EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
This doesn’t include lengthening the runway and is only to improve the apron and taxiways. Is that what it is for?
Yes, the carryover is to prepare an application to what we call an acronym, ACAP, for funding to rehabilitate the runway.
Still on that page, Mr. Mikkungwak.
My question is on the $383,000 figure for Baker Lake. On the substantiation sheet it says that it’s for the design and improvements to the terminal building to be completed by March 2018. Is this project just a continuation or has it been completed?
These are capital carryover funds that have been previously approved, so they’re carrying over the $383,000.
The expansion of the apron is complete. The design for the renovation to the airport terminal building is complete.
What happened is they have reduced the scope of work for the airport terminal building renovations to match the funding that’s available. The work is going to be completed within this fiscal year.
I also thank the minister for his response. Also in the substantiation sheets on page 2, the sixth bullet states that either a renovation or an expansion will be undertaken. This is due to the mine north of Baker Lake, with all the increased air traffic related to the mine, resulting in increased aircraft landings.
There may be a change required in the design and additional funding has been applied for via the (interpretation ends) Building Canada Fund. (interpretation) My question then relates to the design phase.
If the building requires an expansion, is that option included?
Ms. Rowe will answer that question.
My understanding is the scope of the work for the ATB has been reduced to match the funding levels.
I can get back to the member with further information on that.
In the substantiation sheets on page 3, it speaks to a three-way funding application, the Building Canada Fund and two other funding sources. One is from the government and the third isn’t identified. It states that funding has been applied for and it can include an addition as required.
I wonder if this fund will be accessed based on what is written there and if the federal government approves the application.
Unfortunately we don’t have the level of detail that Mr. Mikkungwak was asking for. We will have to get back to him with that information.
We will look forward to receiving the information you said that you will be providing.
Total Transportation. $31,824,000.
Total Department. $31,824,000.
It reads, Government of Nunavut.
Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) 2017-2018, No. 2.
Summary of Appropriation Voted for the Public Service of the Government of Nunavut for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2018.
Capital Appropriation. $139,590,000.
Please take your legislation binder and we will deal with the bill clause by clause.
I believe you have a copy of Bill 45 that is in your legislation binder.
Since I don’t have an Inuktitut copy, I’ll read it in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 45, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2017-2018. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Chairman (interpretation): While we’re there, let’s look at page 2, Schedule.
I have the English copy, so I’ll read it in English. (interpretation ends) Schedule.
Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2018.
Total Capital Appropriation. $139,590,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Members, pursuant to Rule 62(2), do you agree that Bill 45 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
We are done with Bill 45. I would now like to give Minister Peterson an opportunity to make his closing remarks. Minister Peterson.
I thank you and the committee for your excellent questions and scrutiny of our capital carryovers.
I would like to thank all our capital planning folks and all the departments working on these projects, in particular the departments of Community and Government Services and Finance that oversee a lot of the projects and monitor the capital carryovers to ensure they’re on track and delivered on time and on schedule as much as possible. I would like to say 100 percent on schedule.
They have been improved significantly over the years in my time here.
I would like to thank my witnesses for being here the last several days helping to answer with detailed questions. Of course I thank my ministerial colleagues for also assisting me in answering questions.
While you’re doing that, we will take a five-minute break so that we can get the documents ready. We will be dealing with Bill 46 when we come back.
>>Committee recessed at 17:06 and resumed at 17:16
Bill 46 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2018-2019 – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): Let’s resume the meeting.
As we proceed with the review of Bill 46, Minister Peterson, do you have officials that you would like to join you at the witness table?
I have two witnesses I would like to bring in.
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Peterson would like two witnesses to appear at the witness table.
To my right is Jeff Chown, Deputy Minister of Finance, and to my left is Eiryn Devereaux, Acting Deputy Minister of Community and Government Services.
Welcome to the House, Mr. Chown and Mr. Deveraux.
Let’s proceed and start with Bill 46 on page A-3.
We’re going to start off with that.
Minister Peterson, if you have any opening comments, I now give you the opportunity to make them. Minister Peterson.
Today I am introducing Bill 46, Appropriation (Capital) Act, No.1, 2018-2019. This bill covers part 1 of the 2018-19 capital estimates and part 1 of the 2019-2023 five-year capital plan.
Mr. Chairman, 2017 is an election year. Consistent with the practice of the Third and Fourth Assemblies, it is our intention to defer the approval of the 2018-19 capital estimates and five-year capital plan until the winter 2018 sitting of the Legislative Assembly so as to let the incoming government set its own priorities.
However, we have identified five projects where we are concerned that a delay in approval until the winter 2018 sitting would result in late tenders, resulting in missed sealift deadlines.
