EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
It is deferred to the (interpretation ends) Minister of Justice, Mr. Okalik.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Right here at BCC, it’s a pretty sad statistic.
I don’t even have it right now.
It changes regularly. We’re doing very well in Rankin Inlet. We’re at 75 percent in Rankin Inlet and a very high number in Kugluktuk.
I’m very encouraged by Rankin Inlet, where they actually have Inuktitut non-beneficiaries working in the facility.
That’s a wonderful example. In the Makigiarvik, we’re hopeful that we will have 50 percent, but it’s a very difficult case here in Iqaluit.
That’s why I’m hoping that we can increase more facility space in Rankin Inlet, where it’s far more encouraging than here. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to state my support. There are graduates every year in Nunavut. I’m sure that they would be available to gain employment in the correctional facility.
I think it’s just a comment and I don’t think he’s expecting a response.
Corrections. Total Corrections. $2,860,000.
Chairman (interpretation): On page 4.
Total Department. $4,336,000.
Page 5. Turn to page 5.
I think the Inuktitut has some errors.
The Inuktitut and English versions are different.
On page 5, it says Justice in Inuktitut.
On page 5 of the English, it says Community and Government Services.
Please give me a moment.
My Inuktitut version was in error, but the correct one is in English.
I’ll start again.
From what I understand, the Petroleum Products Stabilization Fund has a plus or minus $10 million.
That number is a fairly insignificant amount of money.
Just to clarify in my own head, I am quite familiar with how revolving funds work.
With the recent coverage and announcements on the lower fuel prices this year, it is anticipated that the government will have savings overall. I’m sure many Nunavummiut are hoping and anticipating for lower fuel prices this upcoming year.
Is this just an accounting? I realize it’s 2014-15 and we’re in 2015-16 right now, so the fuel costs are still being totalled.
Is this just an accounting thing or is this actually money that needs to be brought into the account and then, potentially, we have the swing going the other way in the next fiscal year from the lower fuel costs?
Mr. Chairman, it is actual money. That’s why it is an appropriation. The department needs $285,000 to bring the account into the $10 million range, plus or minus.
When the fuel costs are analyzed for this upcoming fiscal year - I hate using this word - I’m going to assume again that this fund will not be in the negative, that it’s potentially into the positive again depending upon how the fuel prices are calculated from the Petroleum Products Division of Community and Government Services, but with the lower costs in this fiscal year, what is the recovery discussion on this fund with Community and Government Services?
Mr. Chairman, if the petroleum products were to make $10 million in profit this year, the balance of this fund would be zero.
Going back to page 5.
Directorate. Total Directorate. $285,000.
Ms. Angnakak: I just have one question.
My colleague was talking about gas prices and that.
Does the minister know when an announcement might come out for what our gas and oil prices will be for this year?
Mr. Chairman, the PPD folks are still analyzing the information.
Most of the sealifts have just concluded in the last little while.
Until they’re ready to provide us with the information, we will have to wait and see if the prices go up or down.
Total Department. $285,000.
Following the Inuktitut version, 2014-15 Supplementary Appropriation, No. 3.
Supplementary Appropriation. $4,621,000.
Please refer to the bill in your white legislation binder.
We will begin the clause-by-clause review of Bill 1.
I believe you all have the bill in front of you.
It reads, Bill 1, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2014-2015.
Chairman (interpretation): Go to the Schedule on page 3, page 2 in English. (interpretation ends) Go to the Schedule on page 2. (interpretation) It reads, Schedule.
Total Appropriation. $4,621,000.
Pursuant to Rule 62(2), are we agreed that Bill 1 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Bill 02 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2015-2016 – Consideration in Committee
This is concluded.
We will move on to Bill 2.
The Minister of Finance will still be at the witness table.
Do you wish to have the same officials at the witness table or do you want other officials, Minister Peterson?
I would like to bring in Ms. Lori Kimball, the President of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witness out of the Chamber.
Minister Peterson would like the President of the Nunavut Housing Corporation at the table. Do you agree?
Please escort the official.
Again, to my right is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of Finance, and to my left is Lori Kimball, President of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Ms. Kimball, welcome to the House.
On Bill 2, if you have opening comments, you may now begin.
I am pleased to appear before you today to present Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2015-2016.
Bill 2 is for a supplementary appropriation of $7,478,000 to the Nunavut Housing Corporation to cover the funding shortfall for 2015-16 for the public housing program due to increases to water and sewage rates in seven communities as well as increased consumption in heating fuel and water.
If there are no general comments, we will be dealing with Bill 2. We will start off with page 4.
