EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, as is noted in the motion, the government’s most recent Elders Program Strategy was tabled in the Legislative Assembly over half a decade ago. It is time for an update.
Mr. Speaker, the development of a comprehensive strategy and action plan will serve to strengthen the foundation of support for our elders.
Mr. Speaker, I would also note that I fully anticipate that the government will heed the words of my colleague from Cambridge Bay and ensure that its pencils are sharpened when the strategy and action plan is being developed.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that the strategy and action plan incorporate a comprehensive and realistic analysis of what financial and human resources will be required to ensure its successful implementation.
Mr. Speaker, please let me conclude by again thanking my colleague from Quttiktuq for his work on this motion, which I respectfully ask all members to support today.
Member of Rankin Inlet South, Mr. Alexander Sammurtok.
I rise today to speak to the motion that is before the House.
Mr. Speaker, as you and my colleagues will be well aware, I have been a strong advocate for elders services in the community of Rankin Inlet.
At every sitting, I have asked to government to reconsider its plans for renovating the children’s group home in Rankin Inlet into an elders’ home.
At every sitting, I have noted the number of Rankin Inlet elders who have been sent away to other communities for care when they want nothing more than to be close to their families and their community.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that many of my colleagues also have elders in their communities who deserve and expect their respect and support.
I feel strongly that our government needs to ensure that our elders are well taken care of, not on a case-by-case basis but by looking at the overall needs of our elders across our communities, across our regions, and across the territory.
Mr. Speaker, our government needs to develop a comprehensive strategy that takes into account the needs that have already been identified, sometimes many times over.
Assessments on one aspect of service delivery have been undertaken by one department while assessments on another aspect of service delivery have been undertaken by another department.
For some reason, these efforts never seem to be coordinated in a way that informs and guides our government in addressing the needs of our elders.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that an elders strategy and action plan should be developed at the earliest opportunity to ensure that our elders get the support, respect, and care that they deserve.
Mr. Premier, Mr. Taptuna.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the motion. I appreciate Ms. Angnakak’s effort and the Hon. Member from Quttiktuq in providing the motion to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I’m fully aware of these situations that I see. My wife’s aunt is 102 years old in a home in the Kitikmeot. We see the struggles the families go through and at times, it is very tedious.
As the mover of the motion has indicated, it takes a lot away from the families who are trying to stay together. It takes a lot of self-esteem and all these other things that are going on in keeping a family connected.
Mr. Speaker, as the Premier, I have made efforts to consolidate and coordinate some of the existing programs that are in many different departments.
Again, I appreciate the fact that I’m supported by my fellow colleagues and my fellow cabinet members in making efforts to ensure that we do the best possible thing for our elders.
Mr. Speaker, I’ll be supporting this motion.
Does the mover of the motion, Ms. Angnakak, have any final comments?
As mover of this motion, I will request a recorded vote.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) All those in favour, please stand and sit down when I call your name. (interpretation) Thank you.
Mr. Peter Taptuna.
Mr. George Hickes.
Mr. Paul Quassa.
Ms. Monica Ell-Kanayuk.
Mr. Tony Akoak.
Mr. Steve Mapsalak.
Mr. Emiliano Qirngnuq.
(interpretation ends) The motion is carried unanimously.
Bills 10, 11, 12, and 15 and Tabled Documents 73 – 4(2), 116 – 4(2), 140 – 4(2), 149 – 4(2), and 70 – 4(3) with Mr. Akoak in the Chair.
In accordance with the authority provided to me by Motion 16 – 4(3), the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
I ask members to remain at their desks so that we can immediately proceed into the Committee of the Whole.
>>House recessed at 13:50 and Committee commenced at 13:54  Item 19: Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Good afternoon, Inuit and colleagues.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 10, 11, 12, and 15 and Tabled Documents 73 – 4(2), 116 – 4(2), 140 – 4(2), 149 – 4(2), and 70 – 4(3).
Mr. Chairman, we wish to commence with the review of Bill 10, Bill 11, Bill 12, and Bill 15.
Are we in agreement that we first deal with Bill 10?
Bill 10 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 4, 2015-2016 – Consideration in Committee
Minister Peterson, please introduce your staff. Minister Peterson.
Minister Peterson, opening comments.
I am appearing before you today to present Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 4, 2015-2016.
Bill 10 is for capital supplementary appropriations for 2015-16 totalling $20,426,000. It consists of the following items:
$150,000 to the Office of the Legislative Assembly to cover a budget shortfall for the legislative improvements project relating to security enhancements and improvements;
$801,000 to Nunavut Arctic College to award the contract for the student record system upgrade to the preferred proponent;
$5 million to the Department of Education previously disbursed as a special warrant to allow the purchase of five portable classrooms and washroom facilities; and
$14,475,000 to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to finalize the technical accounting adjustments and to increase the contingency for the Iqaluit International Airport Improvement Project.
