EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
With respect to the evaluation itself, we received it in February of last year and we have reviewed it and the department has made some improvements to the FAIA program based on the recommendations in the report.
I am pleased to say that the program is improving.
When the contractor conducted the evaluation, it was a little bit over a year since the implementation of the FAIA, and I believe it was in March of 2008. So they started conducting their evaluation in the fall of 2009 and we received the report in February of 2010. So I believe, since then, there have been significant improvements based on the recommendations in the report.
It would be beneficial to understand how far this has moved forward and which of the recommendations will be hard to implement and which ones will be difficult.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just comment on this. With respect to the reports we had reviewed, at least some of us, but to me personally, it felt as if they were incomplete. It seemed obvious that the contractors weren’t given very much support when given the contract.
With respect to the $148,000 contract, it would be good to get an idea of how far they were able to implement it. I will await a response, Mr. Chairman. I believe a response may be made as to what progress has been made with respect to the recommendations.
I’m done for now, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tapardjuk. (interpretation) CGS, I think, would be able to clarify that. Do you want to comment on that, Minister Peterson?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will commit to getting that information for the members.
I have no more names on my list. Do members agree that we have concluded with the Department of Justice?
I would like to thank yourself and members again for the questions.
As I indicated, we commit to getting the information for the members on that particular contract.
I would like to thank my officials for being here today.
This is a special day for one individual. It’s Christine’s first time in Committee of the Whole on the contracts and she gave me some information earlier.
I would like to also take the opportunity to ask you guys to join me in thanking Mr. Ted Dingle.
He is retiring on, I believe, June 17.
He trained Christine on the intern program.
He also trained her sister, Wendy.
So he has given us several very good years and really helped Christine and Wendy to become stronger in the financial field.
So how about it, Ted, take a bow.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. Thank you to your officials. Thank you to the gentleman. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out.
I would now like to ask the Minister of Environment to make his opening remarks. Minister Shewchuk.
During the fiscal year 2009-2010, the Department of Environment internally administered 47 contracts with a total of value of $1,807,361.
All other contracts went through the Department of Community and Government Services. The methods used for these contracts include sole sourcing, sole vendor contracting, request for proposals, and contract extension.
Twenty contracts with a total final payment of $412,943 were awarded through sole source and sole vendor processes. Also, we paid $639,341.23 to Natural Resources Canada for the polar continental shelf project, which provides logistical support to all of our arctic researchers.
These contracts were awarded to non-profit organizations, federal departments, universities, and the private sector.
The department has made efforts to curtail the use of sole source/sole vendor in its contracting.
Recently, through a request for proposals, we have published the list of known professional services that we may require for a few years.
This will give organizations and individuals ample opportunity to submit their proposals for the services and may be contracted as and when needed.
My department requires specialized services, some of which could only be delivered by experts who have the necessary qualifications. On various occasions, the required services are not available in Nunavut and in some instances, not even in Canada, resulting in my department having to contract internationally.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me an opportunity to review with you the 2009-2010 contracting report for the Department of Environment.
I’ll be pleased to answer any questions. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
(interpretation ends) Thank you. Minister Shewchuk, please introduce your witnesses.
To my left I have the Deputy Minister of Environment, David Akeeagok, and to my right I have the Director of Corporate Services for the Department of Environment, Camilius Egeni.
Now I’ll ask for questions from membership.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Minister Shewchuk and your officials.
In your opening comments, on the contracting report, you state that your department “has made efforts to curtail the use of sole source/sole vendors in its contracting” and that “we have published the list of known professional services that we may require…”
I didn’t quite understand what “professional services” entails in English.
Maybe you can enlighten me what is meant by that phrase. Who are these professional? Are professionals those with knowledge of the environment, those who can hunt or those who have knowledge about wildlife?
I would like to get clarification on what you mean by professional services, Mr. Chairman.
In relation to the opening remarks, Minister Shewchuk.
I would very much like to clarify that.
In the Department of Environment, there is a requirement and a need for professional services in regard to mostly research work; the services of specific biologists and specific people to do such things as aging polar bear teeth, FAP analysis, conditioning analysis, and those types of services.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you for that clarification.
Yes, we have to ask questions when you don’t understand an issue.
With respect to contractors, it states that “the required services are not available in Nunavut and in some instances, not even in Canada.” I wonder if you can clarify it so that we can see the types of services needed in Nunavut when no such services are provided in Canada.
