EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
More impact on government buildings will have an impact on QEC at some point. Maybe it’s just not talking about changing light bulbs. Maybe there’s more to it than this.
I don’t know, but it’s just a comment on the direction you should go.
I want to go to something else and that’s another issue. I understand that there have been a lot of discussion about search and rescue.
For Iqaluit, for example, when you have the SAR organization here, when there is a search, because I don’t really know myself, it was brought up to my attention that sometimes there’s some confusion as to who is calling the shots.
How does that process work when you are dealing with a SAR organization and you have the search rescue component within your department as well?
How do you work with the community over how to organize a search and rescue?
I’ll explain to the best of my ability how a search starts.
Someone is overdue or missing in a community and someone makes a call to some of the search and rescue members or to the hamlet.
They are given a search number from CG&S and a search is initiated.
It’s generally the local search and rescue that is in charge and involved with the assistance of the RCMP.
If the search is prolonged and they don’t find this person or persons, then it becomes a bigger search where our department is more involved.
They may need more resources or they may need more funding.
When that happens, then part of the control is put to our department.
If the local search and rescue needs an airplane, they don’t have the authority or the funds to fund an airplane.
If it’s involved in the marine, then the Coast Guard is involved, but if it’s an immediate issue, then CGS takes over anyway.
If you have to get a boat out there right now, you can’t wait on the Coast Guard because, generally, there is no Coast Guard available close to communities when there is a marine search.
It depends on whether it’s a quick search or a long search as to who starts organizing and keeping everything in a tidy manner.
That was very helpful to me.
Just going on under the Municipal Funding Policy, the $45 million plus here, it’s the same across the number from 2015 on to 2019.
Over the last few years, how have municipalities… ? You often hear that they never have enough money, yet it’s the same amounts here.
Have you found that municipalities are having to carry out responsibilities that they don’t have the funds for or do you find that the funds are adequate?
Over the years, have there been surpluses or not? If you can elaborate on the funding for me, please.
Ms. Angnakak is right saying that funding has been the same for a while.
We’re in the process of reviewing the funding policy for the municipalities. The review is just about done.
There were 11 municipalities that were in deficit.
It’s usually not a common reason why municipalities are in deficit. They all have their own reasons.
We are looking at the funding because they have their funding to fund the municipality plus they also have the water/sewer program, which is a great, big component of municipalities of delivering the water and collecting the sewage.
Both are being reviewed right now and the funding formula may change; it depends on this review.
When we talk about deficits, 11 communities have deficits.
Can you tell me what the reporting requirements are back to CGS in terms of accounting at the municipal level?
There are two requirements.
One is they have to do a monthly financial statement and then they have to do an audited financial statement once a year.
There are different degrees of deficiencies.
Because part of the funds is reserve funds, the reserved funds are supposed to be up at a certain level.
If the reserve funds aren’t up to par, then even though they have money, they could be considered that they are in deficit.
It’s not as straightforward as if they have money in the bank or not. They can have money in the bank in some areas and they could be in deficit in other areas.
It’s quite a complicated process.
In general, most of the municipalities are doing all right.
We’re there to help them. If a municipality is struggling, then we’re there to help them out. We will help them out to figure why they’re struggling.
If they’re struggling just because it costs more to operate the municipality than the funding that’s given, then that will be looked at.
We don’t expect the municipalities to go into deficit for running a community, but we also want to make sure that they’re not just being wasteful.
When we talk about deficits, over the years, I have heard that some hamlets feel that the government gives them responsibilities without the additional funds.
I know, a few years back, there was quite a big push by the municipalities to give a lot of those responsibilities back to the government because they didn’t have the means to carry them out financially.
I just want to go back to what you said about reserve.
What is the reserve? What should a hamlet have in place as a reserve and how much of that reserve, if it’s taken out… ?
Is it $1 and then you guys are alerted that a dollar has been taken out? Up to what amount does it need to trigger the department to look at it?
We certainly wouldn’t move for a dollar, that’s for sure.
Here are the different funds that they have to have in good standing: operating funds, water and sewer funds, land development funds, capital funds, and reserve funds.
Those all have to be kept in good standing, so it’s not quite that simple.
Can the minister tell us how much in reserve funds they expect each municipality to have in place?
There’s no set standard.
Each community gets different funding.
A good portion of communities’ funds are through the water/sewer program. One of the reserves from that is to buy water trucks and sewage trucks, so that fund would be funded through the water/sewer program and each community is different.
The Land Development Fund is built up by the leasing of lots in communities and that fund would be built up by that. There is no set standard.
