EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I’m not sure if that fully responds to the member’s question but I think it was part of the point that he was getting at.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rafter.
It does in part. I know people like numbers. Do you have a total number for the entire territory of what the municipal infrastructure costs are … the deficit?
I know Canada-wide it’s a $7 billion municipal infrastructure deficit but what is it in Nunavut alone?
Again, I would like Mr. Rafter to respond to that, please.
We don’t have the specific figure available with us right now in terms of what the results of the infrastructure deficit is across the territory. One of the more recent numbers that I had seen was on the order of some $40 million, I believe.
When I was the President of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities we did a quick tally one day for a number we used in Ottawa. When we met with federal ministers in 2002, I believe, it was $270 million.
That was the infrastructure deficit.
I believe it’s probably higher now because we’ve only been putting $17 million to $18 million into the municipal infrastructure every year since 2002 and our demands are increasing as every year goes by.
I urge you to check that number because $40 million is not the number that’s going to make anybody in Ottawa sit up and take notice.
I know you don’t have it here with you but there’s a lobbying document that your department prepared, I think it was back in 2003. It talked about the Nunavut infrastructure deficit. I know that’s part of what you do in your department is develop lobbying documents similar to what the Nunavut Housing Corporation does, and then you lobby extensively in Ottawa for financial assistance.
Under the description at the top here, under the Capital Planning Technical Services, there is a reference to the New Deal for Cities and Communities and Municipal Rural Infrastructure Program. Those are federal programs that provide infrastructure funding for provinces and territories.
I believe that one program is five years and one is two, or possibly three years long.
I am wondering if the minister could clarify and explain if she is aware of any other programs in Ottawa that are being developed and negotiated with the provinces and territories that are used to provide more infrastructure funding to our territory.
Needs for capital projects across Nunavut was not $40 million, it was a mistake in the numbers. We apologize for that.
The needs for the Nunavut capital projects are in the neighbourhood of $400 million to approximately $600 million.
As we heard today from the Premier it’s going to take some time to do some catch-up because the needs out there are a lot and the money is never enough. As for the federal programs, or the money that the member speaks about, the federal budget was just revealed not too long ago. Additional investment for infrastructure in Nunavut is being worked out and we won’t know for a little while yet, but as soon as we find out I’d like to share that information with all the members in the House.
The federal budget last week; I read through a summary that I received from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which is a national organization that represents all the municipalities in Canada.
They weren’t overly pleased with that budget in a number of areas.
One of the things that I noted in their summary when it came to programs for the north, the federal government seemed to falling back to the per capita formula, which is based on population.
That was one if the things that really hurt us for years and years before 2002 because of our small population base of 30,000. When you have a $ 2 billion program you only will probably get $2 million.
I know we were successful in 2002 to get that base allocation formula included. A federal program where it didn’t matter if you had 30,000 people, or ten million you’d be guaranteed to get $20 million if you use a percent, say one percent and then it’ll be per capita after that.
I am wondering if the minister could comment whether she is concerned that the government in Ottawa is starting to go back to the per capita allocation formula that didn’t really help us much at all in the first five to six years that we were a territory.
I am wondering if she could comment on whether they’re making a strong case or argument in Ottawa that we do need that one percent base allocation out of any federal program related to infrastructure.
Thank you, member, for the comments and the question.
We do meet with the federal government minister and they’re, along with the other ministers from the provinces, there are 13 ministers from across the nation and the ministers of local government will continue to lobby for long-term funding for infrastructure.
We certainly will continue to stress funding based on actual needs, and not on per capita funding, as it is important for Nunavut.
Per capita funding didn’t work in the past and my colleagues and other ministers from the provinces realize that and I think other ministers when they go meet with their partners or with their colleagues in their FPTs, they do the same, they lobby the ministers as well.
That’s when we do real lobbying because we want to be heard and we want to be the same as any other jurisdiction in Canada.
Page J-14.
I wanted to ask a question on the communities’ capital requirements and I am sure your department assists and makes decision on capital requirements.
Although you may have alluded to some of it, especially on how there is infrastructure funding to be allocated.
Do you make the decision, or do you meet with NAM and the staff group, Capital Planning and Technical Services, do they meet with NAM and other people?
I’ll have Ms. Hine respond to that question.
That’s a very good comment from the member and I guess it was based on that idea of how do we actually take into consideration the people’s, communities’ considerations that we came up with the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee.
