EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The total of social assistance payments, we have already given. The number of children in families receiving the Nunavut Child Benefit, which I think is a key number because of the income amounts allowed in 2006-07 is 6,036. That’s the number of children in families receiving the Nunavut Child Benefit and that means their income had to have been below that threshold where they wouldn’t have been clawed back.
Does the minister have the total numbers that he gave, like the 13,800, the 12,300; does he have that number for the 2006-07 year as well?
Also, if he has the number that they’re projecting, is that same number to be in the 2007-08 year?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the Minister of Education, please.
Chairman Thank you, Minister. Minister Picco.
For 2006-07 I do not have it, Mr. Chairman, because the cut off, as all members know, is April 1, six weeks ago. I don’t have that number and I don’t have the projected number for 2007-08 with me.
We would assume that it would be around the 13,000 range, where it has been over the last couple years.
Would the minister commit to providing that information, when he gets it, to the members?
Page 8 of Bill 11.
Career and Early Childhood Services. Not previously authorized. $3,438,000.
I realize that there is no request for additional funding for career and childhood services other than income support that is not previously authorized, and yet from Pond Inlet alone, we have been notified that there may be some staff shortage with the present funding system.
Will all the support for additional teacher requirements be included in the total appropriation for $41.5 million?
Are they projecting that, or will they be requesting additional appropriation that is not previously authorized for the schools?
Just very quickly on the clarification. The $41,535,000 that’s there; that includes the total appropriation that already been appropriated through the usual budgeting process.The additional $3.4 million that has been asked for here, the member is correct, that’s directly for income support programs.
We haven’t asked for any other monies for our daycare programs, for example, subsidies and so on, at this time because we didn’t have any allowance on our forced growth initiatives.
That’s something that we’ll be looking at in September and October when we do the new enrolments.
So the door hasn’t been closed on that.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the schools open in August, sometime in the middle or late August, and there might not be any money to hire; they already identified additional teacher requirements.
Are there provisions somewhere that they can go ahead with these things before the additional funding is approved in October like the minister says?
Just to remind members that we’re on page 8 of Bill 11. Career and Early Childhood Services only.
That’s a different area and this page deals strictly with income support programs, early learning and childcare, and so on, and not the School Funding Formula for schools.
Just very quickly, on the answer to the member’s question, we do the school enrolments on the fall, we look at the head counts of the schools, and then the budgets are budgeted accordingly.
However, at this time the member is correct. We are usually able to anticipate the number of new enrolments in the fall because we know how many kids are coming into the school.
So very few communities have 100 new kids coming in when we know what their ages are when we look at Kindergarten, for example.
Based on those numbers we’re able to make the adjustments in the fall. We’ve actually made the adjustments a little closer up in the fall to take care of that, but that’s a separate cross category.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is pretty much related to all the other future amounts of increases, which was approved yesterday, over $80 million of the carryover projects.
The case can probably be made for a little more understanding: capital projects that were not done last summer are carried over to this summer, and so on.
We just approved two months ago, or three months ago, $41,535,000 for income support. How can he actually justify this increase in the amount of $3,438,00 is actually needed?
We haven’t even completed three months of the new fiscal year and now you’re asking for almost $3.5 million.
I would like to hear the minister justify his case.
Minister of Education, please.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s a good question.
Mr. Chairman, as the member knows and as all the members know, the business planning cycle begins in September and October. The initial estimates given for each department is formulated by the end of November. They have them printed and brought forward to the standing committees and formulated in January, based on the best estimates that the department has.
When you’re running a $200 million department, or a billion dollar government budget, then you’re going to have some slippage, and you’re going to have to re-adjust your numbers and so on.
When the budget comes forward to the members, like any other jurisdiction, two months ago, that’s probably about four months old when you based you’re business plans, and everything. Now, we’re into June and those business plans from January are now six months old.
So you always have to have adjustments based on new numbers coming in, rolling in averages, and so on. Those are called forced growth amounts and are nothing new.
So I’m glad the member raises it because it gives a good opportunity to explain how that business planning cycle is multi-faceted, and multi-month. It is not something that happens yesterday, and then you come forward for money.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I think that if you look at the total estimates required for the O&M increases, it’s, again, going to be pretty staggering - $45 million is what the total is of what we’re asking for.
I’m not 100 percent sure that most of these extra spending or funds that are requested are really totally justified. We don’t actually have the back-up Member for Iqaluit Centre actually asking for some studies, some facts, and some justification that are needed.
And yet, right now, we’ve got these huge amounts.