To my earlier comment there about all the funds, I have just been informed that in total, throughout all of Nunavut, the operating funds is in the positive of just under $5 million. That is within all the municipalities.
Going back to the funds, each community is different.
There’s no set standard. They can’t say, “Well, in Arviat, your water/sewer funds will be at $600,000”; in Whale Cove, which is quite a bit smaller, “Your reserve will be at $600,000.”
There is no set standard, but it is calculated on the amount of funding that is generated or received.
I think the reason why I’m asking that is because of your comment where you said that 11 are in deficit because of their reserve funds.
If all the reserve funds are all different, how do you know when one goes into a deficit?
Just to clarify myself then, those 11 that are in deficit are not in deficit because their funds are depleted. They are actually in deficit.
They spent more money than they had or were given.
Just reading from the business plan on 170, Community Planning and Lands for developing community sustainability plans.
Do all communities have sustainability plans and what does that plan generally involve?
How does it provide direction for the hamlet?
That’s where each municipality puts in their infrastructure needs and then that is looked by another committee.
I can’t remember the name of the committee, but it’s made up of the hamlets and the governments together.
Each municipality puts in what is their priority.
For example, do they need a fire hall more than they need a community hall or an arena?
They put in their sustainability plan what their priority is and the priorities are looked at between the municipalities and the government to figure out how to… .
We all know there are only so much infrastructure dollars and we have to divide it up fairly and based on needs.
One of the biggest criteria is if there’s a safety issue, then that would get more criteria than just because it didn’t look good. We have to have criteria that they go by.
There has been a lot of talk about not having proper water licensing within the municipalities. Here, one of your priorities on page 172 of the business plan is that you’re going to “Continue to implement strategies to address upgrades to core municipal infrastructure” to address wastewater and solid waste “to ensure compliance…” Can you tell us where you’re at with that?
How many communities are not in compliance with their water licences?
All the municipalities either have their water licence or are in the process of getting their water licence.
As of right now, all the municipalities are in the good.
We’re at Branch Summary. Community and Government Services. Community Services.
Are we on page J-5?
I wish to return to this subject related to search and rescue operations.
I will be asking the minister a question, but first let me welcome you and your staff to the witness table in front of the MLAs. Welcome.
I wish to return to the plans here, as members continue to have concerns about search and rescue issues in the communities. The biggest concern is the lack of equipment, such as no snowmobiles or boats for rescues.
To use our community as an example, particularly when people require assistance from the SAR groups primarily in the winter when hunters are mostly out hunting, we lack rescue equipment and this is a contributing factor to conducting searches, which is the lack of dedicated search equipment.
What is your goal towards meeting this challenge within your business plan? I only see the February 27, 2015 report where the cabinet was going to deliberate on additional funds to be requested from the federal government related to search and rescue equipment. I doubt there are any dedicated funds to assist our SAR groups to purchase snowmobiles and boats.
I wonder if you did add this or if the funding to purchase equipment is still missing in your plans.
Hon. Joe Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Currently, there are no funds available for purchasing snowmobiles, ATVs, or boats for the SAR groups.
However, the SAR societies in the communities have the ability to fundraise within the community to purchase their own snowmobiles, ATVs, or boats for this purpose.
We heard just recently that the federal government, and I don’t think we have an Inuktitut name for it, but they have the (interpretation ends) Coast Guard Auxiliary. (interpretation) They’re not going to buy boats, but they can help the boat owners.
There is compensation if any of their mobile equipment breaks down or gets lost.
To date, there is no money set aside for the purchase of snowmobiles, four-wheelers, or boats. It is something that the regular members can consider.
If you’re concerned about it, urge the government to provide such a program. We haven’t considered it.
There is no money set aside for the purchase of mobile equipment.
It is something that is of concern. I think it’s a concern for all Nunavummiut when it comes to providing equipment for the search and rescue operators. I believe that is something that should be considered.
In the future, with funding much easier to get in Nunavut despite the high costs of snowmobiles and outboard motors.
As the minister, is it possible for you to consider, together with the federal government, providing those types of assistance so that search and rescue organizations can purchase mobile equipment? Is it possible to do that or not?
Hon. Joe Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) As I indicated earlier, we don’t have any money set aside for equipment purchases.
The snowmobiles and boats are owned by the government and if they’re going to be disposed of, it’s possible to consider giving them over to the search and rescue operators.
I can use an example. If someone is boating on a search and rescue operation and his mobile equipment breaks down, or if his qamutik breaks down, he can be compensated.
To date, there is funding for compensation of that sort, but for the purchase of mobile equipment, there is no funding available.
It is something that is quite a concern to most of the communities, especially boats and snowmobiles, which are very expensive.
