EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Members were pleased to note the Government of Nunavut’s commitment, in the Minister of Finance’s Economic Statement on Tuesday, to ensure that major capital projects consider the impact of the project on community resources. Members are concerned that plans for the new cultural school in Clyde River have not yet addressed the increased demands that will be placed on current municipal infrastructure.
Members are especially concerned with respect to fuel supplies and sewage and water systems.
Members are pleased that significant investment is being made in community halls. This committee has consistently highlighted the important of community halls as meeting places and the positive impact they have on community health and well-being.
Mr. Chairman, members remain concerned by the continued carry-over of funds for multi-year projects. Many projects are still on the books that should have been completed two years ago. Members want to see those projects completed and any remaining funds in the budgets for the projects reallocated to current priorities.
Mr. Chairman that concludes my comments on the capital estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services. Individual members may wish to raise questions or make comments of their own.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also would like to welcome the minister and her officials to the witness table.
Under general comments, I will want to make a general comment and then I will want to ask a question which is not included in the opening statements.
Especially in my constituency, they have been requesting a swimming pool but in the past when it was Government of the Northwest Territories days when the portable swimming pools were used they would use the portable swimming pools in the summer time, in the spring and summer and they would put the portable swimming pools inside the garages when it was warm enough to take the vehicles outside.
And, there were dressing rooms and perhaps if your department could work with the Minister responsible for Recreation if portable swimming pools if they weren’t too expensive if you can provide these portable swimming pools to the communities especially in my constituencies because you can’t go swimming in the summer time in the High Arctic.
Because this portable swimming pool would be very beneficial to the youth and the children and it would help them to keep off the streets and also since this is under a general comment my second would be under the minister’s opening comments.
She talked about Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee that they are working well.
They have just made a recommendation, this committee made a recommendation at the Cabinet level.
My question would be what did the Cabinet do. I will conclude with that.
I am ahead of myself. Sorry.
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page J-6.
Department Capital. Capital Planning and Technical Services.
Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $4 million.
I am just wondering if the minister and her officials can give us an update as to what’s happening with this contribution agreement. I know that the chairman had indicated in his opening comments that there are negotiations going on for a possible ongoing agreement, if she can just give us an update as to where things are at with the contribution agreement with the city.
We are moving along quickly with that contribution agreement. It is progressing very well. We should be completed by next year.
I know that there have been locally a lot of homeowners, or residents of Iqaluit who are kind of wondering: what is going on with the City’s capital plan, and all that.
I am just wondering, from the department’s perspective, that when this contribution agreement came into place, one of the things myself and other colleagues of mine at the time, I think that there needed to be monitoring and evaluating of these projects throughout the life of the agreement.
I am just wondering if the minister or her officials could indicate if they’ve done that.
Are they satisfied with how the City has been handling all the projects that were identified to be done in that agreement?
The senior staff of CGS meet regularly with the City here in Iqaluit. Also, we’re seeing statements on a regular basis. Once a year we get the audited statements.
That, too, is going satisfactorily with our meetings.
I’m glad to hear that because I know that was a concern that I had and other members at the time, that, “Here’s the money and we’ll see you.
Good luck.” I’m glad that didn’t happen for everybody’s benefit.
The minister indicated that the agreement is going to be done next year and I’m just wondering if there are any plans as to what their looking at, for next steps they’re looking at an ongoing agreement, or entering into a new agreement with the City.
Thank you, for that, member.
We would like to be in negotiations with them in the future again about the same line. We’d like to have a good working relationship with the City. I, myself have met with the Mayor and the council members.
At one point, I think the member was there with me. We have successful meetings with them. We’d like to keep that communications going with the City.
I know that when the contribution agreement first came into place it allowed the City some flexibility with projects that were on the list to be done with that funding, and it also allowed them to plan further ahead and finance in some areas...leverage other sources of funding to assist with those projects.
And, I guess I’m just wondering; given that this kind of agreement, again, the financing of something takes time...you look at some of the infrastructure that they need here in the city... they were just asking for $12 million for a new complex, a swimming pool, they said they needed a new City Hall, there are a number of road work projects.
I won’t say paving, because it might not be paving, to be done, and utilidor hook-up, and things like that that still have to be done in the future.
Maybe from the department’s perspective, when do they hope to have another agreement negotiated and finalized to be able to allow the City to pursue other sources of revenue based on being able to secure that base from the government?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The member is absolutely right about being flexible. We are trying to be very flexible with the City; after all they are a tax base.