Seeing none, we will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the department’s estimates starting on page 4.
Government of Nunavut 2015-16 Supplementary Appropriation Capital No. 4.
Total Assembly Operations. $150,000.
Total Department. $150,000.
Total Centrally Administered Funds. $801,000.
I just have a request for clarification on your opening comments.
The way I understand it, Arctic College will be awarding a contract and they’re requesting $801,000 for the student record system upgrade.
If I’m understandable, I would first like to know when this project is scheduled to start.
I thank Mr. Mapsalak for the question.
Just to clarify, they would like to award the contract. It went to tender and they have a proponent. They haven’t awarded it.
It is subject to approval. Today, they would likely award it in a very short period of time to undertake the work.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Maybe I didn’t understand the response properly.
Have you set a date for the awarding of the contract?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Mapsalak for the question.
We don’t have a specific date, but it would be some time before the end of this fiscal year, likely within the next couple of weeks.
We’re on Finance. Mr. Enook.
I have a question about the same thing. $800,000 is a substantial amount of money.
Why was this not introduced under the usual budget estimates? Why is it under supplementary appropriations?
If it was really needed, why was it not put in the main estimates?
Mr. Chairman, they thought they would fund internally, they were unable to, and then they missed the capital cycle, which was last October, so then they came to the Financial Management Board seeking additional funds, which we approved.
Before we can give them the green light to proceed to award the contract, we need approval in the House through this capital supplementary appropriation bill.
We’re on Finance.
Capital. Not Previously Authorized. Total Centrally Administered Funds. $801,000.
Total Department. $801,000. Agreed?
Chairman: Thank you. Page 6. Education.
Capital. Special Warrants. Corporate Services.
I would like to ask the minister a question. Let me get this clarified.
I imagine that when someone talks about portable classrooms, they are separate buildings.
I just want to know if that is what it means. I am wondering what they look like.
I don’t know how they would be connected. The portables could be separate or they could be connected together.
I don’t have any specific information on that, unless I could deflect the question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, with your permission.
Minister Peterson has requested to go to the Minister of Education. Minister Quassa.
I also thank my colleague for requesting clarification.
There will be five portable classrooms that will be separate from each other. There are five all together and they are all separate buildings.
To help you picture it, we have separate little buildings that are classrooms in Naujaat.
These ones are going to be very close to the main school, but they will be in separate little buildings.
Aside from those five portable classrooms, are you going to be building an actual new school as well?
The five portables will come in on the next sealift and provide classrooms for our students at the same time the school is being constructed and it’s planned to be replaced for 2019-2020. That’s the short-term plan, which would be only three years.
We have money in another supp bill for additional funds that you will see later for 2016-17.
This money was brought out through a special warrant and I know that there was a request for proposals put out. As to who would put that together, I would like to know if that contract has been awarded.
We had the special warrant, the $5 million, because it’s very time sensitive.
There were some issues in Cape Dorset that resulted in us having to go the portable classroom route. We had to special-warrant it and approve it so that the departments of CGS and Education could work together to put together an RFP to request the portable classrooms.
I don’t have the information here that tells me whether it has been awarded or not.
Can I ask the minister if his ministerial colleague knows?
Hon. Keith Peterson: I’m not ignoring you, Mr. Chairman; I’m just reading a briefing note here.
The briefing note we have is that CGS was supposed to try to go out with an RFP in February.
It may be a bit early for it to be awarded, but I don’t have that information.
I don’t know if the Minister of CGS or the Minister of Education could provide any more light, but we don’t have anything in our briefing note that indicates whether the contract has been awarded.
However, the whole purpose of this special warrant is so that we could go ahead, as I said in my last answer.
We have to be very fast and the contract will have to be awarded, portable classrooms be designed, constructed, and be marshalled through the sealift so that they can come up on this summer’s sealift. It’s very time sensitive and we have to make the sealift. That’s why it was special-warranted.
I don’t expect too many delays in awarding the contract, if it hasn’t been awarded already.
As a supplement to Mr. Enook’s question regarding these portable classrooms, have you already found lots or have sites already been developed for those portable classrooms?
I believe, if I heard the Minister of Education earlier, he said that it would be next to the current school in Cape Dorset.
I know that the sites have already been discussed for the portable classrooms. Will the Hamlet of Cape Dorset or the local DEA take part in the discussions for where the locations are going to be for the portable classrooms?
Mr. Chairman, I have been following this entire matter with a lot of interest since the fire destroyed the high school in early September.