All of Minister Peterson’s opening comments are covered in these sheets. Once we get to them, you will be able to ask detailed questions.
In Inuktitut and English, they’re both page 4.
I would like, perhaps, the president of the housing [corporation] to tell us out of the water and heating, what’s gone up in price? Is it the water or the heating? How are you dealing with this at the community level?
I’ll ask Ms. Kimball to respond to that question.
Thank you.  Chairman: Ms. Kimball.
The $7.4 million can be broken up into three components. The $2,224,000 is for partial year coverage of both water and electric.
The breakdown of that is $1.1 million is water and $1.1 million is power, so it’s equal parts. The second component of that number is $3,866,000.
Of that, $2,785,000 is water and $1 million is heating fuel. The last component is water rates alone, and that’s $1,388,000. It’s a mix of both.
Water rates vary by community and they get changed throughout the year by the different communities whereas the power and heating is basically about consumption and one-time change in rates.
That’s a really big number when you’re climbing past $7 million for increases in water and heating.
What kind of dialogue have you had with the communities about how you can address this?
What’s the strategy? What’s going to happen?
I’ll ask Ms. Kimball to answer that question.
In regard to water rates, for all the communities on trucked water, we’re actually consuming water per litre per person at a below World Health Organization standard, so we really aren’t pushing the aspect of conservation.
Instead, we’re more looking at working with our colleagues in terms of the water systems. Is there any way to make that more efficient in terms of producing water at a lower rate? That’s a bigger infrastructure question.
In terms of power, that is certainly something that we’re looking at how we can address consumption. The current program of 6 cents per kilowatt-hour doesn’t provide a tremendous amount of incentive for conservation.
This past year, we had an unusually cold heating season. We believe that’s an anomaly in terms of the extra heating costs that we were incurring.
Depending on how the weather holds for this year, we’re hoping the heating doesn’t recur.
One of my colleagues asked part of this question already, but I would like to ask some more about it. With respect to the people who rent public housing from the housing associations, the question I have is: how are they educated or taught how to conserve fuel and how to keep the house warm? Do you deliver any training or education to your tenants about those things?
Ms. Kimball advises that they have tenant engagement committees, calendars and information that are distributed to the tenants.
As you stated earlier, last year was very cold for all of Nunavut and that’s what I heard earlier. In the past years, have the numbers stayed pretty much the same or do the expenditures drop and climb?
I thank Mr. Mikkungwak for the question. I’m very glad I brought Ms. Kimball to answer all these detailed questions, so I’ll defer that question to her.
Overall, we have seen the cost per unit last year rise compared to the prior year where it was over $26,000 per year per unit for the social housing program.
On the overall budget, it’s also continuing to rise because we’re adding more units.
With the investment of the $100 million from 2013, we’re now starting to see those units be completed as well as with the GN’s investment in addressing the unit shortfall throughout the territory.
Some of these new homes that are built, I know that we have raised it here along with my colleagues that they’re facing the strong winds. Does that cause them to be more expensive to heat?
We continue to work with the municipalities in terms of which lots we get allocated as we’re going forward with new construction.
We’re unable to do different designs based on the lots that we’re being given. It’s very costly to do designs of housing, so we do try to repeat our designs. For instance, our five-plex, we try to repeat that in the different jurisdictions.
We are trying to develop better long-term planning. This year in our annual report, we are publishing the needs information so that communities can give more of a heads-up that we’re going to be coming to them looking for land.
In the end, the direction that the building faces is really dictated based on the lots that we’re given within the community and community’s own design in terms of how they lay out the roads and facing directions.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. We’re on page 4 in English and Inuktitut.
It reads, Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Not Previously Authorized. Total Nunavut Housing Corporation. $7,478,000. Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Page 4.
Total Department. $7,478,000. Do you agree?
Page 2. 2015-16 Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1, Operations and Maintenance. $7,478,000.
Go to your legislation binder. Turn to Bill 2.
I think you have it in front of you now.
Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2015-16.
Chairman (interpretation): Let us refer to page 2 in English and page 3 in Inuktitut. Schedule.
Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2016.
Total Supplementary Appropriation. $7,478,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Does the committee agree to Bill 2 as a whole?
Chairman (interpretation): Pursuant to Rule 62(2), do members agree that Bill 2 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Bill 06 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2015-2016 – Consideration in Committee
We are now going to deal with Bill 6.
Before we proceed to Bill 6, Minister Peterson, would you like to have different witnesses with you at the witness table for this one? Minister Peterson.
If you have any opening comments on Bill 6, you may now begin, Minister Peterson.
I am pleased to appear before you today to present Bill 6, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2015-2016.