That concept, which has representation from NAM, community government, and GN Finance where we actually went and visited each community, looked for their needs, had a committee go through those needs.
The assessments of needs were based on the funding programs available. We have a couple of new federal government funding programs so we had to make sure the projects fit the eligibility criteria.
That’s what came in; their input came into the formulation of our capital plan, which was brought forward to this House for approval in November.
I fully understand the gap between the department and the communities and all the number of groups that are divvying for a piece of the action.
One of the things that I want to say is that, is the government or the minister satisfied with the level of agreement with the processes that have been, or the criteria that has been set out, that the deputy minister did outline.
The projects that the two parties, who are served, including NAM, do you guys have a relatively good margin of differences as to which of the communities’ priorities should be accepted or funded?
The reason I say that is because the NAM members, even in my community, they never seem to be satisfied, maybe much like us here as well. How close normally is the difference as far as the disagreements and cooperation are concerned?
I want to stress that we feel we have made a lot of improvements and there is a lot of improvement to make and there have been some concerns raised publicly to myself and especially in Rankin.
However, I felt that they had ample, sufficient capital projects that they got and I felt they should be pleased with that but they wanted more.
I think they were looking for more or less to get Hamlet buildings and Hamlet owned buildings such as a Hamlet office.
But with Gas Tax you can’t get any buildings with that it goes more towards environment, water reservoir or lagoons or sewage plants.
Stuff like that. The GN list, on the other hand, it can provide some buildings. For example, Resolute Bay they got, I think it was a community hall or arena.
They got an arena because they didn’t have one.
So we looked at the needs of the communities with that advisory committee and in Whale Cove they didn’t have a community hall so they are getting one.
And, the MRIF funding is not Government of Nunavut dollars. So there is never enough funding.
We have come along ways with the Gas Tax money and MRIF money. It’s more than half of what we got. Before, we got half of that.
Mr. Curley: Thank you and I’d like to thank the Minister.
I know it is really quite difficult when you have hundreds of projects and so on.
But what I am trying to get at is eventually the differences will get narrower and narrower every year because some communities get so frustrated.
We get involved sometimes when there is lobbying needed and so on.
So I can appreciate the complexity of that.
The reason I am saying that is even though it was not in my community, I was just recently told that with the federal support of either the infrastructure or gas tax fund, one community received something that they didn’t even ask for and that was heavy equipment.
And there is a private sector as well in the community and they are not short of that particular equipment. And what they had asked for within their capital planning was a sewage truck.
They didn’t get it but though they are going to get another equipment this summer, which they didn’t ask for, and it’s sort of inappropriate but they don’t ask too many questions about it.
So why would a situation like this happen particularly when there is a back up in the event if you are short because there is a private sector community with ample equipment of the similar ones that they brought in.
How would a something like this crack through Capital Planning and Technical Services?
I would be very pleased to get more information about that; which community is that.
I do understand that these mistakes do happen but not to expensive equipment.
However we will commit to looking into that and get back to you on why that happened.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. The reason why I am raising that is because the private sector is really quite successful and when something like this happens it causes them to worry whether or not your level of services will be reduced or not.
So I was given a phone call. So, I will share that privately with you at your convenience. (interpretation) I will conclude with that Mr. Chairman.
Total Operations and Maintenance $21,934,000. (interpretation) Agreed?
Chairman: J-15.
Petroleum Products Revolving Fund, information item.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, we did raise a point in my presentation to the Chairman of the infrastructure committee that there’s a significant deficit recorded here in the amount of $14,071,000.
We are asking the minister how this is going to be addressed, as we did not see on J-6, I believe, that there was no allowance to cover this particular deficit.
We sort of have an idea how it’s likely to be recovered but I would like the minister to report to this committee exactly how and why there is such a huge deficit of $14 million?
Mr. Rafter will take that question.
The actual product cost is set by the rack rate and the transportation rate as well as a number of other factors that go into it during the course of the year, during a six to eight-week period when we are buying petroleum products.
This past year, once it became fully known in terms of the overall cost, the department made arrangements to adjust the overall petroleum costs for government and the communities.
Once that process had been gone through, it became evident that there would still be a shortfall overall for government.
This was addressed through a supplementary appropriation late in the fiscal year, in about the third quarter. An additional appropriation will be required for the stabilization fund in the amount of $2.9 million.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. During 2005-06, there was an allowance within the petroleum products stabilization fund in the amount of $15 million. Last year, 2006-07, the allocation was set at $5 million.
