EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would like to make a comment. I know our Chairman has written to all the departments that we deal with in the economic development committee, which the Department of Environment is part of. The Chairman has asked that there would be no class “X,” and he didn’t state no class “D,” but “D” is pretty far down.
It should be very close to a class “A,” at the very least, a class “B” estimate by the time it gets here for us to approve the money.
I’ll bring this up as an example. We approved a project for another department. That was for the Motor Vehicles Division, MVIS.
It turns out that they needed twice as much money as they had budgeted. We don’t want to see stuff like that happening here because we’re the ones that approve these budgets and we generally do approve them, but all the information we have is just what we have here in front of us. We don’t have inside information of the departments as to why it is like that.
The next time the department comes, I would hope that, I kind of want to say all, but most of their projects would be class “A” or class “B” if at all possible because that’s all we have to approve on.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Would you like to comment on that?
Yes, I am before you today representing the Department of the Environment.
I already indicated that I would talk to the Minister of Community and Government Services in the previous line of questioning.
With capital estimates, we have no choice but to bring them to the House.
With respect to the Resolute Bay Wildlife Office, almost all of the offices are put up in the same way.
For the 2016-17 fiscal year, it will happen. I would like our proposal to be approved because of that.
We’re on Environment.
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to go back to this if it’s okay with you.
The questions that I wanted to ask were already asked. (interpretation ends) However, I just want to make a short observation.
On Friday, there was an exchange between my colleague over there and the Minister of Environment regarding the increase of a polar bear quota in western Hudson Bay.
I was wondering why the minister has so much difficulty agreeing to increase the quota.
I may have solved that mystery now by going through this document.
Apparently, the minister has a very unique page numbering system. He’s got page 3 of 2. I just wanted to make that observation.
That may be why he had some difficulty increasing the quota in western Hudson Bay.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) We’re on capital estimates. (interpretation) Following my list of names, Mr. Hickes.
I would just like to go back to Mr. Enook’s line of questioning on the small capital projects and the carryover.
I’ll be perfectly honest, I probably should have caught this when we were approving the supplementary appropriation.
When I look at the small capital project budgets that are put forward, mainly on a year-to-year basis… .
I’ll just pick one out that’s the first because it’s here in Iqaluit. The Sylvia Grinnell Park got an annual budget of $100,000, yet the carryover was $159,000.
Sanikiluaq park development was $100,000 and the carryover was $218,000.
I guess I continue with Mr. Enook’s concern on these capital carryovers. It seems to be coming on an annual basis.
I believe it was last year, the minister at the time… . I’m just looking for the exact quote. He stated that there wouldn’t be any more capital carryovers unless absolutely necessary and here I’m seeing almost like multiple-year budgets being carried over.
I guess I’m not understanding. I would like to think that I have a pretty good understanding of financial documents.
I can’t wrap my head around having a capital carryover that’s higher than what the original budget was intended in one year.
Are these multiyear capital carryovers?
If so, maybe the minister could just explain how many years that these monies can get carried over without the work being completed.
In response to the second part of the question, how many years could money be carried over, that’s certainly subject to the approval of the Assembly, but each one would be treated individually and managed individually. If a delay happened two years in a row, then we would request a carryover for that second year as well.
I know it kind of looks like an annual process that we’re coming back with repeated carryovers. All I can say is that we do manage each project individually and try and get them done as quickly as possible within what the situation that we’re given.
We will take a short break. (interpretation ends) We will take a short break.
(interpretation) I will explain it in a little while.
>>Committee recessed at 18:02 and resumed at 18:12
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Environment.
On page I-3.
Total Capital Expenditures. $3,200,000.
Flip the page. Department Summary.
Environment. Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures on I-2. $3,200,000.
Closing comments, Minister Mike.
I also thank the committee members. In regard to the 2016-17 capital estimates and other matters, we’ve had no choice but to present them like this so that we can move forward.
Our staff and the communities can benefit from it and be in a better situation.
The $3,200,000 for capital estimates is not a big amount of money compared to the capital estimates for other departments.
The Department of Environment has a small budget that is for capital purposes.
With respect to the estimates that we presented today, I would like to thank my staff in the Department of Environment for putting them together and for planning the capital estimates for Nunavut.
Bill 03 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2016-2017 – Family Services – Consideration in Committee
(interpretation ends) The next department is Family Services.
For members, on page D-3.
(interpretation) Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) I would now like to ask the Minister of Family Services if she has officials that she would like to appear before the committee.
