EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I have two reasons: to allow me to review Mr. Curley’s point of order and you will have that opportunity before we make a vote on the motion.
Using my discretion as the Chair, we will take a five-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at16:01 and resumed at 16:14
Before we start, I have a few comments to make.
(interpretation ends) Before we proceed with the closing comments by Johnny Ningeongan, I wish to inform you that there is a need to review the audio from yesterday’s proceedings.
This will take time, and I hope to be in a position to rule on Mr. Curley’s point of order no later than Monday. (interpretation) I wanted to pass along this information.
Mr. Ningeongan, you have the right to the last reply as the mover of the motion before we vote on it.
I also thank the committee for the opportunity to speak.
I wanted it noted with my colleagues and with Nunavummiut that with respect to Rankin Inlet residents who want to get an arena, we don’t have a problem with that particular request as regular members.
The only problem which we found was in the report written by CGS because it speaks about a multi-complex. That was the only problem that we found.
If these words had not been included in this proposal, I believe most of the MLAs would have approved this project.
Due to the fact that the wording was not done in that manner, my colleagues, I want to say to you that the motion I made and to which I spoke to yesterday, we’re not just trying to stop the project. I want that understood clearly.
My colleagues have made their comments stating that if they submitted a proposal that was clear and concise with only the arena being listed and if they submitted it again, then we would be able to review it properly. We are expecting that we would approve that proposal if it’s worded that way.
Mr. Chairman, that’s the reason why I wanted to comment on it again.
I personally can state, even though I was a mover, that if there is a new proposal that’s specific only to the arena, I would also be in support of that motion.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to make comments.
It’s not to be against the proposal. We’re not trying to stop the project, but basically, we’re having problems with the wording.
If the wording had been clearer, we would not have a problem.
Mr. Chairman, for that reason, as I made it clear yesterday, when we vote on the motion, I want to have a recorded vote.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Johnny Ningeongan.
With this recorded vote, I believe all of you want to see who supports and opposes the motion.
You have the motion in front of you. It states that the $500,000 listed in the CGS budget estimates towards a new arena complex for the fiscal year 2012-13 be struck. That is the motion before us.
When I state you name, please sit.
Mr. Moses Aupaluktuq.
Ms. Jeannie Ugyuk.
Mr. Hezakiah Oshutapik.
Mr. Ron Elliott.
Ms. Monica Ell.
I don’t believe anybody opposes it.
(interpretation ends) The motion is carried. (interpretation) We will now return to the page-by-page review.
Eight are for the motion and eight have abstained.
Prior to the review, Minister Kusugak, please go to the witness table. Would you like to bring in your officials?
Thank you. Minister Kusugak, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
They are the same witnesses that appeared with me yesterday. To my left is Kathleen Lausman, my deputy minister, and to my right is Assistant Deputy Minister Roy Green.
Please make them feel welcome.
Welcome, Ms. Lausman and Mr. Green.
We will go back to page H- 3. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Capital Planning. (interpretation) We will begin with (interpretation ends) Total Capital Expenditures, as amended. $24,897,000.
(interpretation ends) Did we see a hand up?
The funding figure you just mentioned seems to be different from what I am reading, unless what I read is incorrect.
What I have is $25,397,000. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There was a motion carried to delete $500,000 from here and the amended figure is $24,897,000.
Chairman (interpretation): $500,000 is now deleted.
Go to page H-6. (interpretation ends) Petroleum Products Revolving Fund. (interpretation) Pages H-6 and H-7. (interpretation ends) Petroleum Products Revolving Fund.
Branch Summary. (interpretation) Are there any questions?
If there are no questions, we will go to (interpretation ends) Total Capital Expenditures. $5,873,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go back to H-2. (interpretation ends) Departmental Summary. Community and Government Services.
Detail of Expenditures. (interpretation) Go to page H-2. Total, as amended with the deletion of $500,000. $30,770,000.
Chairman (interpretation): We have now concluded the department.
Minister Kusugak, before I ask you for closing remarks, are we in agreement that the review of the Department of Community and Government Services has been concluded?
Minister Kusugak, if you have any closing remarks, you have the floor now.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you and thank you for passing this as amended.
First of all, I apologize on behalf of my staff for having to vote on the motion.
I would like to thank my officials at CGS. They work very hard because there are a lot of responsibilities within the operations of the Department Community and Government Services. They don’t usually make a mistake, so first of all, I thank them.
I thank my deputy minister and assistant deputy minister. We have to work closely together.
Also, before I conclude my closing remarks, I would like to thank my colleagues for being open. I am a member for Rankin Inlet and sometimes it leads to some conflict when you have to wear more than one hat and you have to walk a tightrope.