I am wondering why the minister did not feel she should put in an allocation to cover a portion of that, or in full, to the petroleum products stabilization fund? Could the minister explain as to why she did not include that in there?
I will have Mr. Rafter respond to your question.
From the prior fiscal year, approximately $15 million was needed as a contribution to maintain the revolving fund for petroleum products within its legislative limits.
At the time when the main estimate documents were produced in the current year, it was determined that there would be approximately a $14 million deficit.
To maintain within that deficit, $5 million, at that time, was forecast to be needed. In addition to that, $2.9 million is required to maintain it within the stabilization fund.
So the revised estimates for the department, at the end of the year, will reflect $7.9 million this year.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Minister, will you be tabling a supplementary estimate later?
Will we expect that in the spring or fall session?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the member is correct that we will be tabling it this session.
Page J-15.
What is your cost for community fuel contracts identified here? Is it identified here or is it somewhere else?
The overall cost of distribution contracts, I believe is what the member was discussing, the distribution contracts are covered off within the other O&M of the Petroleum Products Revolving Fund under service contracts.
Is that other O&M, $15,782,000?
I would like to ask the committee if we could have our other staff member here at the witness table, Susan Makpah.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Minister. Does the committee agree to have Ms. Makpah go up to the witness table?
Sergeant-at-Arms, if you would escort the individual, please.
For the record, Madame Minister, I would like you to introduce your official.
Her name is Susan Makpah; I had said Mackay by accident.
Welcome, Ms. Makpah. Did you want Ms. Makpah to respond to that question?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Yes, I agree with my colleague.
Why are the salaries at $3,070,000? How many PYs are we talking about when we have $3,070,000 under salaries and why do you need that many PYs?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): We have approximately 30 employees.
I would like to know why you need 30 employees under the Petroleum Products Division.
I will have Susan Makpah respond to your question.
The headquarters is in Rankin Inlet.
I have about 16 staff there right now. I also have staff in the three regional centres. In Pond Inlet I have four staff; I have three staff in Cambridge Bay; and three in Rankin Inlet.
And furthermore, the PPD reorganization that was approved in August, we identified four new positions; now the total staff for PPD is at 30.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Makpah.
J-16, also an information item.
J-17, also an information item. So go back to J-4.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): In regard to the petroleum products revolving fund we didn’t agree to that item.
I just told you that was an information item and if we go back to J-4 you will agree to it.
Community and Government Services. Department Summary. Detail of Expenditures.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $146,241,000.
Chairman: Are you agreed that the Department of Community and Government Services is concluded.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister, Ms. Makpah, Ms. Hine, and Mr. Rafter.
Do you have any closing comments, Ms. Brown?
I would also like to thank all the members for reviewing our department.
Thank you, very much, and I would also like to thank my employees, especially Pam Hine, my deputy, and Mike Rafter. I didn’t introduce the one that was sitting in the Gallery. His name is Chris, and also Susan Makpah for making an appearance.
Have a good evening and thank you very much to the ministers.
Before we move to the Department of Education, we’ll take a ten-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 19:03 and resumed at 19:18
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for coming back. (interpretation ends) I would like to ask Minister Picco of the Department of Education to make his opening remarks.
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2007-08 –Consideration in Committee – Education
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased to see you here this evening.
I am very pleased to be here with the Committee of the Whole to talk about the 2007-08 Main Estimates and Business Plan for the Department of Education.
I appreciate the support we have received from the Committee over the years and I look forward to responding to the Committees questions about our plans for fiscal year 2007-08.
We are continuing our work to improve and enhance all of the programs and services we deliver, which includes the curriculum and resources available in our schools, providing support resources to our daycares, information, programs and support for our income support clients, financial and information support for our adult learners, and essential support for the homeless.
The 2007-08 business plan looks to build on the great steps we have taken in the past three years while appreciating that there is much more to be done.
We will continue our emphasis on implementing an education program that reflects Nunavut’s values.
Before moving to the 2007-08 Main Estimates and discussions, I would like to be able to reflect on several items that have occurred since we last met on the 2006-07 business plan.
While much has happened since last year, I do note the following:
Over the past year, we have had an opportunity to meet with the Chairpersons of all Nunavut District of Education Authorities and, on two occasions, with the newly formed DEA Coalition. I am pleased to see that the coalition has become more focused on its intentions, especially since we suggested the creation of this group during the DEA Chair meeting last spring.