To my right is (interpretation ends) Deputy Minister Rebekah Williams (interpretation) and to my left is Sol Modesto-Vardy.
You may now proceed with your opening comments. Ms. Ugyuk.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I am pleased to be here today to review the Department of Family Services’ capital estimates for 2016-17 with the Committee of the Whole.
The department requires ongoing small capital resources in the amount of $600,000 to maintain vehicles, facilities, and office space, supply servers and system cabling, and replace furniture and equipment.
More specifically, our small capital for 2016-17 will be allocated as follows:
In Clyde River, we plan to spend $100,000 for minor renovations needed to co-locate department staff into one office.
In Pangnirtung, we need $45,000 to purchase a new vehicle to replace the seven-year-old unit that incurs high maintenance costs.
In Kimmirut, we also need to spend the same amount of money, $45,000, for the replacement of a 13-year-old vehicle that requires high maintenance costs.
The total Qikiqtaaluk regional allocation amounts to $190,000.
In Naujaat, we plan to buy a vehicle to improve service delivery in the community for social service workers.
In Arviat, we plan to spend $15,000 for furniture and/or appliances at the elders facility.
We plan to spend $55,000 for furniture, fixtures, and equipment to replace existing units that are in a state of disrepair, including $10,000 for Whale Cove, $15,000 for Rankin Inlet, and $30,000 for Baker Lake.
In Chesterfield Inlet, we plan to replace medical beds in the Naja Isabelle Home at an estimated cost of $10,000.
The total Kivalliq regional allocation amounts to $125,000, which is what we’re requesting.
In Gjoa Haven, $70,000 is earmarked for office space renovations and furniture and fixture replacements.
We also plan to spend $50,000 in Cambridge Bay and $20,000 in Kugaaruk for minor renovations and furniture and fixture replacements.
The total Kitikmeot regional allocation amounts to $140,000.
For the headquarters in Iqaluit:
The sum of $145,000 is set aside for the Income Assistance Database System.
We plan to install supply servers and system cables in Resolute Bay, Taloyoak, Sanikiluaq, Clyde River, Arctic Bay, and Naujaat so we can roll out the computer system in these communities.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2016-17 Capital Estimates of the Department of Family Services.
I look forward to your ongoing support as we continue to work towards achieving our mandate.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Does the chair of the standing committee have any opening comments?
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Wellness concerning its review of the proposed 2016-17 Capital Estimates of the Department of Family Services.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Family Services has been in existence since April 2013 and incorporated a number of divisions and resources from other, pre-existing departments.
Members note that there remain areas of overlap with other departments with respect to the use of government assets such as office space and vehicles and that efforts are being made to ensure an uninterrupted service delivery despite these ongoing transition issues.
While the standing committee appreciates the Department of Family Services needed time to consolidate its operation and establish what was included within its asset inventory, members are concerned at the current lack of information on what specific assets and facilities the department is actually responsible for.
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee to review the 2016-17 draft capital estimates, standing committee members were unable to get clarification on which of the facilities supported by the department, such as group homes or elders homes, are government assets under the Department of Family Services, which are government assets under other departments, and which are owned by a third party but supported by the Department of Family Services.
The minister committed to providing such information to the standing committee and members continue to look forward to reviewing that information when it is made available.
The issue of elder care and the need for safe, secure, and comfortable elders facilities is a growing concern and the standing committee encourages the minister to work together with her counterparts to address this need at the earliest opportunity.
Members are becoming increasingly concerned with the lack of comprehensive attention and communication across the government regarding the issues affecting our elder population.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee recognizes that the Department of Family Services does not have direct responsibility for providing services in the areas of substance abuse, mental health, or housing.
However, the department, especially through its hard-working social workers and income assistance workers, does provide services to many clients who also face challenges in these areas.
While the standing committee recognizes that departmental officials can and do make referrals to other departments which provide programs and services in these areas, members are disappointed that the minister and her staff have not been more proactive in addressing the need for such infrastructure as a Nunavut-based substance abuse rehabilitation facility, more shelters, and more group homes.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Family Services’ 2016-17 capital estimates include $600,000 for small capital projects.
Committee members appreciated receiving a breakdown of the proposed projects and the details of estimated costs under this budget item.
Members fully support the department’s investment in information technology for the delivery of the Income Assistance Program.
The newly automated system will improve and speed up services to clients by eliminating paper-based inefficiencies and ensuring consistency in cases of staff turnover.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) The floor is now open for general comments. If you have detailed questions, please ask them under the appropriate branches.
I have no members on my list for general comments. We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting on page D-3.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. Minister and your officials.