The consequence of missing these deadlines is a one-year delay for these projects and for some of these projects puts at risk our ability to use associated federal funding within the prescribed time frames.
Consequently I am proposing a modified approach to the approval process for the 2018-19 capital estimates that will not delay ongoing work for major infrastructure projects for which the Legislative Assembly has already approved funding but will provide an opportunity for the next Assembly and government to provide input into the government’s capital planning process and five-year capital plan.
The introduction of the 2018-19 capital estimates (part 1) in this sitting will provide funding for a limited number of ongoing projects for which the Legislative Assembly has already approved funding.
The 2018-19 capital estimates (part 2) will subsequently be introduced in the Legislative Assembly in the winter 2018 sitting.
The five projects being brought forward under the 2018-19 capital estimates (part 1) include three federally funded projects:
Pond Inlet Marine Infrastructure Project;
Iqaluit Marine Infrastructure Project;
Qikiqtani Correctional Healing Centre in Iqaluit; and
Two projects funded solely by the Government of Nunavut:
Sanikiluaq Replacement Health Centre Project; and
Gjoa Haven Bulk Fuel Storage Capacity Increase Project.
The primary issue with the three federally funded projects and the Sanikiluaq project is that due to their size, a late capital plan approval would not allow construction work to be awarded in sufficient time for the summer 2018 sealift.
This could delay the construction of these projects.
Although the Gjoa Haven Tank Farm project is an already approved project, the estimated cost has increased substantially by $6.6 million and thus does not have adequate funding to go out for tender.
Additional funding is not required until 2019-2020.
However, the project needs to be tendered and the contract awarded to avoid delays that could entail increased costs and the need to airlift fuel to the community.
The total capital plan (part 1) for the 2018-19 fiscal year made up of the above five projects is $35,538,000.
We are requesting:
$100,000 to the Department of Community and Government Services for the Gjoa Haven bulk fuel capacity increase;
$15 million to the Department of Health for the Sanikiluaq Health Centre replacement;
$5 million to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation for the Pond Inlet marine infrastructure, as well as $10 million for the Iqaluit marine infrastructure; and
$5,438,000 to the Department of Justice for the Qikiqtani Correctional Healing Centre project in Iqaluit.
If not, let’s review Bill 46 starting on page A-3.
While I’m reading, if you have any questions, please raise your hand.
The page reads, Justice. Corrections. Total Capital Expenditures.
I would like to ask a question from the opening comments. I’m sorry.
If you think that your questions are not for any particular page, then you can do so.
Usually the contents of the opening comments are covered under the different pages. However, if you believe they are not included in the pages, I give you the floor. Mr. Joanasie.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) To start off, I welcome Minister Peterson this afternoon.
We understand that this is a new thing that’s being proposed, putting the capital part 1 and in the next Assembly there will be a part 2.
My first question is how you chose the five projects that would be in this appropriation.
The projects were selected on the size of the projects and the risks identified by Community and Government Services. As you can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, these are all large, time-sensitive projects and three of them are tied to federal funding programs.
In my experience, if the Government of Canada, for example, says, “We’re in for 75 percent,” they’re in for 75 percent. They’re not going to give you an extra 10 percent just because you went over budget.
Planning is very important in meeting certain timelines to issue tenders and award them so that successful contractors prepare the materials that get shipped in on a barge. We don’t want any and hope there are no significant delays.
In the case of these projects, significant delays could occur, for example, because of the election. If we have to wait until February/March 2018 to consider these large-scale sized projects, it would be very difficult for the government to go out to tender, evaluate, award the contracts, and then a successful contractor orders the materials to make sealifts, and so on. That’s why we selected these projects.
With that, were there other projects that are large in nature that maybe could have come under this appropriation? Where was the cut-off?
I’m looking at one of the briefings that we were provided and all these projects are above $11 million in total.
I’m looking at Appendix A the summary sheet for projects on the five-year capital plan for 2019-2023.
Were there other projects that didn’t make the cut that were maybe $9 million or $10 million? Where did you draw the cut-off point?
I don’t believe they were selected primarily on the dollar amount.
There are a lot of variables in there; the complexity of the project; the length of time; and three for sure are tied to federal funding.
With the Gjoa Haven Tank Farm, of course, there are already problems with that. We didn’t want any more delays on that project.
In Sanikiluaq it is hopeful that the project would go to tender in early 2018, January or February 2018, I think, as I recall.
I can ask Mr. Devereaux to provide more details if Mr. Joanasie wants specific details on how we chose which projects to put on as part 1 versus part 2.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Devereaux, did you want to add?
Just to echo similar comments, we did an exhaustive review of all currently approved capital projects to ascertain risk around any projects if there was a late capital approval in February/March 2018 that could be at risk of delay for a year.
