EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
At this time, we’re working on the whole program design. The business case was concluded last year and we tried to include it in the budget cycle, but it didn’t go through.
Currently, we have revamped the program planning phase, including the business case.
You also had a question about whether we could have a mobile program.
This has been considered by our department. Subject to the approval of my cabinet colleagues, we’re looking at the operation and maintenance dollars and we’re looking forward to getting that up and about.
I didn’t fully grasp that, so if you could help me understand what you referred to in your opening comments on a new territorial mental health facility. I believe you identified $100,000 for this facility.
My question is: will all Nunavummiut who are suffering from mental illness be going to this facility?
The facility would be open to anybody.
I think what we’re talking about is a facility that is for people with mild mental disabilities and so on. It’s not a permanent care facility; it’s sort of a temporary facility that individuals can receive some help and that will certainly be part of the Nunavut-wide service, but the majority of the current facilities that are in there for Akausisarvik are from the Baffin region.
So, yes, for the more serious ones, we will continue to probably rely on out-of-territory care and treatment for people with more severe illnesses. (interpretation) I hope that clarifies it.
I thank the minister and his officials for appearing before us.
In your opening comments written in English, (interpretation ends) “In order to meet these standards, we are requesting $700,000 for minor projects to be used to replace failing or out-of-date medical equipment.”
(interpretation) Equipment for medical testing are increasingly computerized.
Would this fund be for more than one community?
We all know that technological equipment is quite expensive.
If a lot of communities requested this equipment, wouldn’t this fund be too small?
I will have our Chief Financial Officer, Madam Voth, provide a detailed response. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Chairman: Ms. Voth.
I can give the member a sample of the type of equipment that we are purchasing this year out of the fund that we have access to this year.
This year, we’re purchasing a haematology analyzer and centrifuge for the Kivalliq Health Centre, a procedural stretcher for the Kitikmeot, a portable bladder scanner for the Baffin region, Holter monitors in all of the communities, and a Lifepak defibrillator for Iqaluit. For the Qikiqtani General Hospital, we’re ordering a gastroscope, a colonoscope, and infusion pumps.
These are the types of medical equipment that we have to replace periodically.
My colleague who mentioned that he was not a doctor is unfortunately not here.
With respect to some of these items, we don’t even have an idea of what they are and have absolutely no idea of how much they cost, so I am very glad that you responded to my question.
When you look at the items that are used in the centres, my perception is that this fund would be too small if you added a lot of these expensive diagnostic tools and if we were to provide them to more communities.
As well on this other matter, I believe in the 2012-13 budget, the $100,000 you requested for a facility that my colleague alluded to, I’m wondering if this fund means that some of those will be dealt with by community, but due to the lack of a facility, I would like to know if that’s included in this.
The $100,000 budget, which we have allocated for the next fiscal year, will be solely for Iqaluit.
However, in my response, I also responded to our Kitikmeot colleague that this facility will be a treatment centre for everyone in Nunavut. Currently it’s used for the Baffin region by people who come from outside Iqaluit.
This particular fund is specifically for Iqaluit and that is an existing facility, so these funds would just be transferred.
They will be conducting research to determine what has to change.
The funding is basically to do that research. We may require supplementary appropriation if we had to change a lot of the equipment inside the facility.
So this $100,000 is just for that initial research.
I would like to remind the members that we are doing the page-by-page review of F-3.
The details are on page F-4. That’s what we’re looking at.
First of all, I have a question about minor projects on page F-4 and she explained exactly they would be.
(interpretation ends) I would like ask, if it is possible to ask, about the minor capital projects that she mentioned.
It seems there is equipment that is for aging equipment only.
Is any of that equipment new equipment to help in either medical facilities to do things that they were not able to do in the past for illnesses and things like that?
In my statement, I made a note that these two minor projects are small capital as well as minor projects.
There is some equipment at the nursing stations or health centres that are aging or could be aging. They could break down anytime, so we have a small allocation for that.
My colleague from Pangnirtung also raised a question of whether or not some items may cost more than that.
If that were to happen, normally within the budget… . We have been asked by our friends from the Department of Finance and everywhere that we must work within our budget. If we exceeded $700,000, then we’ve got to pay within the department.
We may have to borrow, for instance. I’m just using an example. We could probably say that if there are some extra funds from medical travel, we could probably use it for a while and balance it at the end of the year.
That’s the kind of thing the department has a bit of flexibility in.