When the business plans are presented in January, we normally are given pretty good, I think, responses by the staff of the department, all the departments, which they normally project and indicate to us that there may be some requirements or adjustments. But that is normally not the highlighted argument.
So I think the minister should actually present to us a more detailed substance to this case. Member for Tununiq already requested some of the early childhood training provisions’ needs.
Will the minister at least commit to ensuring that these estimates are accurate and concrete and not just out of the air that he picks up so that we can be fully accountable to the public because many of the groups out there are actually having a difficult time getting any funding, including contractors who wish to do business with the government to do projects and so on.
So I’m asking the minister: will he undertake to provide a clearer case when he presents something and actually back up his request with some reports and some studies?
I like what the member is saying.
When you look at the main estimates, as an example, the amounts approved for the Department of Education was $188 million. We’ve come forward and we’ve said we need an extra $3 million, that’s less than one percent.
So when you look at less than one percent increase, the member is correct, that’s the staff, and I thank him for complimenting the staff for their good work that they’ve done in the forecasting of it and so on.
So I can commit to the member to ensure that that logistic, as well as administrative and financial continue.
Not previously authorized. $3,438,000.
Chairman: Total Career and Early Childhood Services.
Not previously authorized. $1,479,000.
I’m not sure whether I should direct my question to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health but they can choose who I should be asking.
I’m just concerned, from the financial stand point, that the total O&M for the government is under a billion dollars.
I know that’s not enough to satisfy our objectives for Nunavummiut but it still takes away a lot of capital money when you have an extremely high O&M, especially in the Department of Health.
There have been exorbitant amounts of health travels, and there are some other travels, too, under Education that are quite high. That should be looked at: how is the best way, a better means, of reducing the O&M costs?
For example, a few years ago, this kid travelled from Kitikmeot to Repulse Bay on to Iqaluit, but that was discontinued due to lack of customers.
Yet we know that there are a lot of people from Kitikmeot that travel to Iqaluit but they choose to go through Yellowknife.
These are paid for by the government, directly or indirectly.
I think the government should have better control in deciding how their money should be spent and not to individual Nunavummiut.
I think the airlines would be quite happy to provide that service if there could be customers found travelling from Kitikmeot, or us travelling to Kitikmeot from the east and from Kivalliq, to make that connection.
So I would like to ask the minister: is there some kind of review being done to try to find a way to reduce the O&M costs by exploring the other means of travel other than the present set up?
I believe we’re on Healthy Children, Families and Communities right now.
Yes, we are. Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps you can guide me as to where I could ask my questions in respect to health travel because we are under the Health and Social Services’ O&M, and I understand that the Residential Care Program to support necessary additional service to new clients requiring residential care is under review.
But perhaps I will wait until we go to total O&M authorization that has not been previously authorized when we conclude all the other O&M page-by-page. It’s up to you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. David Simailak: I believe he can ask that in the last paragraph under Treatment Programs.
Chairman: Yes, Mr. Minister.
We are on the top of the page, Healthy Children, Families and Communities.
Perhaps after we finish that particular line, then when we go to the second paragraph and I’ll ask that question.
Here it says there’s $1.4 million to Residential Care Program to support necessary additional service to new clients requiring residential care.
I’m just wondering how many new clients that we need to provide care for, that require this $1.4 million worth of funding.
To the Minister of Health, please.
The residential care funding increase requested by the department deals with two things: increase in client care, as well as the increase in costs with providing residential care.
Presently, we have about 200 people in and outside of Nunavut in residential care, that’s 24/7.
Just based on what the minister has told us, it’s for increased services and additional costs with existing services; is that correct?
Hon. David Simailak: To the Minister of Health, please. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. Minister of Health, Ms. Aglukkaq.
I just question why in the bill here it says, ‘to assist the new clients requiring residential care.’ She just indicated that it’s for enhanced services and the additional costs for existing ones. Why, in here, does it say that it’s for new clients?
Again, to the Minister of Health and Social Services, please.
Chairman: Thank you. Minister Aglukkaq.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Chairman, it is a combination of both new clients and the costs of new clients’ increase in volumes of resident people in residential care.
At the same time, that results in increasing costs of the contracts with new clients.
I thank the minister for clarifying that. Then they should be able to tell us how many new clients they have that they require this additional funding for.
She had mentioned the number of 200 earlier.
If that was the number that they had initially based their projections on, how many is it now, or if the old number wasn’t 200, what was the old number?
I would like to see how many additional new clients that they need this funding for.
Again, it is a combination of both resulting from volumes of people in care, at the same time, the increased costs in the services provided by the people that provide 24/7 care.