Sometimes it’s hard to find mobile equipment to operate a search and rescue organization.
Life is very precious and we do all we can in those search and rescue operations.
The mobile equipment that we use can break down all of a sudden on an unexpected occasion.
I do understand that there is no money set aside, but it is something that the government can consider.
Can you just tell me bluntly that you will never set aside money for such purchases? Certain operations are very important and I would just like to get a direct response of whether or not they can set aside some money for equipment purchases.
Hon. Joe Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) At this time, we haven’t taken that into consideration.
There are many requirements in Nunavut. We have a serious shortage of houses, we have old schools, and some of the air terminals are aging.
Putting all that together, even though it is something that is a need in the community, we have to prioritize what will be purchased for a particular year.
We have to factor in all the expenditures that are required by the government.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome Minister Savikataaq and his officials.
In your business plan on page 170 under Community Planning and Lands, it indicates that the funding is going to be increased.
If I’m doing my math correctly, there’s an increase of $978,000 from last year.
That’s my first question, Mr. Chairman.
The big increase is to run the land referendum, for the consultations, and for publications to inform Nunavummiut about the land referendum.
I believe about $900,000 of that is going to Elections Nunavut to run the actual land referendum plebiscite.
I believe we are on page J-5.
I would like further information on Other Expenses. There has been a significant increase. It is now $441,000 for 2016-17.
Looking at 2015-16, it was at $94,000. What is the reason for the increase?
A good portion of that, again, is to cover stuff about the land referendum; $373,000 is costs associated with the upcoming land referendum; $33,000 of this is for various types of office furniture; equipment, desks, chairs, filing cabinets; and a small chunk of it, again, $35,000, covers computer-related hardware and software purchases, monitors, keyboards, mice...
…I think it’s supposed to be mouse; printers, scanners, toners, cartridges, laptops, tablets, and renewal of licensing to use the software.
I’m going on to another subject, but I don’t know where it fits here. There was an indication by your department that they were going to get a gravel crusher that would go from one community to another. I don’t know where it fits here, but I would like to get an update on that.
What my colleague is talking about is in the capital plan, but it’s to do with the granular projects where CGS and the municipality would go to 50 percent funding to buy granular equipment to crush rock to make gravel.
That’s in the capital plan.
The municipality and the government go together on it and make a purchase, but that is in the capital plan.
There is nothing in the main estimates. Your department once indicated that this crusher will go from one community and then they would ship it out to another community that requires the crusher.
I understand now that it’s in the capital plan, but not in these main estimates.
What my colleague is talking about, it was tried. What we’re doing now is, like I just explained a while ago, each municipality will put in their proposal and they can cost-share with the government to buy crushed gravel.
The equipment is owned by the municipality and stays there.
We tried the route where you go into a community and you crush a whole bunch of gravel, and then you move it and you crush more. It was just not cost-effective.
This is a capital project and it can be talked about and questioned more when we get to the capital plan.
Right now, we’re dealing with O&M. Just to inform my colleague, there is such a program out there, but it’s under capital.
I now understand. I will ask the same question at that time.
Moving on to another subject, it was touched on earlier regarding search and rescue operations.
The fire departments usually use volunteer firefighters.
As the department providing services to the communities, do you provide training?
How do you recruit more volunteers who could participate in the search and rescue operations and at the fire department? Do you have any other programs and services that you can provide so that we can recruit more volunteers?
The volunteer firemen program is, as I stated, volunteer and we ask for volunteers. We don’t pay the firemen. That’s why the name is the volunteer fire department.
We do support them in terms of we buy the volunteers their fire protective clothing and their equipment and we put on training programs through MTO to train any new firemen or any certification they want to get. That is put on through MTO. It’s up to each municipality to try to keep the number of volunteer firemen at the proper number for the numbers that are needed.
Yes, we want to see more search and rescue operators and firefighters and give them more support.
For instance, it’s just an idea, but there are gas tax benefits.
Looking at the number of hours they volunteer within the year, perhaps it can go through your department to provide more support for search and rescue organizations so that they can have tax benefits that could be used as a means of support.
That is what I’m asking him now.
We want volunteers and we don’t have any program where CGS can give out a tax receipt. I’m not aware if the federal government has any program for such a thing.
The name is “volunteer,” so I assume that there would be no tax receipt for someone that is volunteering their time.
We do give them, I don’t know if you call it “honoraria,” to the firemen.
It’s a small amount of money, I should say; it’s not really classified as honorarium. I am told the word is “stipend.”
They get a small token amount of money for being volunteers when they practise.