The Government of Nunavut has made every effort to accommodate the students and the community of Cape Dorset. There have been extensive consultations and I think we’re on the third location for the high school now.
That’s part of the reason why we’re going to these portable classrooms. There have been extensive consultations, as the minister has indicated.
I don’t have any information in my briefing note that indicates whether the DEA itself was consulted on the specific location of the portable classrooms, unless Minister of Education could supplement my answer.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister for his response.
I know that when sealift opens this coming summer, these portable classrooms are to be shipped at that time to make sure that they arrive in time for the next school year in the fall.
Is there any concern that we might have to defer the beginning of school if the sealift does not make it due to unforeseen circumstances such as ice?
Do you have any contingency plans for unforeseen circumstances? Education is very important to us and so is the work on the schools. Do you have any contingency plans?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Joanasie for the question. I share Mr. Joanasie’s concerns.
Cambridge Bay had a high school burn down in 1998. It took several years. It’s quite a traumatic event and it has the tendency to pull the community together.
We were all concerned about it.
I have to tell you that the Government of Nunavut, through the departments of Education and CGS, is pulling out every stop to get these portable classrooms into Cape Dorset.
I would like to think I’m a glass-half-full guy.
They are going to be designed and can get to the marshalling yards and they’re going to get into Cape Dorset this summer. That’s the plan.
If they don’t, we already know what the Department of Education can do currently.
That may be the backup plan if the portables don’t get in; we revert to the plan that’s already in place.
This is not going to be a question, but a comment.
Today, I was asking the Minister of Education about the school operation in the community because it’s very difficult for the students and teachers.
I thank the government for their hard work in order for this to go ahead.
The students and the teachers have been impacted by having their classroom time cut in half, with the students divided up into separate classes. Sometimes they end up staying in class until very late at night.
I would like to see this go ahead and to make sure that the portable classrooms arrive in time to start the school year, along with the rest of the communities in Nunavut. I’m sure that this situation will improve, so I can only be optimistic.
I have one question in regard to this.
When you construct the new school, what are you going to do with the five portable classrooms when they are no longer used?
I thank Mr. A. Sammurtok for the question.
Mr. Chairman, currently, we don’t have a plan for the portable classrooms. We’re talking three years out.
Between now and the end of three years, I’m sure the Department of Education will have a good use for them.
Mr. Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) No plans for what the use is going to be after they have used them as portable classrooms.
I would like to make a suggestion to the government: turn them into public housing. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank Mr. A. Sammurtok for the suggestion.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education would like to comment with your permission.
Minister Peterson is deferring to the Minister of Education.
We usually plan these things when they’re no longer used. For example, in Naujaat, we use the same process with the portable classrooms.
In Cape Dorset, our teachers need staff housing and we’re considering the possibly of converting the five portable classrooms into staff housing once the new school has been constructed.
We believe that if there were another case similar to that in the future, we would use the same solution.
We’re on Education. Capital.
Special Warrants. Corporate Services.
Total Corporate Services. $5 million. Total Department. $5 million.
Page 7. Economic Development and Transportation. Capital.
Every time this comes up, I always have a concern. I have been asking questions regarding the work for the airport terminal in Iqaluit.
I know that it is going to use large sums of money.
Although I heard from the minister that it will not have an impact on other communities in Nunavut waiting for terminal buildings, we have to approve large sums of money for this.
In your opening comments, you had mentioned the $14,475,000 is just a technical accounting adjustment from one pot of money to another.
I don’t understand why we have to approve it even though it is coming from the same department. It doesn’t seem to be coming from another area.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Mapsalak for his question and concern.
The Government of Nunavut understands his concerns about ATBs (air terminal buildings) in the smaller communities.
We made a commitment in the last government when we were having a discussion about this whole airport project that we would not use all of the capital budget for a single project. Our commitment was that we would have at least $110 million annually for capital, but in fact, we have been averaging well above that for the last several years.
That is not a concern. With respect to this particular project, the project was approved at $298 million with an upward limit of $321 million.
The amount that is in my opening comments is composed of two amounts. One is a technical accounting adjustment for $7,617,000.
As I have mentioned previously, this is the first true P3 project in Nunavut’s history and it’s a very large one.
We are learning as we are going about how to do the proper accounting. We are getting help with the Office of the Auditor General through discussions about how to do the accounting. We have made some errors early on with our accounting, so we are just fixing that accounting up.
This $7,617,000 is a technical accounting adjustment. It doesn’t affect money; it’s just accounted for in a different way.
The second amount is $6,858,000. That is part of the original contract.
We set aside a $10 million contingency for items such as contaminated sites, asphalt, and interest rate adjustments.
