. Pam Hine to the witness table.
Welcome, Ms. Hine.
So with that, Minister Picco.
I appreciate the member’s question. I’ve got to try to un-convolute the issue with the...the federal government announced, under the leadership of the former Minister Mr. Dryden, an Early Learning and Childcare Strategy of $5 billion payable over five years. The amount available to Nunavut was about $700,000 based on the population amount, or per capita, and as the members know, we did not agree with that and we didn’t sign on to the agreement.
However, as part of the program and the announcement, they allowed for a draw down as a measure of good will for all jurisdictions, in our case, we were allowed to draw down to the per capita amount that was available to us and that’s what we did.
For the upcoming year, the government changed. Mr. Harper took over and they announced that they would not be honouring those agreements. However, jurisdictions, the 10 provinces that had signed on to the agreement would get the additional year that they signed on to and for.
We are still in negotiations with our federal partner to also have an uptake for per capita funding on that and that’s why I can’t, at this point, or the government acknowledges those monies in the budget because we haven’t concluded those agreements or negotiations. That’s why I’m trying to seek a meeting right now with the federal minister responsible to move forward to be able to finalize that.
If we are able to finalize an uptake of the program, the previous Liberal program, which they will allow for another one year, fiscally, then we would be able to access those monies because we did not sign on to the agreement.
If they don’t allow us to do that, then we will not have the opportunity to draw down on those funds and the federal government will move in with their $1,200 per child amount or per family amount, which is why we want to meet with the federal government and try to explain some of the issues around the extra expenses we have in Nunavut to see if we can have that amount indexed.
I hope that helps and un-convolute the convolution on this question.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Convoluted or not, can the minister tell me exactly what amount he has drawn down for the funding that would have been available if we had signed on to the program because it was not entirely clear whether it was $700,000 only, or part of it, or was it more than once?
I thank the member.
I believe the amount is $652,000 that we have drawn down on. And again, I used the base amount as an estimate or a guesstimate of approximately $700,000 for every $1 billion allocated was the per capita amount.
In this case, it was $652,000.
We would anticipate receiving another $652,000 if the federal government will allow us an uptake on it.
If they are extending it for another year for other jurisdictions, then we want in too and that’s what we are going to ask for. However, that has to be negotiated and that’s going to be the amount included.
Mr. Curley: I appreciate it.
The federal program, as I understand it, was to develop lifelong learning for daycare facilities where they were applicable and so on. Was that part of that or was it just for O&M purposes?
What was it exactly was the funds received for? And if he has any recollection, exactly where was the money spent for that amount?
The whole process that we had with Minister Dryden was to create under the Liberal government a National Childcare Strategy and Program.
There were different, we called them “quad” principals agreed to during those negotiations which would be put in place.
There were certain qualifications and standards that each jurisdiction would have to maintain to have an uptake on these programs.
One of the reasons why we wanted more money was because we felt that the per/capita amount would not give us the opportunities to see through the total program, and I again thank the members for supporting us on that motion for Premier Okalik while he was in Kelowna to push that point.
Secondly, on the amounts that were available to us, as the member has asked, again was based on the per capita amount and we would hope to be in a position to draw that down.
Where the money went that we did draw down; I have an Education Advisory Committee that I put in place when I first became the Minister of Education which has several members from different daycares across Nunavut.
Through that process, and with the childcare family allocations, we distributed the money to all the operating daycares within Nunavut. So, as an example, in Kimmirut, $5,375 was given to the pre-school and to the daycare in Kimmirut received $20,828.
In Rankin Inlet, in the member’s community, the Ajajaa Pairivik received $10,153; the Kitaujaq Society Daycare; $19,111. And the Rankin Inlet preschool actually received $5,972.
These monies then were used by the daycares toward their operations and maintenance expenses: whether that was a breakfast program, whether fixing broken pipes, or buying new material and equipment for the children.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Curley.
We’re on G-14 and G-15.
I would like to thank the minister for bearing with us here.