I just want these things considered in the future. These things could be considered for volunteers to somehow benefit them through their taxes. Perhaps you can work with your federal counterparts to implement such a program.
I’ll end with that.
I am no tax expert and I don’t know anything about keeping tax receipts for volunteer staff, but I’ll talk with the Minister of Finance.
He is more knowledgeable about that, but there’s no commitment here. It doesn’t hurt to talk to the Minister of Finance.
I will start with my colleague, Mr. Shooyook, and part of his questioning on how more assistance can be provided to search and rescue organizations.
You answered part of it, but last year during our February sitting in the House, one of your officials stated that the Surplus Disposal Policy will be reviewed, that consideration of equipment being disposed of can be given to search and rescue organizations.
We don’t provide them with adequate equipment, yet we very much depend on them.
Has the review been done and will you be amending your policies on providing surplus equipment to the search and rescue organizations?
Yes, we are still looking at it and we are still looking into it.
We want to makes sure that if we turn over equipment, it is in good standing order.
We don’t want to give equipment to search and rescue, someone is out on a search, then they break down, and then they have to be searched for too.
We want to make sure the equipment is in good standing order.
We are still looking at how we can do it without any liability issues.
With the Fourth Assembly, the term is ending next October.
Once the government’s mandate has ended, it will just get lost and then we have to start over again.
Would the minister consider, while the Fourth Assembly is still sitting, to have this completed? Can you try to have a decision during this government’s term?
We will look into it, but for clarification on this matter, the amount of equipment we are talking about is not big; it’s not huge. A department would not surplus a snowmobile or a boat if it is in good running condition.
They have to justify why they need a new one to replace it. I don’t think we are talking a whole lot of equipment, but we will look into it and we will continue to try to pursue it.
It’s not a huge amount of equipment, as we are all aware, because each department is short on funds to replace all the stuff that they need to replace. They replace equipment that needs to be replaced.
If equipment needs to be replaced, then there is probably something wrong with it. It’s old, outdated, or it’s not safe. We are still looking at it, but just so the member is aware, it’s not a huge amount of equipment.
It won’t supply the needs of search and rescues.
Indeed, we know that to be the case and we aren’t debating large numbers of equipment.
As it stands, the groups have absolutely no equipment.
As you stated, we aren’t talking about a huge amount of equipment.
With that being the case, I imagine it will be fairly easy to review this since we are not talking about multiple equipment. (interpretation ends) If it’s not a lot of equipment, then looking at the policies should be that much simpler and faster, (interpretation) at least in my eyes.
Let me move to another matter while we are on the subject of safety issues. As we all know, back in June 2008, the Duval Bridge in Pangnirtung suffered damages.
Within your report, it stated that funds were requested and approved, if I am not mistaken, to fund the repairs to the bridge apparently from the disaster funds, which in English is called the (interpretation ends) Disaster Financial Assistance Agreement (interpretation) from the Government of Canada.
At that time, the funding approvers included recommendations or approaches they wanted to see.
Can you identify what exactly the fund approval recommendations were?
We did get some funds back from the federal government for that, but we are still trying to get more funds and like the member stated, this happened in 2008. I don’t know if the word is negotiating or trying to convince, but we’re still trying to get more funds than was given to us.
Going to another matter, during our session on February 26, 2015, we dealt with the 2015-16 main estimates.
At that time, the minister stated that the Territorial Emergency Plan along with the Department of Community and Government Services’ emergency plans have been completed and will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
To date, we have yet to see any plans and I wonder when the Territorial Emergency Plan will be tabled. It would apply during a territorial emergency or public safety, as well as any municipal emergencies.
Just a clarification from the member if it’s the emergency measures plan or the annual report.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Since you’re saying it in English, I’ll say it in English.
It’s the (interpretation ends) Territorial Emergency Plan. (interpretation) It’s the emergency plan for Nunavut.
As of right now, we don’t have that plan in front of us here.
I’ll just have to get back to the member on that to see what stage we’re at and I will get back to the member.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): You had stated that the plan was completed.
I was wondering why the plan has not been tabled and when you expect to table that plan in the House.
As I just stated earlier, we don’t have that in front of us here right now and I will get back to the member on that.
I can’t produce what I don’t have here with me right now.
Apparently, the plan is there.
It’s done.
My simple question, I thought, is: when do you plan to table it in the House?
You have indicated that it’s done. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My predecessor might have claimed it’s done, but I have not claimed it’s done. I will look into it and I will get back to the member.
We will expect it soon.
Also on another matter, all communities are supposed to have prepared community emergency plans which, if I am not mistaken, were a collaboration with the department so that communities can have plans in place to follow.