With your permission, as an MLA for Rankin Inlet, I would like to thank the members for being open, even though that funding was deleted.
I hear from the members here that they are willing to reconsider it and that they would be in support of it within this fiscal year. You said that you would be in support of a proposal for just an arena.
I apologize we had to go through this. If it was my fault, so I apologize and on behalf of Rankin Inlet, I would like to thank the members for being open to reconsider this issue.
As a minister, I would like to thank you.
When you have capital concerns and if you have any issues or interest, please go through the municipality.
We would like to be advised of what the requests are through the members and through the municipalities. I thank all municipalities of Nunavut.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make my closing remarks. Thank you.
I would also like to thank your officials for appearing before the committee. This was a learning curve and it’s going to be beneficial to us, even though we had to go through this.
Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can escort the officials out, please.
We’re just following the process that was established. Minister Aariak, Minister of Education, do you have any opening comments?
Bill 15 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2012-2013 – Education – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the proposed 2012-13 Department of Education capital projects budget.
With 43 schools across Nunavut, there is a substantial capital investment in educational infrastructure in every community in Nunavut. We have 8,503 students from kindergarten to grade 12 in Nunavut - 1,459 in the Kitikmeot region, 2,913 in the Kivalliq region, and 4,131 in the Qikiqtani region.
The Department of Education’s proposed capital budget for 2012-13 is $17,810,000, with an ongoing project budget of $56,150,000 from 2012-13 to 2015-16. This budget reflects the reality of fiscal restraint which is being implemented throughout the Government of Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, the $17.8 million for this upcoming fiscal year will be divided into a number of projects.
We have one new project: the planning of an addition to Arviat’s Levi Angmak School.
The school currently has an enrolment of 325 students, or 83 percent utilization of its capacity of 390 students.
Student population projections indicate that within five years, enrolment at Levi Angmak School will be over 90 percent, so it is important to plan for this increase now.
The planning stage for this initiative will cost approximately $50,000 for this upcoming year.
Over the past few years, my department has been faced with emergency and urgent situations requiring immediate attention.
To help curb these reactionary measures, my department initiated a program to assess all schools beginning in 2010-11.
This assessment is in the area of both special needs and the general condition of the buildings.
Thirty-seven of our 43 schools have been assessed to date.
The assessment team is spending two to four days at each school to make on-site repairs and mechanical adjustments during the assessment process.
Mr. Chairman, we have budgeted $3.5 million for the ongoing life cycle repairs initiative for our 43 schools in 2012-13.
This initiative allows our department to identify issues within our schools and prepare a repair or replacement program in a proactive manner. Projects falling in this category are approved by the deputy minister.
For example, carpeting and flooring has been replaced in Grise Fiord, Igloolik, Cape Dorset, and Hall Beach schools to make them more environmentally safe and healthy for our students.
Boilers have also been replaced in Hall Beach and Pond Inlet schools to help alleviate heating issues. The cost of these projects was $390,000.
The ongoing life cycle repairs budget may be accessed for unplanned expenses. These expenses are approved by the deputy minister before proceeding.
For 2011-12, the following projects were given this high-level approval:
Rankin Inlet, Simon Alaittuq Ford School repairs: $180,000.
Pangnirtung, Alookie School flooring: $100,000.
Arviat, Levi Angmak School flooring: $200,000.
Kugluktuk, both schools’ generator installation: $400,000.
Taloyoak, Netsilik School flooring: $150,000.
Mr. Chairman, my department also has a minor capital budget. This funding allows for a variety of minor capital projects to occur across the territory.
Projects are primarily health and safety related but also include small projects not identified in the capital planning process.
During past fiscal years, the following minor capital projects were undertaken:
Office renovation in Cambridge Bay: $90,000.
Nakashuk School playground improvement in Iqaluit: $80,000.
Inuksuk High School will receive continued improvements and renovations during 2012-13.
The planning for the summer of 2012 has begun and will include floor replacement and painting.
The Department of Education has budgeted $2,550,000 for this project for the upcoming fiscal year.
As an update to the Inuksuk High School renovation project, the work continued on schedule this past summer and included the renovation of the senior students section of the school.
Mr. Chairman, my department gathers information from hamlets, district education authorities, communities, schools, and the Department of Community and Government Services to develop, plan, and manage our capital priorities.
Through our comprehensive facilities database, we are able to analyze school utilization and their physical condition, along with planned program requirements to determine our capital requirements.
Mr. Chairman, my department reviews requests for school buses each year.