We’re comfortable that the five presented to the Assembly represent the five that we felt were at risk.
Therefore we’re comfortable that the other ones are not going to be in a position where a February-March capital approval could result in any delays in those projects.
Also with that, you’re putting this capital appropriation ahead of time in order to meet the sealift targets. Is there any way that you’re going to be monitoring or evaluating how much the government is going to be saving money going through this route as opposed to the normal process?
Has the capital appropriation been introduced in… ? Since this is an election year, it would have been introduced in February. Is there a way that you’re going to be able to say, “We have saved an X amount of dollars because we used this option”?
Well, I think we can all understand what the risks are with a one-year delay. For example, the Iqaluit marine and port project, I think, is $84 million; the Pond Inlet marine port and infrastructure, $42 million; the Qikiqtani Correctional Healing Centre, $76 million; the health centre in Sanikiluaq, $30 million to $35 million.
If you have to delay a project by a year, you could be looking at 1 to 2 percent, maybe a higher percentage increase on the total project.
In the case of federal government projects, as I indicated earlier, I’ll just use a hypothetical example. If you had a project for $100 million and the Government of Canada said that they’re going to contribute $75 million, so that means the Government of Nunavut is going to contribute $25 million.
If you have a one-year delay, which could add, let’s say, $10 million to $15 million to a project, the Government of Nunavut has got to pay that $10 million to $15 million.
The Government of Canada is not going to give you one cent more and we know that from experience.
We’re trying to mitigate the risks by going this route and we’re looking into the future, anticipating that if there are delays, it’s going to cause some serious financial impact on the government. Of course when you have these delays and higher costs, it impacts your capital plan and then you’ve got to start looking at where you can get the money to pay for all these costs. You’ve got to dig into your pockets or your budget and reallocate money or defer that project.
We’re trying to avoid all that, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you for the response. I appreciate that you’re trying to avoid that.
Like I said before, I understand this is a one-time thing that they’re trying out.
If we go this route and let’s say it was so good for the government to use this option, maybe the Fifth Assembly can say, “Let’s continue doing it this way, do all the major projects ahead of time and the rest will follow,” I guess that will be up to the next Assembly to look at that at the time.
Do you foresee that it could become that after this sealift season and by the next year you will know how well this exercise has gone? Could you foresee that it could become an annual or recurring thing moving forward?
We only see it being an issue for election years.
If these five projects get approved, it means they can continue to hit the planning timelines and keep those projects.
You would have the part 2 capital estimates in, let’s say, February/March 2018 and then we would be back on track for the 2019-2020 capital estimates in October of [2018].
It would just be the election years and then you work through the cycle and you’re back on track until the next election.
Again, next time around, the next government may… . Well, I can’t predict what the next government will say, but they may say, “It worked so good that time, let’s do it again,” or they may say, “Let’s put it back on the normal capital planning and take the risk that we won’t have delays.”
We are at Justice. Corrections. Total Capital Expenditures. $5,438,000.
Go back to page 2. It reads, Justice. Total Capital Expenditures. $5,438,000.
Does the committee agree that we have concluded the Department of Justice?
Let’s proceed. Page B-3. (interpretation ends) Health. (interpretation) Directorate. Total Capital Expenditures. $15 million.
I only have one question. We know that in Cape Dorset they were supposed to build a new health centre, but they deferred it and planned one for Sanikiluaq instead.
Does the government have any plans to build a health centre in Cape Dorset after the project in Sanikiluaq is done?
The Minister of Health, Minister Hickes, would like to respond to that question.
Minister Hickes, if you wish to respond to that question, I now give you the floor.
Hon. George Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the question from the member.
The Cape Dorset Community Health Centre has been deferred until 2019-2020.
The main reason for that is local labour content and resources that are needed within the community. There are a number of large capital projects going on back to back to back in the community. To make sure we take advantage of all opportunities of local employment and apprenticeship opportunities in the construction field, it was decided to defer that project until 2019-2020.
When I first became a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I indicated at that time that Baker Lake needs a new and bigger health centre because of the increase in the population due to the establishment of the mine. Even some of the staff have been moved to another location because the health centre is getting too small.
I would like to get an update on the request for a new health centre in Baker Lake.
The Minister of Health would like to answer that question.
I give you the floor, Minister of Health, Mr. Hickes.
Whenever we’re looking at health centres in our communities, we want to make sure that we’re hitting the highest need as fast as possible. There are a number of projects ongoing.
Arctic Bay is very near completion and I look very much forward to commissioning that building later this summer.
As we mentioned, currently on the project order is Sanikiluaq, then it will be followed by Cape Dorset, and then out of the next priorities that we have one of them is Baker Lake. Qikiqtarjuaq is obviously a priority with Baker Lake, Kugluktuk, and I can go on from there.