If the member is seeking the numbers from the last fiscal year to this fiscal year in terms of increases in numbers, I can provide that to the member.
I am just interested in the increase in volume.
They surely should know what it is if they can attach a number to it. They have to figure out what it is based on something.
So I’m just curious to know: what is that increase in volume? It shouldn’t be that hard. They should have that number to be able to determine what they need for funding, I would hope.
If they don’t, where did that number come from?
As my colleague said earlier, some justification as to exactly why that funding is needed, to assure us that those numbers aren’t just plucked out of the air.
Let’s say we could have 60 more people that require residential care than what we have initially planned for, so that’s where this number comes from.
What are those numbers and the increased volume over what they have projected?
That’s all I am looking for.
I mentioned before that I will provide the numbers, but the other increase that we are dealing with in this figure is also the increases that we had to pay with the service providers. They have increased the cost of providing the out-of-territory services as well.
So it is the combination of, again, increased contract costs associated with the residential care and increase in the number of people who require 24/7 care.
So there’s a combination of both and I will provide that information to the member in terms of the breakdown.
Does the minister have the breakdown of the $1.4 million in those categories as far as amounts?
Not with me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Will the minister commit to providing that information?
If anyone is coming here and other ministers as well asking for money, they should have the justification and the breakdown as to where it’s going.
I think it’s only fair that the Members of the House should be given that information and not just give us a total number with a whole bunch of stuff that it’s going to go to without knowing where it is going.
Can the minister provide that information as soon as possible?
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Minister Aglukkaq.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I have no problems with that.
I would like to know that number. If there’s $1.4 million here and they say it’s for a combination of different things, I would ask questions.
If that was broken down, then we don’t know because that information is not here and when there is maybe two more people that we budget for, but which would take $400,000, and the contracts have gone up to $1 million, I would ask questions about that.
Since that information is there, I guess we cannot ask questions on that.
I have assumed that the ministers would have the justification with them.
How much is our contract now?
If it is going up $1 million, does the minister have any idea how much the contract services have increased?
My staff are listening. I will ask them to provide that information here.
I would rather not guess what and how that is broken down. The information is there. I just don’t have it in front of me, nor do I have the substantiation sheet that went before the committee.
So if my staff are listening, I would ask them to bring it down and then I will share it in the House today.
We are on a line item. However, I cannot put it to order because we do not have a quorum.
I will ring the bells.
Chairman: Welcome back members.
To remind you that ten members sitting in their chairs is a quorum.
Nine is not.
I would like to maybe request that once that information is on its way down, as the minister indicated that we leave that section and go onto the next section until we get that other information.
Chairman: Does the committee agree to that?
Chairman: Thank you. Page 9.
Page 11. I’m sorry, Page 10.
Mr. Arvaluk, we will go back to Page 9 after this information has been brought down.
Operations and Maintenance. Community Support.
Not previously authorized. $1,584,000.
Chairman: Total Community Support.
I was going to ask that before we went to the total.
However, if there is an agreement with the Iqaluit Water and Sewer Subsidy Program, doesn’t it include the total amount required; isn’t that part of the agreement?
Why do we need additional funding not previously authorized when there is an agreement with Iqaluit?
To the Minister of Community and Government Services, please.
Under the water and sewage funding pressures there is a lack of basic municipal infrastructure, which has a direct negative impact on the health of a community as water and sanitation services impact on public health.
The department faces ongoing pressure from municipalities for increases to the Water and Sewer Subsidy Program. The increasing number of clients, many of them private and commercial owners, has increased O&M costs for this primary municipal service program.
Over time, the water and sewage subsidy must be increased.
I understand and I appreciate that. I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be funded. What I’m saying is that if the agreement was made with Iqaluit for the Water and Sewer Subsidy Program, doesn’t that include the amount that would be provided, I read, by both parties?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The agreement with the City of Iqaluit is for just the first second grant in lieu of taxes, that’s for a total of $420,000.
So it doesn’t actually specify what it would be for. For example, in lieu of taxes, it will provide you with the Water and Sewer Subsidy Program. So this is simply a grant in lieu of taxes; is that correct?
CGS provides a grant to the City of Iqaluit on an annual basis in lieu of paying Property Taxes on Government of Nunavut owned infrastructure within the city.
Total. Community Support.
I have a very brief question in regard to this $2,911,000.
I just want get clarification. It says sealift; Kugaaruk. What are you paying for sealift to Kugaaruk?
In regard to the sealift in Kugaaruk, this is unique. Kugaaruk is unique when it comes to sealift.