There has been a significant increase in the cost of providing busing services in our communities.
After our review this year, we provided a new bus as well as a special needs bus for Cape Dorset. Kugaaruk also received a new bus.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot spend more than our means.
There are many implications to project costs, including staffing, associated housing requirements, building utilities, and ongoing maintenance that must also be considered as we look at creating new facilities and adding to existing structures.
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Education’s capital budget for 2012-13 and the subsequent four years.
Chairman (interpretation): Do we agree to bring in the witnesses?
Sergeant-at-Arms, can you please escort the officials to the witness table.
Minister Aariak, for the record, please introduce your officials.
The person on my left is my deputy minister, Kathy Okpik and to my right is Mr. Horn.
I welcome the witnesses, Ms. Okpik and Mr. Horn, to the Committee of the Whole.
The Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Wellness, Ms. Ugyuk, can now proceed with her opening comments.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Social Wellness as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the Department of Education’s proposed 2012-13 capital budget of $17,810,000.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Education’s capital estimates for 2012-13 include five community-specific projects which are ongoing from previous years and five projects for which no specific communities or regions are identified.
Members note that funding is being requested for continued construction on two long-term community-specific projects in Gjoa Haven and Iqaluit.
The high school renovation project in Iqaluit is a multi-year project that can only progress during the summer when there are no students on the premises.
The school renovation project in Gjoa Haven first got underway in 2004 but was delayed a number of times with changes to the project scope.
Members were pleased to note that the second phase of this project will proceed in 2012-13.
Extensive delays and changes to capital plans can lead to confusion and misunderstanding at the community level. In addition, committee members expressed concerns regarding the long gap between planning and design phases for certain projects and the proposed future construction dates. The standing committee encourages the minister to keep members, communities, and DEAs informed and up to date on the status of projects, especially those identified in the five-year capital plan and, wherever possible, to provide an explanation for changes to the plan.
For example, although the two projects planned for Arviat and Igloolik are both in the beginning stages, there will be an expectation for the construction of these projects to begin.
However, no future funds are allocated in the 2013-17 Five-Year Capital Plan and it is not clear when the projects will proceed.
It is important that the minister and her staff maintain an ongoing and open dialogue with community residents and DEA members on these issues.
With the department hiring approximately 60 more teachers for the 2011-12 academic year in order to meet the student-teacher ratio as mandated under the Education Act, the department will be facing even greater pressures in this area.
Members encourage the minister to work with her colleagues to ensure that the lack of adequate and appropriate housing for teachers and other essential staff does not have a negative impact on the delivery of education services.
Standing committee members appreciated receiving details of recent minor capital expenditures as well as a listing of some of the smaller projects that have been undertaken with this type of funding in the current fiscal year.
The standing committee recommends that the minister and her officials consider including such information in documentation, such as the substantiation sheets, which are provided for standing committee review.
Members encourage the minister and her officials to continue to work with communities and DEAs to identify where such repairs are urgent and necessary.
The standing committee recognizes that the Department of Education is taking a proactive role with its schools assessment project.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2012-13 Capital Estimates of the Department of Education.
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan): Thank you, Ms. Ugyuk.
At this time, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak.
At this time, I would like to ask if members have any general comments to the opening comments of the Minister of Education.
I just want to get clarification on the minister’s opening comments regarding buses.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is rationale stated on the budget for buses having increased far too much. In English, it states that there has been a significant increase. I imagine it’s very important that it has been included in the report.
Can the minister provide an update as to how large the increase is and why?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Enook.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): I thank the member for asking that question about buses.
The reason for the significant increase for busing services is due to contracts. We had to renegotiate some of the contracts and that has incurred a significant increase.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Aariak.
I also thank the minister for that response.
With respect to these renegotiated agreements that have led to this significant increase, why did this increase in expenditures occur?
Is it because the DEAs have no option to negotiate or is it because they have no choices in selecting a busing company, especially in the smaller communities?
The busing requirements for every community is an ongoing concern and it depends on the community, whether they have requisitioned the buses, as well as their local DEAs.
The reason for the significant increase includes details that I don’t have, so I will ask my deputy minister to respond, Mr. Chairman.
Bus contracting, first of all, is initiated by the DEAs.
Sometimes when they don’t want to run the busing contract, they return the contract to our department.
In some communities, they have the busing contract and we hold the contract in other communities.
Where it seems the bus service will be too expensive if we left the contract out in the community… . Some are actual contractors while others are employees of the DEA.