We have changed a number of things with the City’s request.
An example would be a road to new gravel. That was another example.
I agree with the member that we should be flexible with the city.
Can the minister or her officials indicate if they’re looking at renegotiating an ongoing agreement?
When do they hope to have those negotiations finalized and the new agreement in place to be able to allow the City to continue planning with the projects that it has in mind in the coming years?
Could I ask the Community and Government Services Deputy Minister to respond to that, please? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the member had mentioned, the current agreement ends next year.
So with all due respect for the City, we would like to negotiate over the next year so that they can plan for future years and there wouldn’t be any disruption in their funding.
So we’ve already had some just initial discussions recognizing that there is a desire to renew the agreement and we’ll commence negotiations over the next year so that we can get approval in place, so that there won’t be any disruption in the funding.
Mr. Tootoo: That’s good.
Chairman: Page J-6.
Capital Planning and Technical Service. Grants and Contributions.
I welcome the minister and her officials to the House today.
I had a number of questions here just to give me a sense of how serious the infrastructure deficit is in Nunavut, where we’re headed.
I wonder if the minister can provide us with some information with regard to whether or not her department has calculated the total value of the municipal infrastructure deficit in Nunavut.
Could I please ask Mr. Dawe to respond to that.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Dawe.
Mr. Dawe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That figure on the infrastructure deficit is not one that we generally track on an ongoing basis. It’s a figure that we sometimes do some separate research and we update the figure for a specific purpose for such things as input into the federal programs, when we need some background data.
I think the last time that we did that figure was specifically related to one of these federal programs.
I think it stood at about a $300 million deficit in relation to specific basic municipal infrastructure items; the water; the sewer; the solid waste; these sorts of works.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dawe.
There are nine members here so I am going to ring the bell.
We’ll get back to the committee meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Dawe.
I thank the minister and her official, Mr. Dawe for that information.
The minister’s department works very closely with the Nunavut Infrastructure Advisory Committee. I think that this is the first full year of operation.
I am wondering if the minister can provide us with an update as to how that relationship is working and if the committee has endeavoured to put together a community by community priority list of infrastructure that they each require.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Please members, before you leave check out other members to see if we have more than enough members for a quorum.
You’re correct is stating that the Advisory Committee have been working well since it was struck in September, 2005 and has made substantial progress. As this time we don’t have that breakdown of the projects with us, in front of us, so I am unable to report that.
I thank the minister for that candid answer.
I am wondering if the minister can table that information in the House in the next day or so; for our information.
I don’t need it right now, but I’m very curious, as a member, what each community’s infrastructure situation is.
A few years ago one the officials in Ms. Brown’s department had said in a newspaper article, it said he estimated that communities need a combined annual rate of $40 million to $50 million to maintain and build necessary new infrastructure, but receive less than half of that, about $17 million a year. That statement was made over four years ago by Mr. Doug Sitland. He was your capital projects guy.
He’s been doing it for a few years so I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about.
With this sort of information and background, I’m wondering if you could explain to the House how your department worked together with this Nunavut Advisory Committee. How did you bring projects forward and how did you prioritize them? How are decisions made amongst all of the members of the committee?
Some are Nunavut Association of Municipality members, some were individual mayors, some, the government.
How were those decisions made to bring forward this capital plan on behalf of municipalities?
Just to confirm what Mr. Peterson was asking about the infrastructure projects. We have the recommended ones with us however we can provide you with a whole list within a day or two.
If I can, I’ll try and answer it, but I have my officials to help me. So the community consultations for input for the 2007-08 for a five year capital plan was completed before May 2006 and the Government of Nunavut and the advisory committee made a presentation at the NAM annual general meeting in early May.
The NCIAC subsequently reviewed all community and Community and Government Services priorities and made recommendations of priority projects for inclusion in the five year plan.
The NCIAC recommendation included community infrastructure projects eligible for consideration under all funding sources; Government of Nunavut capital funds and federal infrastructure programs and attempted to strike a reasonable balance of community need against reasonable budget expectation.
I’d love to be able to be a fly on the wall to be able to watch how 25 communities carved up an $18 million budget when they need probably $50 to 60 million to meet current demand.
Again, I thank you for that information.
