EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
So, it is the responsibility of the land officer to make sure that the plan conforms to all codes, follows all of the rules and regulations appropriately, but what happens after that is then up to the contractor and the municipalities.
Chairman: “Qujannamiik,” Mr. Rich.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): As that is the case, is it possible for your department to ask the lands officers…. Or, are you going to provide training for those lands officers so they know what their roles and responsibilities are?
I am very pleased to inform the House that we are going to have an MTO, municipal training grant. We do not have a municipal training grant and we have approximately 34 individuals who participated in that training program.
We are going to address some of the concerns that were identified by the communities in regards to having training available, but we will go ahead with the training of the lands officers.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would be extremely pleased to see this program go ahead, but I would like to instruct or tell your department that you should put it in writing.
Once these facilities are built, they’re leased.
That means they have a hard time getting long-term financing.
Usually, what holds up the whole system is the bank; it takes them a long time to approve it because they have to assign the leases prior to getting approval from the bank.
There are a lot of legal requirements when you’re going to be building a house.
For example, it would be the same as trying to get a mortgage.
Usually, what happens is they go into long-term financing with the bank.
I think that it would be better if your department wrote a letter or put out the information out there.
For example, building permits are extremely important not only to the contractor, but also to the other stakeholders, and the banks, and everything else.
So, I think that your department should write a letter urging them just to speed up the process.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): We have initiated the process and I would like to inform the House that there is training provided.
The training is recognized.
On top of that, their training is initiated, and in regards to what the member is saying, I will get the information and write a letter and inform the stakeholders of training programs available.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would just like to thank the minister and I would urge him, again, to get the information out there.
I know that some of the communities are doing extremely well in providing training.
When I was working for the corporation, some of the communities were extremely slow, and they thought that we were urging them too much.
In the construction business, you have deadlines, you have the ships to bring in the supplies, and we have to urge everybody to do everything in a timely manner in order to meet the deadlines.
When there are a lot of stakeholders and when you have a lot of tenants signed up for the lease, it’s a pretty cumbersome process.
So I would like to urge your department to write up the letter, because it’s the construction contractor who has to deal with the whole process, more than the stakeholders.
I know that on community support, I have a number of questions over the few pages here.
I’m just going to start off with each one on G-7, on the equalization.
There is a decrease in funding there.
I would just like to ask if that was the result of no longer needed funding for equalization or a cut in the budget because of fiscal restraints.
Historically this funding had not been expended and lapsed, so taking the history into account it was reduced accordingly to the best of our records at the time.
I look at the equalization, if they could provide grants to assist municipal taxing authorities in the provision of municipal services to community residents.
I heard here, over the time, and even as the minister is aware, a number of the hamlets have gone into deficit, and they’re saying it is because of the fact that they don’t have the resources to meet the needs of their basic services.
So, I would just like to ask minister, are there certain things that the municipalities do that don’t qualify under this program?
Why have they all applied for the funding?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will clarify that this one applies only in particular to the tax-based city of Iqaluit.
I know that the city is struggling with making ends meet.
Is there a reason why the amount that was there was not being utilized?
What types of things qualify under this program?
What dozen other things is the city saying that they want to have some funding for that did not qualify according to the program?
I guess in trying to answer my colleague’s question about the areas the city has identified, I would have to ask my staff and see if they have responses they can share with the member on his question.
So, I turn it over now to my deputy minister for his latest discussions.
The equalization formula goes back quite a while.
Actually it is on an old NWT formula that was carried over, as most formulas were carried over.
Essentially what happened in this case is because the property tax base has increased substantially in Iqaluit, they get now substantially more revenue from property tax because of all the building that has been going on in Iqaluit, and as a result, their equalization grant is offset by the property tax grant.
Historically about $614,000 is the maximum that’s ever been generated by the formula for Iqaluit, and we were lapsing every year.
The difference in the funds between $614,000 and the $768,000….
So, we simply reduced it to the amount that it was historically, then the amount that was paid out under the formula.
As the minister mentioned earlier, we completed a review of the MOK formulas, and we’re now in the process of formulating the recommendations of how to improve and rationalize all the MOK formulas.
We have a number of little things like this that need to be folded into the overall improvement of the formula.
Mr. Kilabuk, did you want to make a supplementary comment?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: Yes, I’ll just add for the record that if it is identified after the 2004-05 year, if there is a higher need for this funding, then it is something that we would definitely visit with the city of Iqaluit at that time.
As he indicated that they use an old formula….
I know that many of the formulas that this government uses….
I know the minister and his deputy are aware of the old-school funding formula, that there are problems with it.
I am talking about the Water and Sewer Subsidy Program formula and there are problems with it.
Given the reviews in place, I could imagine that the costs have changed over the years since it was put in place.
Again, one would automatically think that there would be a requirement for more funding because of cost increases and inflation.
Are those things that are being taken into consideration on the review of the formula?
Also, is the departmental staff consulting with the city in developing a new formula and in identifying some of the new areas that may not have been covered under the formula, at the time it was developed?
If there are any new areas that were missed, to be included?
The current formula that is being used has been very successful, and we feel that it has been a very good formula.