From the time when we negotiated the contract to when we signed the contract, it was six months and interest rates changed, so it cost us an extra $6,858,000, so we had to take that out of the contingency.
Now we have about $3 million in contingency that is earmarked towards some liabilities, contaminated sites, and asphalt.
What we want to do is get approval to increase the contingency by this amount, $6,858,000, so that it’s back up to $10 million less the $3 million that is already sort of committed.
If we get our contingency increased, this would allow us to not slow the project down in case there are other issues with contaminated sites or asphalt as the project proceeds. If we had to stop the project to get funding for the contingency to pay the contractor, we could be waiting months for approvals because we would have to come to the House.
If we can get this funding increased, then that would just allow us to, once we agree on the amount to pay, pay it and then the project continues unimpeded without any delay. We want to keep this project on schedule and on budget.
I hope that explains it.
This is not the first time. If I remember correctly, it happened last year and there had to be another technical accounting adjustment.
Are we going to be seeing this on an annual basis and we have to approve for some accounting adjustments?
Is it going to happen every year?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Mapsalak for his very good question.
As I said, we’re learning as we’re going. We’ve got two years under our belt on this project.
We’re learning as we’re going with that and talking to the Office of the Auditor General. We have completed an audit on the project.
I believe we have ironed out all the technical accounting issues, so we shouldn’t see it again, but I’m like 99 percent sure; I’m just going to leave that 1 percent there just in case.
We’re very confident that we shouldn’t see this again.
I have one additional question in regard to the contingency of $6,858,000. This is a P3 airport project. I believe it’s P3 Canada.
Are they also paying for part of the costs as they are under a P3 partnership?
P3 Canada approved up to $73 million or $74 million towards the project and they will pay us that amount upon substantial completion of the project.
You are asking for additional money for the Iqaluit airport.
Are you going to be making more requests from P3 Canada because of the increased costs, including the contingency fund?
I think, as I recall telling everybody, this is a very complex project. The contract alone is probably a thousand pages.
We have some very complicated clauses in the contract.
We have a team that meets regularly on a monthly basis to discuss issues.
P3 Canada isn’t going to give us any more money.
That will be the amount of money, as I said, upon substantial completion.
As of last week or two weeks ago, the information I had is the project is proceeding on time and on schedule, so we don’t see any problem there.
The $10 million contingency fund we are talking about is the GN’s responsibility. It’s our responsibility to ensure that the contingency is in place and that the funds are available. There’s another term, “retain risks.”
I’m not from Iqaluit, so I have to rely on information, but it’s an airport that comes from the ‘40s or ‘50s, so there is potentially a lot of contaminated sites out there that nobody knows about when people and the contractor start digging. If they dig and find some contaminated waste or old army vehicles or other items that are considered contaminated liabilities, we would meet, discuss, and agree or not agree.
If we agree that we pay them for their costs, then that is when we would use the contingency.
We have that $10 million there so that we can pay them, so that the project can continue to be constructed.
We can’t afford any delays or any other hiccups in the project. Otherwise, it could go off budget and off schedule.
We’re on Economic Development and Transportation. Capital. Not Previously Authorized.
Total Transportation. $14,475,000.
Total Department. $14,475,000.
Chairman: Now go to Bill 10 in your legislation binder. Everyone has their copies?  An Hon. Member: Yes.
Chairman: Bill 10, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 4, 2015-2016.
Chairman: Now go to Schedule on page 2 in English and page 3 in Inuktitut.
Schedule. Supplementary Amounts Appropriated for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2016.
Vote 2: Capital. Total Supplementary Appropriation. $20,426,000.
Chairman: Back to page 1. Clause 4.
Chairman: Do members agree to Bill 10 as a whole?
Chairman: Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 10 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Minister Peterson, closing comments. Minister Peterson.
I again thank you and your committee for your good questions and scrutiny of Bill 10. It’s very important that the Legislative Assembly be open and transparent with our decisions on how to spend public money, so my cabinet colleagues and I appreciate your scrutiny of Bill 10.
Bill 11 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2015-2016 – Consideration in Committee
Chairman: We will now proceed to the review of Bill 11.
Please proceed with opening comments on Bill 11.
Before we proceed, if I may, can I bring in another witness and have Mr. Tumilty go to the gallery?
Chairman: Does the committee agree to let… ?
Chairman: Iqsuqtii, can you escort the witness in.
Minister Peterson, would you introduce your staff.
The new witness to my left is Colleen Stockley, Deputy Minister of the Department of Health.
Your opening comments for Bill 11, Minister Peterson.
I appear before you today to present Bill 11, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2015-2016.
Bill 11 is for operations and maintenance supplementary appropriations for 2015-16 totalling $28,982,000.