Bill 6 is for a capital supplementary appropriation of $1 million for the Department of Education.
This appropriation is required in 2015-16 for the design cost of the new Cape Dorset school, which is estimated to cost $34 million in total.
The opening comments are all contained in the supplementary appropriations. Are there any general comments?
It reads, Education. Not Previously Authorized.
I just have a few questions regarding this $1 million for the school in Cape Dorset.
We received a document stating that most of the schools covered carry some sort of insurance on them and this document also states that there’s a $10 million deductible on each school.
I noticed for the Cape Dorset school that it says there’s only $6 million worth of insurance on it with a $10 million deductible, so the entire cost of the new school is going to be fronted by the government.
I’m wondering if you can explain why we have such low levels of insurance on the school when we know that the replacement value is like $34 million, which the minister just stated.
Mr. Rumbolt is correct, there is a $10 million deductible. In that particular situation, that school was a very old school and its value was at $6 million, as Mr. Rumbolt stated.
The Department of Community and Government Services had hired a consulting firm to go around and estimate the value of government buildings across Nunavut.
In that particular case, they didn’t take into account the $17 million and change of upgrades to the school to bring the value up to a higher level.
Consequently, when the school burned down, the deductible was higher than the cost of the school, so now the Government of Nunavut has to pay the entire amount for the school.
The minister just stated that it was probably underinsured because of the age.
I got probably 30 examples here of schools that are underinsured and I’ll take another school for an example and I’ll use my own community. It’s the Paatsaali High School that was only built three years ago, so it’s fairly new, yet this government only carries $9 million worth of insurance on it with the replacement value of a little over $26 million.
I’m wondering if the minister can explain why there’s such low insurance coverage on this particular school.
With the disaster in Cape Dorset, the Government of Nunavut has been looking very closely at the insurance levels across Nunavut.
As the Department of Finance ourselves, we can only work with the information that we receive for the facilities across Nunavut. We are working now with CGS to address the insurance levels and ensure that the buildings are insured to their current value.
According to this document, just about every school in Nunavut is underinsured. With the $10 million deductible, I’m wondering if the minister can inform us on today what kind of premiums are paid by the government for insurance on the schools.
I believe he’s working with the information that we provided from the commitment from the standing committee, but we don’t have the answer to the question he just asked.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Page 4.
It reads, Education. Not Previously Authorized. Total Department. $1 million.
I believe it was back in 2011 that you mentioned, perhaps, there was a renovation done worth $17 million. Although it was an old building, it was renovated. Did you mention $17 million worth of renovations?
(interpretation ends) Did I understand correctly that there was no assessment of the value of the school after the renovations had been done?
Was it valued at the old amount of $6 million before the renovations were complete? Is that how I understood it, Mr. Chairman?
Did he understand correctly?
If I understand him correctly, it was an old school, it was valued at around $6 million, but there were the renovations.
I just don’t have the precise number before me, but the renovations were around $17 million and perhaps $17,750,000, I don’t know, some number in there.
We are still looking at working with CGS to understand why the facility wasn’t insured to a higher level.
There were some fires since 1998, one in Cambridge Bay and elsewhere in other communities, which destroyed the schools in those communities.
The insurance was so high that the government decided that there had to be a $10 million deductible.
There was a firm that was engaged to go around, I think it was in 2012, to look at all the facilities and give the government an estimate of the replacement value of those facilities.
As to why the renovation wasn’t factored into Cape Dorset, we’re still investigating.
The government as a whole, whenever there are new renovations being done to any existing facilities, maybe we should do follow-up assessments to look at the value after. If we put in $17 million into an existing building and the value was set to be $6 million, there are two quite different amounts.
I’m just trying to get a commitment from the government to look at new and existing renovations that they look at doing a property evaluation from then on.
This $1 million is for a new design.
I thank Mr. Joanasie for his question and comments.
Mr. Chairman, the Government of Nunavut is currently working on many of the suggestions Mr. Joanasie has put forward.
CGS has a new program to factor in the insurance costs and the costs of any buildings that are renovated will be factored into the formula.
The new buildings will be insured at the replacement cost. That work is already underway.
Just to respond to Mr. Rumbolt’s earlier question, there isn’t a lot of new information for him. We’re suggesting the replacement value for the school in Sanikiluaq is $26,190,000, so we would be insuring it for that amount.
The $1 million for this year is for design-build.
Rather than put the whole $3.5 million in this current year and have to carry it over, $1 million would be used to start the design-build work in this current fiscal year and then there will be additional appropriations in the following fiscal years.
The Peter Pitseolak School was the biggest building before it burnt down in Cape Dorset.