This program has been ongoing and it has been very active, very busy.
Our Finance Corporate Director, Debora, normally consults with all the regional directors to try and get some specific items that they may need to replace before the budget goes into the Committee of the Whole for consideration.
That’s the kind of thing we do and hopefully we will not exceed our budget allocation, but sometimes it does happen.
Being new, please tell me if I make a mistake.
Last spring in 2011, a decision was required when someone passed away. With regard to CT scans, what is the status of that?
Mr. Chairman, we are committed to purchasing that. It was made very clear by the autopsy report and the coroner’s report that the GN should consider purchasing a CT scanner, so that’s in the works. The first thing we do is develop a business case and cost it out.
The department provides justification for that equipment and our officials have concluded that. There is an allocation; I think the costs have been allocated. It’s likely going to cost about $1.7 million, from my recollection, to purchase it.
There’s also $400,000 to actually utilize technical aspects, specialists, to fund with it because there will be a training requirement. Before that happens, we likely have to use a radiologist from outside of the territory for a while before we eventually have an ability to have that individual funded and within the Qikiqtani General Hospital.
So the plans are underway.
If things worked out, we would likely have it in the early part of 2013.
That’s very good news to see it go forward.
I would like to mention as well that I am very happy that they’re trying to work on the facility.
I forget what it’s called, but I think it is Akausilirivvik, the current mental health facility here in Iqaluit.
It’s very small and somewhat overcrowded, I believe.
I’m sure the facility that you want to move it to requires renovations. Can you give a little more detail on that? That’s my question.
The facility that I spoke about, I should have mentioned the fiscal year, which is 2012-13, starting on April 1.
So when that new fiscal year commences, that’s something we’re looking at for the new CT scanner.
With respect to this mental health facility that currently exists, it’s generally overcrowded and basically used to be a private home. Due to that fact, they tend to be overcrowded.
So if they move to the old Ukiivik residence, as per our plan, I believe the name will still be Akausisarvik.
I would like to get Peter Ma to elaborate on the details.
As the minister was saying and I think the member has indicated, the old Akausisarvik is not a suitable location anymore to have our mental health patients.
So we have examined the possibility of using the old boarding home, Tammaativvik, and I think that is exactly where we’re headed.
There will definitely be some renovations. In fact, if I recall correctly, we have started that work with CGS over the summer.
The next stage, of course, is to finish, as the minister has indicated, the functional program. Once we have that, we can determine exactly how to configure the old Tammaativvik.
That would then drive the costs and we will likely have to come back into the House for approval, depending on what we need for costs. That work is, I think, proceeding well. I would suspect that we will be able to report further at the appropriate time.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ma. Ms. Ell.
I believe it’s listed in this page. How many spaces exist in the current facility? If they do move to this other building, how many spaces would there be?
My deputy minister will respond to that, but let us understand, as we said earlier, I don’t think that a patient has ever stayed a whole winter. Sometimes it’s overcrowded and sometimes there are less people. I would like to get Peter Ma to elaborate further.
The capacity for Akausirsarvik is 13. With respect to Member Ell’s question about Tammaativvik and what we can house once that renovation is completed, it would depend upon the program review that we do and the functional program that we develop.
That would then tell us the size of things that we need to have, common areas, and things like that.
At this point, I can’t give you an answer. It’s not because I don’t want to, it’s just that I can’t until we finish the functional review. Like I said earlier in my response, at the appropriate time, we will be able to provide additional information to members.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ma. Ms. Ugyuk.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) According to your department’s documentation, a common design is being used for the replacement of all three health centres in Repulse Bay, Arctic Bay, and Taloyoak. What final cost savings are anticipated to result from using the same design for all three health centres?
Debora Voth will respond to that question, Mr. Chairman.
I wish I had the number in front of me to quote it, but it’s in the order of about $1 million that we returned to the Department of Finance this fiscal year in our capital plans. That had to do with the savings from the design because we’re using it in all three.
We are carrying forward $100,000 for Taloyoak and for Arctic Bay in case we have to do some site adjustments and in case we have to do some adjustments according to new building standards and building codes.
However, we did return the order of about $1 million back into the overall government capital plan due to having the design for multiple sites. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) How many changes will be required to the original design for each of the three health centres being built under the common design, and what will those additional changes costs?
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Debora Voth will also respond to the question.
That would be determined at the time that we’re going out for request for proposals. We would bring back the original designer for the three sites.