Although it is not listed in this contract report, they are mentioned in his opening comments. I want to be on the same page in terms of my understanding of this issue, Mr. Chairman.
Opening remarks related issue, Minister Shewchuk.
One of the contracts, I think the only one, that we went outside that we couldn’t access in Canada was in regard to caribou and muskox habitat structures, and it was to develop using digital elevation models and location data from aerial surveys that we have done on these populations in Nunavut.
That kind of analysis had to be done outside of Canada.
My question is on contract C1241, it’s on page 83 of the procurement activity report, and it’s in regard to the Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan.
I was wondering if the minister could explain what that’s about.
I’m assuming it has to do with the adaptation plans that the federal government provided funding for, but it specifically says Iqaluit and it specifically says about a rewrite.
So I’m just curious to find out.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Mr. Chairman, could I have that contract number again, please.
It is C1241 and it is on page 83.
Yes, that contract was in regard to a rewrite of the Atuliqtavut project that we had for the community adaptation plans and that’s involving the individual communities.
Were those specific changes to Iqaluit’s adaptation plan or was that modifications to all of the adaptation plans?
I’m trying to remember which of the communities that the ministers were in; Cambridge Bay, Igloolik, Arviat, and Iqaluit.
Is it for all of the communities or just one?
Minister Shewchuk.  Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That was for all of the communities.
In terms of the adaptation plans, is this an activity that will follow through to all of the different communities?
The attempt is that we would like to have adaptation plans for all communities in Nunavut.
Again, since we have gone through the exercise once with specific communities, do we now have the knowledge base and the skills within the department to do that in all of the other communities or are we going to be contracting the work out again to do adaptation plans in the other communities?
I think it was a very valuable experience for us in having outside people help us, but yes, we hope to utilize our staff more. They are more educated and more trained on the specifics on building these plans.
However, there will always be cases where we may have to contract out.
In the same government document on page 95 this time dealing specifically with contract No. 1584, your department awarded a $93,493 contract to EBA Engineering to undertake a contaminated site inventory of North Baffin. I’m just wondering: what was that contract about?
Was it specifically about contamination in sites in communities or was it around maybe the DEW line sites or drop off for DND? If you could give me more clarification on what that is.
I’ll let my deputy minister answer that question.
Here in Nunavut, the areas being studied are comprised of the Commissioner’s Land and they are looking for contamination.
They are looking for areas of contamination, not within the communities but areas within the Commissioner’s Land.
In regard to the specific inventory that was completed, is this something that we would have access to?
Yes, anyone can have access to it.
So will you be tabling that document?
Again, I’m just thinking in terms of if there are contaminated sites and we have our hunters going out and families camping throughout summer months that are coming up, it would be nice to know and pass it on to the HTOs so that we know where these sites are.
Do the communities know where these sites are already?
Yes, obviously the communities are aware; they were involved in the whole process of these sites.
I will double-check, but I think this information is available on the website.
Do members agree that we have concluded with the Department of Environment?
Minister Shewchuk, do you have closing remarks?
I would just like to thank my witnesses for being here today.
Just to echo the words of previous ministers, this government is striving to be more accountable and transparent to contracts and will continue to do so.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the committee.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Shewchuk and your officials. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) I would now like to ask the Minister of Human Resources to make his opening remarks.
I am pleased to appear before you and your committee today to present the 2009-2010 contracting report as it relates to the Department of Human Resources.
The Department of Human Resources is committed to the Government of Nunavut’s obligation to ensure accountability and transparency of operations, thereby maintaining the public’s confidence in its ability to act ethically in serving the interests of all Nunavutmiut.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Human Resources is committed to following the government contract regulations pursuant to the Financial Administration Act and utilizes a variety of contracting methods to secure goods and services for the department.
These methods include extensions (EXT), public request for proposals (PRFP), invitational tenders (IT), and sparingly sole sourcing (SS). Human Resources is committed to limiting the extent of sole sourcing in the procurement of goods and services with a value of over $5,000.
Sole source contracts are closely monitored.
The majority of the sole source contracts negotiated on behalf of the Department of Human Resources are within two divisions.
The Employee Relations Division has entered into several sole source contracts that relate to the provision of required legal services, specialized training, or special investigations.