Earlier today, I was saying “good day” to the ministers and now I can even say “good evening.”
Mr. Chairman, I just need clarification on the minister’s opening comments, just a couple of them. In the opening comments, you state that the department requires ongoing small capital resources in the amount of $600,000 to maintain vehicles, facilities, and office space. I didn’t quite understand “and office space.”
We’re dealing with capital estimates. Perhaps I just didn’t understand it. Can you clarify it so that I can have a better understanding of what “office space” means?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Minister of Family Services, Ms. Ugyuk.
The offices were owned by the Department of Health and they have to move out of those offices.
We need to renovate the new offices that they will accommodate and they’re under minor renovations.
Maybe it just needed to be written with a better explanation. “Renovation of office space” is what it could have said.
Also in the paragraph at the bottom, with your proposal, I believe all the departments have foundations that they abide by and they have policies and criteria.
The departments say that they are following the Department of Community and Government Services’ policies.
For example, if there is a building surplus, they have to follow the Surplus Disposal Policy.
I would like to ask why there is a difference between this and I just need clarification.
In Pangnirtung, they need a new vehicle. That vehicle is seven years old and is too old and costs too much to maintain.
At the bottom, it says that in Kimmirut, they also need $45,000 to replace a 13-year-old vehicle.
Don’t you have a policy whereby when a vehicle is a certain age, you have to replace it?
The other one is almost twice as many years older than the other vehicle.
Perhaps provide a very good explanation so that I can have a complete understanding of it.
I believe that we have a five-year lifecycle for vehicles.
I’m sorry, but I did not understand what you said.
If you can repeat that, Madam Minister.
The vehicles have a five-year lifecycle in our policy.
If they are older than five years, they have to be replaced.
Thank you for explaining that.
I would like to ask another question. One vehicle is two years over the lifecycle.
You said that there is a five-year lifecycle.
The other one is way over the lifecycle of a vehicle.
It’s a 13-year-old vehicle, although you have a five-year lifecycle.
Why are you replacing the seven-year-old vehicle earlier than the 13-year-old vehicle? You haven’t replaced the 13-year-old vehicle yet.
Some vehicles have broken windows.
Through the regional directors, we are making proposals to replace those.
We consult with them to find out which vehicles need to be replaced.
If I remember correctly, in Pangnirtung, the vehicle’s windows were broken when I was in that community.
That’s what I found out.
Please don’t misunderstand me.
I’m not saying that you can’t have those because the needs are a requirement.
I’m not clear on the Pangnirtung vehicle. If the window is just broken, why do you need to spend $45,000 on a replacement vehicle?
Can’t the windshields be replaced?
Yes, the Department of Family Services is starting to gather information from the communities to determine the most pressing needs.
The (interpretation ends) regional directors (interpretation) are whom we work with to determine the needs, as some communities are spread out while some smaller communities are bunched together.
These two communities in the Qikiqtaaluk region have been identified for reception of these vehicles as per our departmental protocols, and that is all I can answer with.
Yes, I fully understand.
What I can’t understand is why one vehicle is way past its lifecycle and according to the lifecycle you base on, it’s more than twice that time and the other vehicle needs to be replaced and it’s only two years past its lifecycle.
Yes, I understand some communities might utilize their vehicle less. The other vehicle which is eight years past its lifecycle, that’s the part I don’t understand.
Perhaps I’ll ask it this way.
You base your vehicle lifecycle on five years.
It sounds like it can go either direction.
For instance, it can go past eight years.
You can have different reasons. The vehicles that are used by the Department of Family Services were used by the Department of Health and that can also be the reason.
The main reason is that we need to replace vehicles if the maintenance cost is too high. If the vehicle is not running, they have to look for a different vehicle.
Following my list of names, Mr. A. Sammurtok.
Good afternoon, minister. (interpretation ends) Your 2015-16 capital plan included a project to renovate the Rankin Inlet Adult Group Home.
Can you provide an update on the status of this project and what services are currently being delivered at this facility?
I thank my colleague for wanting that clarification.
This particular item is included in our capital plan as a capital item due to the amounts.
There needs to be further work on the building foundation.
The CG&S regional office in Rankin Inlet has identified that the costs are larger than the budget thereby this funding has been carried over to the next fiscal year.
Mr. Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Has your department identified any need to build new facilities during the period covered by the five-year capital plan?
Yes, this plan is set for the next five years as our capital plan. CG&S is currently at the study phase for the future offices, including what needs to be prepared beforehand.
As per my earlier statement, the new department was moved from the Department of Health and many files had to be moved.