I would anticipate that there would be just some design changes as to whatever site that they’re going to be located because it’s a different site configuration for each community. That would be the difference.
So we wouldn’t know the exact dollar amount for the changes, but we are carrying $100,000 in each project in order to accommodate those changes.
I don’t anticipate any changes in the functional program of each of the communities.
We know as a government that we often wait for many years for the construction of units. Those units are often planned way ahead of time and by the time they’re completed, they’re already too small.
I wonder if that has been addressed with the plans for the Taloyoak Health Centre.
I don’t think we want to indicate right now the planning stages that are being considered for the three facilities.
I think the important benefit that we have is that these three communities are probably pretty much similar in population. Repulse Bay is slightly larger.
Normally, the government has a general rule. It’s not a hard and fast rule that facilities should be good for at least 30 years.
That is normally the standard established. So we’re not immediately building for 800,000 people only.
The government takes into account that communities will continue to grow for the next 30 years.
So for that reason and not only that, the government takes into consideration with our colleagues, all of us, is it affordable in today’s budget that we’re limited to.
We only have about $90 million maximum each year for the last few years anyways.
So I think the projections the government uses are pretty fair and we want to indicate that the best we can do is to at least develop a case for a 30-year functional facility. That I will say.
I know, with using a common design, we are saving money. I can tell you that much. When we go for a new architectural design and issue a competition for a new design phase, their template, their system, and their fees are normally quite high.
So I think using a similar design for future aspects is really a benefit to this government.
In terms of the detailed costing, if they ran out of anything to do, eventually someone should do a study on that.
I don’t think we’re the department that could that.
I have a question with respect to Akausisarvik. (interpretation ends) What consideration has the department given to planning for other mental health facilities, such as an addition treatment centre or facility to support children with mental health or behavioural difficulties?
I alluded to them about a moment or two ago when I referred to the other program, the addiction facilities.
I indicated that we had developed a business case last year during the budget process about this time of the year, but my department officials did not go beyond the planning phase.
The proposals were not accepted for funding, so we had almost a whole year to continue to design the program.
They are pretty well ready for submission again to the whole FMB process, which I will be leading through for the next two or three months. Hopefully, by the time we return in February, the announcements for these programs which you alluded to will become, which would cover the whole Nunavut territory.
Whether or not we would have two, I cannot say, but we are hoping that there will be more than one option plus mobile services that we should be providing to Nunavutmiut, particularly for addiction kind of treatment for communities that don’t have a home-based addiction centre. (interpretation) Thank you.
We will go back to page F-3. (interpretation ends) Health and Social Services.
Total Capital Expenditures. $10,536,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): We will go back to page F-2. (interpretation ends) Departmental Summary.
Chairman (interpretation): Are we in agreement that we have completed the Department of Health and Social Services?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister and your staff.
Closing remarks, if you want, Minister Curley.
I am very pleased that we have completed the review of our department’s capital estimates.
I take your questions to heart. They’re very helpful to us and we will take them into consideration.
I would also like to thank my officials and all of our staff within our department. Thank you for your support.
(interpretation ends) If I may, as your Chairperson, I would like to take a 15-minute break.
We shall be back somewhere around the 18 mark.
>>Committee recessed at 17:03 and resumed at 17:20
We can proceed again.
We will deal with the Department of Environment.
Mr. Shewchuk, if you would proceed with your opening comments.
Bill 15 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2012-2013 – Environment – Consideration in Committee
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Ma’na, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be here today before this committee to present my department’s capital plan for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment’s proposed capital budget for 2012-13 is $3,044,000.
The capital projects for the 2012-13 fiscal year focus on three program areas, namely, wildlife management, parks and special places, and fisheries and sealing.
For Wildlife Management:
Mr. Chairman, a substantial portion of our proposed 2012-13 capital budget ($1.14 million) will be spent on the Wildlife Management Division. Therefore, we will commence with the planning phases for the construction of a new wildlife office in Repulse Bay. We will also be renovating some of our wildlife offices in various communities and replacing some of our aging wildlife mobile equipments.
For Fisheries and Sealing:
Mr. Chairman, in the 2012-13 fiscal year, my department is planning to spend approximately $214,000 of the proposed capital budget on the Fisheries and Sealing Division.
These funds will be used towards the purchase of scientific equipment for our newly acquired research vessel.
This purchase is essential in order to equip the vessel with the necessary instruments and safety equipment required to gather data for research purposes.