On the other hand, the Training and Development Division has entered into sole source contracts with Think Training, who was the only contractor available and capable of meeting the training demands.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your consideration. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Shewchuk’s officials in.
To my right I have Louise Wasson, Deputy Minister of the Department of Human Resources, and to my left I have David Kolot, Director of Corporate Services for the Department of HR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no one to list on my paper here.
Do members agree that we have concluded with the Department of Human Resources?
Chairman: Oh, my goodness!
I don’t know what to say, really, but thank you very much.
I’m glad that everybody agrees to and sees the transparency in the contracts issued by the Department of Human Resources.
I’m sure our Sergeant-at-Arms will have sore muscles today.  >>Laughter
Thank you. (interpretation ends) I would now like to ask the Minister of CLEY to make his opening remarks.
I am pleased to appear before the Committee of the Whole today to answer any questions the members may have concerning the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth contracting activities for 2009-2010.
In 2009-2010, CLEY awarded 37 contracts greater than $5,000, 16 of which were sole source contracts. This is a 10 percent reduction in the number of contracts from 2008-09.
The awarded contracts fulfilled specialized professional/technical requirements and services, air charters, purchase of goods, specialized computer software, and training for the translators.
I will do my best to answer any questions my colleagues may have at this time.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Arreak and his officials in.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Arreak, please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is Simon Awa, Deputy Minister, and to my left is Nikki Nweze, Director of Corporate Services.
We’re going to questions now.
My question has to do with a contract that’s on page 48 of the procurement activity report. So that’s page 48.
It’s contract C165 and for that one, there was $21,875,000 contracted to Kudlik Construction for the Piqqusilirivvik Inuit Cultural Learning Facility in Clyde River.
I’m just wondering: what were the final costs for the construction of this facility?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. $25.5 million was spent on the construction of Piqqusilirivvik.
Again, I know there was the grand opening of the facility in May.
I’m just wondering: is everything completed on the facility in terms of all of the deficiencies? They usually do different inspections and whatnot. So construction is done and students are ready to move in for classes in September.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliot.
Yes, the building has been entirely completed and no other construction is required. However, we still need to install computers as well as the snow fence around the building.
The other part of my question was: is everything online and ready to go in terms of the application process, getting staff hired, and having the centre open in September?
Yes, with the building completed, the operational plans are now almost completed and they are currently working on the orientation for the students and staff.
The applications are almost finalized and I expect them to be completed by the end of the week of June 13.
I have no further names. (interpretation ends) Do members agree that we have concluded with the Department of CLEY?
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Arreak, do you have closing remarks?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Yes.
I want to thank the members for the information requested regarding whether the finances were expended as you requested. I also thank you for accepting our reports. I would also like to thank my staff members.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. I also thank your staff.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) I would now like to ask the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation if he has opening remarks.
Yes, I do have my opening remarks here and my closing remarks, but I’ll start off with my opening remarks.
I am pleased to appear before the Committee of the Whole to discuss the procurement activity of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
Much of the department’s procurement activity concerns two specific needs at airports, namely, airport operations and maintenance and community aerodrome radio stations.
The department provides the right of first refusal for airport operations and maintenance contracts to hamlets and this is a practice that is spelled out in our Transportation Strategy. It reflects the reality that in most communities, the municipality is the only organization capable of performing the contract.
However, we are flexible and open to alternative service delivery to respond to cases where the hamlet is unwilling or unable to perform the contract.
The department is contracted by Nav Canada to manage community aerodrome radio stations, or CARS, in order to ensure timely weather observations.
The department manages CARS contracts in 22 Nunavut communities and these contracts are based on the number of weather observations taken during the year.
If a hamlet declines the contract, the department will issue an RFP to award the contract to a private sector provider.
Apart from airport operations and maintenance and CARS contracts, many of the department’s remaining sole source contracting pertains to critical needs at airports which arise from time to time and which must be addressed without delay.
I think it would be appropriate to thank the staff of the Department of Community and Government Services for putting together these reports, which are tremendously helpful.
However, I would like to make note of three errors pertaining to contracts awarded by the Department of Economic Development and Transportation in the procurement activity report.
The first, B61, was in fact awarded pursuant to a standing offer agreement. The next two, B325 and B390, are a community aerodrome radio station contract and an airport operations and maintenance contract, and both were awarded to hamlets.