Kugaaruk, although it’s in the Kitikmeot and the ships go over to that community, they have to use ships that go through Nanisivik because the ice does not go away early enough; they have to use ships that go through Nanisivik. Community and Government Services have to pay for the Canadian Coast Guard. That’s what we use.
As I stated before that from Nanisivik they go to Kugaaruk.
That’s the route that they take. We’re not provided funding; this is not a funded one. Although, we were given $450,000 in 2005-06, it went up to $670,000.
Next year, I believe that the price is going to go up because of the increase in the cost of living. Kugaaruk is expecting material for the construction of units.
We believe in the 2007-08 fiscal year they will require $750,000.
So then do I understand that the federal government’s Coast Guard, no matter where they are, we have to pay for them?
Is this money that we have to pay for just for sealift in Kugaaruk?
The reason I’m asking this question is because I thought that this was the responsibility of the federal government because the Coast Guard has to provide services to other ships that travel up to Nunavut.
To the Minister of CGS, please.
The member is correct. CGS pays for the Canadian Coast Guard for dry good resupply from Nanisivik to Kugaaruk. As I stated earlier, they have never received funding for it.
There were two members that were complaining when they were giving this to FMB.
I think they were identified as a capital carryover and that there were no substantiation sheets.
I believe that O&M needs substantiation sheets, but when we start talking about this within our constituencies, when we get home, we have to look at the Hansard as our substantiation sheet when we get home.
For example, whether Telehealth is under CGS, and the middle school expansion in Iqaluit, isn’t that a capital item?
Can I get those two clarified, please?
Chairman: Thank you. Minister Brown.
In regard to the question on Telehealth and resources for Telehealth, this also alleviated the cost for health and there is a contact for that in the amount $1,676,000; that’s what the contract amount was, but the budget line item this year is $1,276,000.
He asked whether this was a capital item but O&M were used for the middle school because they were overexpended due to forced growth by $153,000 back in September 2006. It was expanded by 1,100 square feet, and also the funding that was used was increased by $150,000.
The funding was insufficient and they never increased the O&M for it.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I asked why Telehealth is under CGS when it should be in the Department of Health and Social Services.
And secondly, why is the middle school expansion in O&M and not in capital?
I’ll attempt to answer the member’s questions or clarify the answer from the Minister of Community and Government Services.
With respect to the middle school expansion; in September last year of 2006, there was an exansion or addition made to the Aqsarniit Middle School.
Because of that, we need now to give to CGS the incremental cost of operating and maintenance cost for that particular school and that expansion. So it’s not capital, it’s the O&M costs associated with the capital expansion.
I hope that explains that part of it.
The second part of the member’s question relates to Telehealth. My memory may be wrong but I believe the Telehealth contract is actually administered by CGS on behalf of the Department of Health and Social Services.
Because of that, the increase in the contract costs of Telehealth goes through CGS and that’s why it’s in front of members here today for the supplementary bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that answers the member’s question.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ma. Mr. Arvaluk.
Yes, a couple of my colleagues suggested that some kind of explanation or substantiation sheet should be issued for O&M so that we can review it more clearly like the carryover capitals.
How do you have a contract with Telehealth companies? You must have a contract signed sometime this fiscal year.
And then, all of a sudden they null the contract and tell us, ‘Give us more money for Telehealth services’? How does that justify it?
CGS is responsible for Telehealth and it’s used by various departments such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health.
Ever since Telehealth started, CGS has been operating Telehealth.
It’s up to you whether or not you want to go down to the witness table with your officials, Minister Brown.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would like to go down to the witness table with my officials.
Mr. Simailak, Mr. Green, and Mr. Ma come down to the witness table afterwards.
The members agree.
Do you agree to invite Minister of Community and Government Services and her officials?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, can you escort them?
(interpretation ends) Welcome, Minister Brown.
On my right is Ms. Pam Hine, Deputy Minister, and on my left is Mike Rafter.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Welcome to the witness Ms. Hine and Mr. Rafter.
Welcome Ms. Hine and Mr. Rafter.
I asked the minister and she answered that CGS has a contract with Telehealth. Did you have a contract with the provision to allow Telehealth request for money and increase their revenue above and beyond your signed contract with them?
I guess I should rephrase that, and I will speak in English.
The Telehealth Program offers videoconferencing in all the Nunavut communities. This program was designed to reduce the cost of travel for doctors and patients, and allow people to stay in their communities and receive medical advice.
The contract cost is $1,676,000. Now, the budget is sitting at $1,676,000 and it’s user-based. That’s where it’s based at CGS.
As the use goes up, the cost goes up, just like a telephone bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.