For Parks and Special Places:
Mr. Chairman, my department’s 2012-13 capital estimates also include a variety of parks projects across the territory.
It is therefore vital for us to ensure that our parks meet the needs of both Nunavutmiut and visitors coming to Nunavut.
During the 2012-13 fiscal year, we also plan to spend $1.69 million in other related parks projects throughout the territory.
We will be advancing our planning activities for the Back River so that it could become an addition to Nunavut’s Canadian Heritage Rivers.
We furthermore plan to carry out studies required to determine the potential for new parks at Axel Heiberg in the High Arctic and at the communities of Arviat and Sanikiluaq.
We will continue our ongoing operational requirements in various communities, including:
the fabrication needed for and the construction of a site trail, and the installation of safety guard rails and interpretive signage at Bloody Falls/Kugluk Park in Kugluktuk;
the design and installation of interpretive signage at Mallikjuaq Park in Cape Dorset;
the development of a park pavilion in Rankin Inlet; and
the fabrication and installation of operational signage and other capital requirements at several parks across Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment’s capital plan is centred on Nunavutmiut and Nunavut communities and is focused in areas that clearly support the needs and priorities of the government as set out in Tamapta.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. (interpretation ends) Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
(interpretation ends) Qujannamiik, Sergeant.
Mr. Shewchuk, will you please introduce your witnesses.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) To my right I have the Deputy Minister of Environment, Mr. David Akeeagok, and to my left… .
Whoops, I got that wrong.
To my left I have my Deputy Minister David Akeeagok and to my right I have the Director of Parks and Special Places, David Monteith.
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 2012-13 capital estimates.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for 2012-13 is $3,044,000.
The department’s capital budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year was $4,020,000 and its capital budget was $2,160,000 for the 2010-11 fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates includes $100,000 in funding for the replacement of the conservation office in Coral Harbour. The department’s 2011-12 capital estimates included $1,715,000 in funding for this project.
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, members were advised that this project will be delayed due to various issues. Members also posed questions to the Minister of Community and Government Services during his appearance before the standing committee concerning this project.
However, members are unclear as to what issues have delayed this project and urge both departments to work together to address this issue.
The department’s five-year capital plan indicates that a conservation office in Resolute Bay will be replaced in the 2013-14 fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2008-09 capital estimates included $600,000 in funding for the Kugaaruk Park Development project. A further $100,000 was allocated for this project in 2009-2010.
There was no funding allocated for this project in the department’s 2011-12 capital estimates and the proposed 2012-13 capital estimates does not include funding as well.
During last year’s Committee of the Whole review of the 2011-12 capital estimates, the minister indicated that his department was working with the Kitikmeot Inuit Association on land issues.
The department’s 2012-13 capital estimates proposes $500,000 in funding for renovations and repairs to wildlife offices and research facilities across the territory.
The department’s proposed 2011-12 capital estimates include $1.2 million in funding for small capital projects. These projects focus on the replacement of mobile equipment and the development of infrastructure in territorial parks.
Members generally support improvements to Nunavut’s territorial parks and look forward to progress also being made with respect to the development and implementation of management plans for our heritage rivers, such as the Thelon and Kazan. Members also support the work being done towards the Axel Heiberg Fossil Forest Territorial Park and look forward to progress on this project.
On February 8, 2008, a federal-territorial news release announced that the Government of Canada would invest approximately $1.6 million in the Sylvia Grinnell Bridge project. It was also announced that “Indian and Northern Affairs Canada will contribute $838,669 as part of the Strategic Investments in Northern Economic Development initiative, and the Department of National Defence will contribute over $800,000 to design and construct the bridge and manage the project through the Bridges for Canada program.”
During last year’s appearance before the standing committee, the minister advised members that the Department of National Defence would no longer be funding this project but that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada would continue to provide $800,000 in funding towards this project. Members were also advised that the department would revisit the scope of this project and that the estimated total cost of this project would be approximately $4.1 million.
The standing committee encourages the minister to provide ongoing updates to the Legislative Assembly on the status of this project, including the department’s efforts to obtain additional third party funding for it.
On September 23 of last year, members noted that a news release issued by the GN stated that “The Department of Environment and the Department of Community and Government Services (CGS) are working together to examine Nunavut’s solid waste management practices as a whole.
The strategy will examine a number of options for solid waste management for the territory, including recycling, incineration, and gasification.”