Are they going to take a look at the size? I understand there were up to 170 students enrolled in this school.
Looking at future growth, the design will spell out exactly how big it will be.
I just want some commitment that you are going to take into consideration the size of the community, population growth, and the number of students that are enrolled now in looking forward.
I thank Mr. Joanasie for his question.
I’m going to defer that question to the Minister of Education, who would probably have more accurate information on future projections.
The question was deferred to the Minister of Education.
Minister Quassa, are you ready to respond to the question?
Now, it becomes obvious as we have the data on the numbers of students every year by September 30.
Further, it is part of our deliberation since we know the school will be smaller than its predecessor.
We are exploring ways to house the Peter Pitseolak School students (interpretation ends) from grades 7 to 12, (interpretation) which is how it was set up.
At this time, we are reviewing all the considerations related to this issue, including making it only for the higher grades and move the junior high grades to the Sam Pudlat School.
That was the reason for selecting a slightly smaller school building. That is what we have envisioned for that project.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Our high schools, do they usually start at grade 8 or grade 7?
I think that it’s going to be smaller than the old school.
If you can clarify if high school starts in grade 7 or grade 8. Where does high school start?
I believe that the question is directed to the Minister of Education, Minister Quassa.
I will refer that question to Minister Quassa. If you can respond, Mr. Quassa.
If we look at past data such as back in the 2005-06 school year when the Peter Pitseolak School underwent renovations, there were 192 students enrolled for grades 8 to 12.
That was the data used as the foundation. Further, as per the member’s preamble, it required further renovations.
Back in 2011, there were 237 students enrolled, which was just near capacity.
At this time, for the 2014-15 school year starting from grade 7 up to grade 12, 143 students were taking classes.
Now, for the 2015-16 year, there were only 135 students enrolled at that school.
Due to that reason, the new school will be constructed with a capacity to house 215 students.
At the time when the Peter Pitseolak School was still in use… .
I apologize. There were 192 students initially, but currently in the 2015-16 numbers, we had 135 students. This illustrates that the numbers of students we anticipate enrolling in this school will be lower than past years and it is noticeable.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) This $1 million for design has been identified now.
Has the department, in collaboration with the community, identified a suitable location for a new school? I understand it’s not going to be where the old school was.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education and his officials have been working very closely with the community. I’ll have to defer that question to the Minister of Education.
The question has been deferred to the Minister of Education, so if you can answer it.
As my ministerial colleague correctly stated, our department is working with Community and Government Services.
We are reviewing another location for the Peter Pitseolak school that will not be reused for this project.
When are we going to find out where the location is going to be? Can the minister give us the location?
I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s directed to the Minister of Education. Minister Quassa.
We also had discussions with the people of Cape Dorset and worked alongside with the hamlet council and the district education authority.
They were talking about taking the location of where the health centre was going to be.
That is according to what the people of Cape Dorset wanted. We might possibly think about locating it where the health centre would have been.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I would just also like to ensure that the Minister of Education… .
Even though it’s going to be a smaller school, I just want to make sure, in the design, it’s going to have an option, if necessary, to expand it so that, for example, in ten years from now, we don’t need to build a brand-new school; we could add onto it.
Are you going to take that into consideration?
I think I can go directly to the Minister of Education.
The schools that we’re going to be building will have the option of being able to be extended some time in the future.
We will have it designed so that it will be capable of being expanded, as I’m sure the school population will grow in the future.
I don’t think I have any more questions, but I would like to thank the government staff and my colleagues for working very hard on getting another school going. It was a hardship for our community, but we have to look into the future and possibly make some designs that are adaptable to accommodate all the students, teachers, and so on.
I can even say that there was a father of one of the students who said that his child was going to be graduating from grade 12. They can’t do that this year, but they will be able to graduate next year. They are hopeful that even though they have no school, they look forward to going ahead with the graduation and all that.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that was just a comment and he doesn’t expect a response because he didn’t ask a question.
I originally didn’t have any questions under this category, but in one of the responses to my colleague, Mr. Rumbolt, the minister stated that they didn’t have the information on the premiums on the insurance policy of this nature with them.
Which department is responsible for insurance premiums on GN assets?
Just prior to responding to Mr. Hickes’ question, I would just like to thank Mr. Joanasie for his thanks to the government employees and the minister and the Minister of CGS.
Their staff worked very hard to address that issue.
It was a real tragedy. In Cambridge Bay, we had a similar tragedy in 1998 and it really disrupted our community and our high school students.
It’s very reassuring and a good feeling to see government officials and MLAs working together to help a community and their children.
The response with respect to Mr. Hickes’ question, the Department of Finance is responsible for insurance.