In her opening comments she mentioned that there are agreements for the two new federal funding programs. Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and the Gas Tax have been finalized and as a result new funding has been incorporated into this capital plan. I know that the MRIF funds 50 percent and the Gas Tax funds 100 percent of the projects.
Can the minister point out to me, or clarify for me which projects are funded in this capital plan out of those two funds?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The numbers that are with them are in the booklet that is provided in Appendix 4.
Mr. Peterson: Bear with me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So if I understand the way this is listed the five-year Gas Tax projects they are all 100 percent funded. Were these projects that that infrastructure committee also had input into seeking approval from the government.
Yes, that’s correct; those projects went to the NCIAC Committee as well.
I’ll get down to the numbers.
On Page G-6, under small capital there’s $3,895,000 listed, in small capital projects its $300,000 or less.
Does the minister have a detailed list of the projects that are going to be funded under that Small Capital Projects Program?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) What we have in the list for 2007-08; they are all in here.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t understand the minister’s answer; could you repeat your answer minister?
Yes we have that, the list for 2007-08 for small capital, and we could provide that list if you want because it’s for our own use that we have.
This item is a fairly large item for almost $4 million and it did say small capital projects $300,000 or less. Can the minister give an indication on how many small capital projects are on your list?
I would like the Director of Community Infrastructure, Mr. Dawe to expand on that.
Mr. Dawe.
The member is quite correct in recognizing that $3.8 million is quite a significant line item in our budget.
The concept of setting up that item and this is universally across all the Government of Nunavut departments, but the concept is that it should allow a little bit of flexibility within the departments to address particular needs from time, as they may change from time to time.
So therefore, I think the objective was not to nail down hard and fast a set program at this point, but to give some general indications where our priorities might lie at the moment, with the realization that they may have to change throughout the year.
However, having said that, Community and Government Services has indeed identified a program for the first year on which we will spend that $3.8 million, realizing that all the programs that we have identified over the first year probably come to much more than that so there does have to be some adjustments to the figures.
However, for this year and we can provide this as a hard copy for the members’ benefit if they so desire, but we have nominally notionally identified, I think, perhaps, about twenty projects here.
They are a mix of community heavy equipment type of expenditures, for example dump trucks, loaders, bulldozers, this sort of thing. Traditionally, a very significant part of the Community and Government Services budget, but now because of the $300,000 guideline, it gets knocked into small capital.
Also included in those projects that we have considered are several of the ongoing regional programs that we have funded from year to year, for example, the block funding, community planning, and mobile equipment programs that we’ve traditionally provided to each region for their community of each year.
So basically what we have is perhaps six or eight items of mobile equipment, maybe a dozen items of the ongoing block funding type of programs, and an attempt at a reasonable distribution across the territory into the various communities.
As I said, if it’s the Chairman’s wish, I can itemize each one here now, or we can provide this as a supplementary document at your pleasure.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Dawe for that answer.
I think we should accept Mr. Dawe’s kind offer, if he could itemize it right now, for the record, what’s on his list.
Okay, Mr. Dawe, if you’ve got what Mr. Peterson mentioned, that would be great.
Anything else Mr. Peterson?
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought Mr. Dawe was going to read down through his list where the projects are; the heavy equipment, and the block funding so you have it on the record, in the Hansard.
Will you go through that information, please?
I can indeed provide that information.
The separate projects that we’ve identified; there are two front end loaders, heavy equipment for the communities. We’ve identified those for Chesterfield Inlet, and Clyde River.
We have a bulldozer identified for Igloolik. We have one of our ongoing programs of minor capital expenditures, and these are for items of renovations to certain Government of Nunavut buildings. We have a small project for that identified of $132,000.
We have a vehicle for use at the headquarters in Iqaluit, a dump truck for Kimmirut. Oh, by the way, I should mention that that vehicle is for internal governmental use. It’s not an Iqaluit vehicle for the City of Iqaluit.
It’s a vehicle based here in Iqaluit for government use.
As, I said, we have a Kimmirut dump truck. We have, in terms of the regional programs that we’ve traditionally provided to each region, those are the block funding program, the community planning program, the mobile equipment repair, and minor capital projects.
Those four programs are now 12 projects given that we have three regions. So those four programs are identified for each of the three regions. So that’s another 12 projects.