It is my hope that the DEA Coalition will continue its work over the next months and years as we move ahead with a new Education Act and its regulations.
The Nunavut Project, which was the report by Justice Thomas Berger, released in March of this year, spoke to many issues concerning Nunavut’s education system and its future development.
While the report might be viewed as damning to our education system, to those within the system it gives us further impetus and support for what we are working on. Long range directions such as those involved in the Bilingual Education Strategy, which we introduced in 2004, and Qalattuq, the 10-Year Educator Strategy, tabled during the Legislative session in November, present articulated and detailed recommendations and plans along several fronts to address the concerns found in Justice Berger’s report.
We have been engaged, as have other parties, in discussions with the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, on finding ways to respond to Justice Berger’s recommendations on our education system.
We will continue to engage Minister Prentice to ensure that the needs of Nunavummiut are addressed.
Further, at the national level, my fellow Ministers of Education and I, as part of the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada are seeking, along with our First Ministers, to ask the federal government to restore and invest funding for post-secondary education and skills training.
Our Nunavut Adult Learning Strategy was tabled in November 2006. Since its release, we have heard from colleagues and interested parties from across Canada in support of the strategy and the work that went into the recommendations.
We will be developing a full-fledged budget to support the implementation of the strategy in the coming months.
This is not to say that we remain unmoving in our direction because of the need for more resources.
We are using monies we do have as well as leveraging funds from other sources, such as through post-secondary infrastructure supports, to fully implement our Nunavut Community Skills Inventory System. We are also looking at means to extend the capacities for on-line application systems that are user friendly while ensuring financial accountabilities.
I am also pleased to advise that we are expanding our partnerships with organizations like the MTO, Kakivak, and Kivalliq Partners to deliver training by pooling our limited resources.
One area that we have been especially pleased with has been the Heavy Equipment Operator Program, which we have sponsored through the federal labour market monies as well as through income support monies.
Since this initiative began last year, over 60 Nunavummiut, many who were and are receiving income support, will have taken the program offered through the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario in Morrisburg.
Of those that have attended and completed, all have been offered employment. We are also seeing interest in the trades grow in our schools as over 800 students have participated in events sponsored through our Skills Canada Nunavut Program.
On the matter of income support, I am pleased to advise significant progress on the development and implementation of an electronic system that will ensure accountability and consistency of delivery across the territory.
We expect to go live in several communities starting in the late spring of this year.
For our day cares, we have provided additional information to help those that wish to start up a day care or home care facility with that information.
We have also passed on resources made available through the Early Learning Trust Fund from the Government of Canada to help with infrastructure and resource concerns for our care facility needs.
We hope to see more progress with our federal, provincial, and territorial partners in the coming months in this area.
You may also note that we have not spoken much about our schools, whether it is where the development of the new Education Act is or on new initiatives. I will be pleased to provide an update to you on the Education Act, if you wish.
We will also conclude by talking about the major increase in the Mains since last year.
In keeping with our desire to strengthen the school system, $2.9 million was added as supplementary funding for 2006-07 and will continue for 2007-08.
The funds cover salaries and benefits for nine new positions, O&M, plus contract services budget to ensure that the evaluations and assessments of school programs, staff, and students are completed and monitored to ensure the increased success of our students and strategies which are being put in place by the government.
With these additional resources we will also continue the development of the K-12 resources in Inuktitut, our trades program implementation and in-service support to all Nunavut schools. The nine positions will be located in: Pangnirtung; Kugluktuk; Kivalliq; Qikiqtani; Arviat; and the Commission Scolaire Francophone du Nunavut.
The purpose is to provide supports to schools and District Education Authorities in the assessment of schools, school programs and student success as well as the completion of relevant curriculum and resources for our schools.
We have provided $10,000 to each District Education Authority to help them hold public consultations on the Language of Instruction model each community wishes to use over in their schools as well as monies for the newly formed District Education Authority Coalition to help them with ongoing start-up costs.
I will be pleased to respond to questions from the Committee at the appropriate time.
Hon. Ed. Picco: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, can you assist the officials to the witness table.
(interpretation ends) Thank you, Sergeant-at-Arms.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the table the Deputy Minister of the Department of Education, Kathy Okpik, on my immediate left, and on my immediate right, Mr. Jeff Chown, Director for Financial Services.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Education have opening comments?