When we moved to our new offices, we had to first prepare the environment. That was our first priority to get a working office.
The Department of CG&S dealt with the larger purchases related to the office and our future capital plans for facilities to house our social workers and income support workers who serve many of our constituents.
The priority will be on renovating current offices.
The future plans are for purchasing the computer software for social services called the (interpretation ends) Family Case Management System (interpretation) and this includes software to manage our income support program via computers.
We are also looking at renovating current government owned facilities housed by our residents, whether it is elders or youth.
As well, the main office of Family Services here in Iqaluit is scheduled for renovations.
That is what we have planned for the future.
The elders facilities are managed by Family Services.
You stated earlier that you work with CGS on the capital planning. (interpretation ends) Have you considered building a 24-hour care facility in Rankin Inlet?
I’ll ask the director of finance to answer that question.
Ms. Vardy.
Ms. Modesto-Vardy: Thank you.
For elders facilities, we currently have the Arviat elders centre in Arviat, Pairijait in Iqaluit, and then Independent Living Program in Rankin Inlet.
Those are the facilities that we have. The two that are in Iqaluit are managed by the Nunavut Housing Corporation, Iqaluit Housing. The Rankin Inlet Independent Living Program is also managed by Rankin Inlet Housing.
There are no new facilities that Family Services has planned for now.
I’ll ask my deputy minister to respond to that question.
I can clarify that.
I think the question is based on the Rankin Inlet elders facility.
The elders home in that community needs major renovations on it.
In 2016, we wanted to start that project, but we had a shortfall by $1.2 million in the capital estimates.
In 2015-16, $1.9 million has been approved for renovations and further studies by Community and Government Services. That facility has to follow the building codes.
For that reason, we will need to spend $2.4 million on that facility. In our planning, the foundation needed to be worked on.
Some buildings are on piles. This building had to be worked on, but since it got too cold, the project could not be started.
That is why there will be further work done in the following summer, and you will be looking at a proposal on increasing the funding.
We will have to work with Community and Government Services and other capital plan partners.
That is why there is a large amount of money for that facility. I hope I’m clear.
I wasn’t talking about an adult group home in Rankin Inlet; I was talking about if there were any plans in the future for 24-hour care for elders care, if they had any plans in the near future to look into a 24-hour elders care facility. I didn’t see anything in the plan.
We run the three elders facilities through agreements and the organizations or non-profit groups that operate the elders facilities in Arviat, Baker Lake, and here in Iqaluit. If there was an organization that wants to run such operations, then they can meet with the Department of Family Services and we haven’t been approached. I’ll ask my deputy minister to supplement that response.
The member asked if we have anything in our plans for a 24-hour care facility. I understood it that way.
To date, it has not been planned. If I’m clear, first of all, the Department of Family Services operates elders homes.
If we need to put them in a 24-hour care facility, that is the responsibility of the Department of Health. We’re always working with them on how we can better provide these services. To date, we don’t have anything in our plans for a 24-hour care facility for Rankin Inlet.
I would like to continue with Mr. Sammurtok’s line of questioning.
When I look at the forecasted capital plan, it’s got the same amount, $600,000, per year ongoing into 2020-21.
I realize that the elders care facilities that are being utilized in Nunavut right now are through non-profit organizations and leasing the space or beds in those facilities on an as-needed basis.
I would like to take it a little step further with the ongoing concern of a counselling and treatment centre in Nunavut.
It has been raised many times that there is a need, yet in the committee meeting, the minister has stated that a treatment centre is not a government priority at this time. I would like to ask the minister: when will it become a government priority?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) We are on capital.
We haven’t stated that it’s not a priority for this government. For treatment programs and services, that’s under the Department of Health. We do work with the Department of Health if they need our help.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) I think that was more of a health-related question.
The reason I asked that question is because the counselling services, a lot of the counselling would be provided by Family Services through their community counsellors and referrals to such a facility.
The minister stated that there is a direct correlation with the Department of Health.
With all due respect, Madam Minister, you did state in the standing committee that a treatment centre is not a priority of the government at this time.
I’m just trying to think out my words carefully, Mr. Chairman.
With the ongoing issues and the expenses that Nunavut does pay to send people out to such facilities, there is a growing need and a demand on counsellors within the communities for such addictions treatment centre design counselling, yet I don’t see anything on the capital plan.
Is it an option similar to elders’ care if somebody were to build a facility that would be able to offer those services in Nunavut, that the Department of Family Services, in conjunction with the Department of Health, would utilize such a facility?