All other CARS and airport operations and maintenance contracts awarded to hamlets listed in the procurement activity report are listed as sole vendor contracts and these two should be in the same category.
I would like to assure the members of this committee that the Department of Economic Development and Transportation limits its use of sole source contracts to situations where there is only one vendor of the goods or services that are required, or to emergencies when there is insufficient time to follow the normal procurement methods.
I want to thank the members of this committee for their patience and I will be happy to respond to their questions.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort Minister Taptuna and his official in.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Taptuna, please introduce your witness.
My witness is Deputy Minister Bob Long.
Welcome to the Committee of the Whole. (interpretation) Do members have any questions?
I would like to thank the hon. minister and his official for appearing before the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Chairman, my interest is in the NNI Policy compliance. I’m sure NTI would be interested and as a beneficiary, I am very interested.
Mr. Chairman, in 2009-2010, your department, Mr. Minister, awarded a $96,000 contract to a company to perform an NNI Policy compliance audit and evaluation. The specific contract is C217. What did this audit and evaluation determine?
Thank you for referencing the contract number.
We didn’t have it listed in our briefing binder as the contract was given through an RFP, but I’ll let Bob expand on the question as a supplement response.
This particular audit was to go out and check compliance of how well businesses were complying with NNI.
So the company hired was an accounting firm and they reviewed the books of a representative number of clients throughout Nunavut to see if there were significant issues in what was being reported and whether they were actually complying with NNI.
I believe that report has also been tabled and as a result of that, we are now in the process of hiring a compliance auditor to follow up on that work and continue doing this type of work in the future.
My other question is to do with the fish habitat study.
In the year 2009-2010, Mr. Minister, your department awarded a $150,000 contract to an individual to undertake a fish habitat study and this is contract No. C234.
What did this study conclude and why did the Department of Economic Development and Transportation commission this project and not the Department of Environment? You would think that it would do a clean study.
For the fish habitat study, it’s a necessary study when planning for docks, wharfs, and anything that you put into the water. It’s a requirement by DFO.
Any development on a shoreline or offshore has to include a fish habitat study. That is a requirement.
My question is: why did the Department of Economic Development and Transportation commission this and not the Department of Environment?
I would have thought, perhaps, the Department of Environment would have commissioned the project.
Yes, it would have been nice if another department paid for that study, but it is our program, it is our project to do the feasibility study for a wharf.
But again I’ve got to say that it is a requirement under the law, DFO regulations, and this is the Department of Economic Development’s project and we do have to expend money to carry out these feasibility studies for a dock and a wharf.
I’m going to the opening comments here.
In the third paragraph, he said that “The department provides the right of first refusal for airport operations and maintenance contracts to hamlets…” My question is: in any particular community, if there was a contractor who was able to do that job, why wouldn’t you allow that contractor to tender on it?
You might get a more competitive bid.
I’ll allow the question pertaining to the opening remarks.
I’ll defer the question to my deputy minister.
Mr. Long
Within the Transportation Strategy, hamlets have the right of first refusal.
This is a negotiated contract. We have set standards because we’re doing this in 24 communities, so the price has to be reasonable within that standard.
The second point is if the hamlet chooses not to bid on the contract or does not want to do the contract, then the second choice is to go to the private sector and have it bid.
A significant amount of your department’s contracting expenditures in 2009-2010 was for operating airports and community aerodrome radio stations.
Your department has entered into a number of contracts with municipalities to perform these essential functions. How does your department determine the value of the annual contracts for this work?
I’ll have my deputy respond to the question.
The government is contracted by Nav Canada to provide this service in 22 airports in Nunavut.
The prices are set in terms of observations and work functions by Nav Canada and that is the number that we use with the hamlets.
So it is set for us and in turn, that’s the number we use in dealing with the hamlets or any of the contractors.
Just to compare two communities and I’m not picking on any community for any particular reason, it’s only because I know the two communities. For example, in Sanikiluaq, the contract was $115,000 and change and in the community of Chesterfield Inlet, it was $273,000 and change, with a difference of like $140,000 to $150,000 between the two communities.
I don’t think Chesterfield Inlet is a 24-hour facility and they’re in close proximity to the community.
So I’m just wondering: why the big difference in two communities?
The calculation is strictly on the number of observations taken, so air activity is a big deciding factor.
It’s just multiplying by the number of observations. There’s no significant difference on a per observation basis.