Just to reassure the member, Baker Lake is at a very high standing in our replacement or renovation list.
We’re on Health. Directorate. Total Capital Expenditures. $15 million.
It reads, Health. Total Capital Expenditures. $15 million.
Members, are we in agreement that the Department of Health is concluded?
Go to page C-3.
It reads, Community and Government Services. Petroleum Products Division.
It reads, Community and Government Services. Total Capital Expenditures. $100,000.
Turn the page. Page D-3. It reads, Economic Development and Transportation.
Transportation. Ms. Angnakak.
It’s just a simple question of asking in regard to the marine infrastructure costs associated to Iqaluit and to Pond Inlet. Are we on schedule with these? There is a schedule that is attached to this document and by looking at the schedule, it looks like we’re in year 2 and there is a list of things that should be completed this year.
Can the minister advise us if everything is on schedule?
Did you say that was a simple question?
Okay, I’ll say a simple answer, yes, but I’ll put a caveat: subject to regulatory approvals.
We’re on Economic Development and Transportation.
Transportation. Total Capital Expenditures. $15 million.
It reads, Economic Development and Transportation. Total Capital Expenditures. $15 million.
Refer to Bill 46 in your legislation binder.
We will begin the clause-by-clause review.
Bill 46 is in your legislation binder.
I believe you all have a copy of the bill in front of you now.
I don’t have the Inuktitut copy, so I will go through it in English.
It reads, (interpretation ends) Bill 46, Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2018-2019. (interpretation) Clause 1.
Chairman (interpretation): While we are on this bill, go back to page 2.
It reads, (interpretation ends) Schedule. Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2019.
Total Capital Appropriation. $35,538,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Members, do you agree to Bill 46 as a whole?
Pursuant to Rule 62 (2), does the committee agree that Bill 46 can now immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
We have finished Bill 46. Minister Peterson, if you have any closing remarks, I now give you opportunity to make them.
I thank yourself and the Committee of the Whole for your consideration of Bill 46 today.
I think this is an excellent example of consensus government at work.
The Government of Nunavut identified possible risks to these five capital projects and by your approval today, we have reduced those risks.
We’re looking forward to continuing to work on those projects and make sure that they’re delivered on time, on schedule, and in the communities that they’re going to be built.
I would like to thank again all the capital planners who worked on these projects in the different departments. A lot of work goes into preparing these documents and delivering these capital projects across Nunavut.
Of course I would like to thank Mr. Chown and Mr. Devereaux for being here today to help me answer your questions. Again I thank my ministerial colleagues for being available to assist me in answering questions as well.
Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I had a few enquiries of where this picture is. I don’t know if the cameras can see it. This is a picture of the beautiful new tank farm that opened in Cambridge Bay last August.
For years we had a privately owned tank farm.
This is a government-owned tank farm and it’s an example of updated/upgraded tank farms that we’re endeavouring to complete across Nunavut in the coming years.
We will now proceed to the review of Bill 39.
Minister Peterson, I believe you are still at the witness table as the Minister of Justice.
I would like to ask if you have officials that you would like to bring to the witness table while we deal with Bill 39.
Bill 39 – Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 – Consideration in Committee
Unfortunately we’re moving so fast here that my witnesses aren’t here, but I do have opening comments if we want to proceed.
I see your staff running in, so we will be fine.
Do you wish to have witnesses at the witness table with you? Minister Peterson.
To my right is Bill MacKay, Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice, and to my left it Thomas Ahlfors. He’s a lawyer in the Legislative Division of the Department of Justice.
Welcome to the House, Mr. MacKay and Mr. Ahlfors.
We will proceed with Bill 39. If you have opening comments, I now give you the floor, Minister Peterson.
I am here today to speak to Bill 39, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2017.
A Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act makes non-substantive grammar or translation corrections to the statutes of Nunavut.
The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2017 makes corrections in 29 statutes.
Usually a Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act has a particular theme. This particular Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act focuses on family-related terminology.
For example, in several pieces of the legislation the English version uses the term “parent” whereas the French version uses père au mère, which is father or mother.
This bill proposes a change throughout the statutes of Nunavut to the gender-neutral French term “parent” to match the English. The changes do not affect the meaning of the legislation. Most changes are in the French versions of the legislation.
I will now take questions.
Are there any comments on the opening comments?
Bill 39 is in your legislation binder.
Please refer to the bill as we will review it clause by clause.
I believe you all have the bill in front of you now.
Let’s begin the clause-by-clause review.
I don’t have the Inuktitut copy, so I will have to go through it in English.
It reads, (interpretation ends) Bill 39, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2017. (interpretation) Clause 1. Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): From there, go to page 19.
It reads, (interpretation ends) Schedule A. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go back. Clause 4.