Nunavut-wide, we have identified our geomatics program, some response equipment for the Petroleum Products Directorate, some tenant improvements to office buildings for tenant use, a fire truck for Pond Inlet, a bulldozer for Resolute Bay, and a dump truck for Whale Cove.
That’s our list, Mr. Chairman, as it sits at the moment.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dawe for giving us the list of equipment.
Are there any further questions? Mr. Peterson.
I thank Mr. Dawe for that detailed list.
It certainly is useful information.
Again, Mr. Chairman, can the minister confirm that the Nunavut Infrastructure Advisory Committee was involved in prioritizing those projects that are under the small capital?
I would like to direct that question to Mr. Dawe.
The involvement of the NCIAC throughout this process extended much beyond the small projects category; the previous mention of some of the NCIACs involvement relates to the small categories as well in that when we went out and we did our community consultation we received from each community a list of their top ten priorities that they would want.
We brought those back and applied ranking criteria; developed a list of what projects could be funded under what programs, for example; and basically put forth basically the NCIAC recommendations.
At that point, as the members are probably all aware, the GN process itself is evolving a little bit as well.
This is where the small capital category came in.
At the time of the NCIAC recommendations all these projects in the small capital were each considered as individual projects, in their own right, as they have always been. NCIAC was finished with the recommendations; had the recommendations made by the time a decision was made to take these out into a small capital category.
So, as concisely, the member will have to forgive me for rambling, but as concisely as I can answer the question these projects were all approved, recommended by NCIAC, forwarded to CGS and up the ladder to the committee, as we have it here now.
Where we do have a little bit of flexibility in the program is that the NCIAC recommendations contain somewhat more small capital programs than we are able to fund.
Those were selected internally, through CGS, from the ones that NCIAC recommended.
As I said, we hope to maintain a little bit of flexibility with this to consult back through NCIAC and the communities, again before we actually start signing cheques on any of these projects.
It’s our best guess at the moment at what we think we can do given the monies and given the NCIACs feelings on the matter. Thank you.
I thank the minister and Mr. Dawe for that information.
As a former mayor, it is very heartening to see the department working closely with municipalities.
Part of the reasons for my question on this in the last few minutes is just to get that sense of where you are in your relationship with the municipalities.
It is good to see that things are progressing.
MLAs have tough choices to make but the choices are a lot easier when municipalities have already had their kick at the can and agreed amongst themselves how to share the limited funds.
I am very grateful for that information and I look forward to hearing about the future good work between your department and with that committee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll stop asking questions for a few minutes.
Chairman: I believe that was just a comment. Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
I don’t really have any questions, but there’s a little bit more money than last year.
I have a bit of a concern about money that is proposed by the communities.
The community governments have difficulty in shortage of equipment.
We have a big community now; you’re not always in my community, so there are a lot of things that we have to do in our community.
We have to do planning for the following year, and we have to write down the priority list of what we need, you must know that our community has, is very flat and the water quality is not at it’s best and because of the snow geese being there majority of the time there, the water quality is not adequate.
All these things that have to be done in my community have not been done for approximately two years.
Like sometimes I’m in a disagreement, I’m not saying that I am against your department, but it’s just that with a limited amount of money I think the government is going to have to have a priority list, say for instance in Rankin Inlet, this year like there’s a, there’s going to be funding set aside for a sewage treatment plant.
And also in five years there is going to be $2.5 million set aside already, but some other communities don’t get anything.
There are a lot of things that we need in my community that we really need.
If it’s under 2,500, does it have to be done that way?
We are 2,500 people and we don’t have anything.
Those are the types of things that the government should be prioritizing because some communities get quite a bit and some communities that really need it don’t get it.
When I was in Arviat, Rankin Inlet, and Winnipeg, there was a lot of things that I saw that need to be done, and I could see people that are down in Winnipeg that have to go back home, that have to have a better airport facilities that are stuck over there, and they have to have another airline, and they need all these things.
And as well in my community we have poor quality water, and they’re not going to do anything about it for the next five years.
There are a lot of young people in my community, perhaps 70 percent of the population of a community, there’s a lot of people and they have no place to go.
And the swimming pool is only open in the summertime and it’s only about two feet deep, and our community hall in Arviat can only fit adult people, there’s nobody else that go in there after it becomes full.
I feel that the government has to do a little bit more for the communities that really need it instead of giving a little bit here and a little there because you have to have a priority list.
A realistic priority list and just to, for the wellness of the community.