Where it’s on a contractual basis and where the department holds it, we can sometimes return to the contractors where we’re looking at reducing the expenses related to busing. For example, they’re not used all day. Sometimes the costs and expenses are fixed as if it was used on a whole day, so we have been able to go back and successfully renegotiate the contract.
However, we hold some of the contracts at the department where the bus drivers are employees of the DEA. That’s how it’s segregated into these different categories.
Chairman (Mr. Tapardjuk) (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Okpik.
Thank you, Ms. Okpik.
Just for clarification, whenever you go through a contract, it’s cheaper when you have more than one bidder.
If I could ask two questions, Mr. Chairman.
For those communities that offer busing services, why are some of them going through the DEA and why are some of them going through contracts?
Why are they not the same? Can someone please explain that to me?
I will ensure that a proper response is given, so I would like my deputy minister to respond, please.
Generally, the underlying reason is because some communities do not have bus drivers or we provide training and they get bus drivers.
We also have to keep in consideration that where the community is offering busing services, we have to check to see if they have a heated garage where they can house the bus.
Again, some are smaller buses and some have big buses with up to 72 seats.
We also have to keep in consideration whether there are available drivers, who would maintain the bus, as well as the shelter for the bus.
Sometimes it can be very challenging for communities and some communities give up on the contract and then pass the contract back to our department.
We give the DEAs the first option to undertake that responsibility.
I also thank Ms. Okpik for her response. However, I don’t quite get the gist of it.
Perhaps I’ll ask this question.
I don’t think all communities have busing services. I believe it’s the larger communities that have the buses.
If I’m mistaken, please correct me.
Those communities that have busing services, is there an independent supervisor?
Mr. Chairman, when I’m speaking in Inuktitut, I really like to include an English word, so I apologize. I want to ask about sole source contracts.
Are there any sole source contracts specifically for bus contracts that have never gone to tender?
I am authorized to sign the sole source contracts and I have never signed a sole source contract for busing services.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the deputy minister for her response.
Why would some no longer want to keep the busing contract? What are the usual reasons for letting go of the contract?
The communities that take on these busing contracts sometimes find out that it’s not a very easy task and find it too challenging and complex when they have to look for drivers and all of the other logistics related to buses.
I believe they find that task overwhelming. With respect to his question, I believe there are 20 communities that have bus services.
We’re still on general comments.
If there are no more general comments, we can start reviewing page by page. You may ask your detailed questions at the appropriate page during the page-by-page review.
E-3. (interpretation ends) Corporate Services. (interpretation) Education.
Branch Summary. (interpretation ends) Capital Expenditures. (interpretation) The details are on page E-4. $17,810,000.
If this isn’t an appropriate forum, you can correct me.
Under Capital Planning, I know for a fact that there’s consideration of new schools being built in the near future.
My question, Mr. Chairman, if I may, is: will there be new staff housing being built along with the proposed new schools? For example, in Baker Lake, there is possibly a middle school being built.
This is part of the review process to determine the scope when they’re constructing new schools, including the staff housing.
In light of using the scope, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister of Education how a school is determined to be a better candidate for renovation or replacement.
We have done surveys in all communities on what types of buildings there are which require renovations.
The researchers sometimes conduct remedies, depending on cost.
It is elaborated further in the documents as to which schools have been looked at. After they look at the communities, the results are based on data entered electronically.
It is evident that my colleagues have other questions with regard to this issue.
I will leave it at that. I am finished with my questions.
My questions are based around new schools and how decisions are made on which communities do get new schools.
I’m speaking specifically for Arctic Bay. I know, in terms of the hamlet’s list of priorities, there is the health centre that the community is searching for as well as a new high school.
I’m wondering: in terms of capacity for the Inuujaq School in Arctic Bay, what is that at right now?
At the Inuujaq School, there are 214 students and they are at (interpretation ends) 61 percent capacity. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So in terms of deciding on a separate high school wing for the high school itself, is there a certain capacity or what percentage does the… ? I’m sure they do the projections of community growth and whatnot, but what’s the magic number that tips everything over?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) We do have a magic number and that magic number is 85 percent. (interpretation) Thank you.
Next I was going to concentrate on Resolute Bay because I know they have a fairly nice school, it’s fairly new, but when it was constructed, there was no gymnasium added onto the facility or it was not built in the facility.
So students actually walk across the road to the hamlet office and use the community hall for participation in physical activity or when they do awards ceremonies and whatnot.
I know that letters were written by the DEA and by the principal of the school in terms of requesting and just trying to find out more information about whether there would be a possibility of a gymnasium.
I’m wondering: have you replied to that request?
Gymnasiums in the schools, of course, are very important.
The cost of a school gym is around $6 million.