Also, at the same time, the equalization has been very represetative of the needs out there.
We have some formulas that we know are working to our advantage and the municipalities’ advantage.
As we stated earlier, we have been reviewing some of the other issues under our municipal structure.
I just want to ask if the city and the council and the administration have identified any areas of concern with the formula that they would like to see included or changed in how this funding is allocated.
If the minister could indicate if there were any and what they were.
If my memory serves me right, and I will ask my DM to confirm this, I guess more of the issues that have been brought forward have been with capital funding and mostly not a lot of other issues under the O and M side.
I know, for example, you have some of the utilidor lines being changed, some of them are quite old. They are saying that it costs a considerable amount of money to repair these things, as they fix when they break.
Are those types of things taken into consideration under this formula?
Again, I would like to know, are there any specific areas that the city has identified that it has issues with in the equalization formula for the O and M, for the delivery of municipal services to the city residents?
I guess I will be trying to respond with detailed information that I have available to me, so maybe I will get Mr. Rafter to put some light on the question.
The city is funded through a very complex formula for grants in lieu of taxes, as well as equalization.
The grants in lieu of taxes is based on mill rates, which are set in consultation with the Department of Finance to meet city needs.
As the Government of Nunavut acquires property within the city of Iqaluit, the need for the grant increases.
It has a very linear effect.
We are certainly reviewing the amount of grants in lieu of taxes and anticipate over the course of this fiscal year that it will likely increase.
Something has been in the media recently; the city is saying there is no money to fund the recycling program, which is…. You know, one would consider that a municipal service, for garbage delivery, and even we have a separate ministry of the environment.
Would that be something that could be considered under operating costs for this program?
Currently probably not under the operating funding, but this is an issue that we would be in a position to discuss further and see if there are options we can look at to meet that need.
The city is saying that they are thinking of scrapping it now and sending it to the recycle bin, so to speak, because they cannot afford it.
But, could the minister commit to looking at this issue with the city so that they can deal with this issue in this fiscal year so they would not have to waste all of the money that they have started in getting the program running?
It supposedly was expanding. I think it is a great program that is desperately needed, when you look at all of the problems that we are faced with at the land fill site, prior to that with all the burning and the like.
So, I am just looking for a commitment from the minister to try and work with the city to resolve that issue, possibly through his department, through equalization payments so they could continue to operate that program.
If the city would come to our department for possible solutions to the shortfall then we would be more than happy to look at this closer, plus possibly other partners that we may be able to set.
And thank the minister for his commitment and willingness to work with the city, with all of the other municipalities across the territory.
Moving on to the municipal training grant and, again, there is a decrease of $30,000.
I am wondering if I could get some clarity for the record: is that because it is not needed or a direct result of budget restraints in the department?
Well, I guess you see the negative effect today of some very positive developments that have occurred over the last while.
The reason for the decrease you see there is as a result of a lot more partners that have joined us to run these programs. I will just quickly run down through some of the partners that we are working with.
We have got the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, Kakivak Association, Rural Development Initiatives, Kivalliq Partners, Kitikmeot Inuit Association, Nunavut Arctic College, Nunavut CEDA, Municipal and Community Affairs. There is a lot of monetary support.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased with the new partners that we have got to run and offer the municipal training programs.
That is good to hear, that we could use less of our money and that there is more of other peoples’ money, so that we could see that happen more in other areas.
Just on the leadership forum, there is a cut of $50,000 and I am asking, is that because your rates are going down, to be able to hold these meetings,or is that due to budget restraints?
Unlike my first response, unfortunately most of this is due to financial restraints.
However we are again looking at other options.
We may be able to review and seriously consider how to help us offset the costs of running the Nunavut Association of Municipalities. So, we are looking at options and trying to do more partnership arrangements.
The leadership forum…. I know a few years back, they had a territorial one where all the mayors and SAOs came in.
I think it was held here in Iqaluit.
There was also regional leadership forums in each of the regions.
Is that what this funding goes towards?
Yes, this mostly goes toward the regional meetings.
So, are there no more territorial leadership forums for mayors and SAOs to get together to share regionally any common issues and concerns or to try and get together to come up with strategies to try and deal with some of the challenges that they face?
Through the Nunavut Association of Municipalities and our partnership arrangement, we have annual meetings with all the mayors and SAOs.
This has turned into a very good partnership, to continue these ongoing meetings.
Also, as I just indicated, the regional meetings will also take place.
The $150,000 that was there in previous years is down to $100,000 now.
Is the department still anticipating having the same number of meetings and the same level of participation? It will be up to the municipality to decide whether they’re going to have to foot the bill more, now, to have someone attend these meetings?
Given the financial situation of some of the municipalities that can’t afford it, will there be any other additional assistance to be able to help those that don’t have the resources for something like this?
Well, despite the $50,000 reduction we see here, I am glad to report that we still have been able to track the same number of participants at these meetings.
As we indicated, due to the financial restraints it has led to a reduction to the budget, however, we are still able to meet.
We were still able to have the same numbers, despite the reduction.
I guess if the municipalities want to have the same representation at the meetings, they’re going to have to pay for it themselves out of their own resources, instead of getting that extra funding from this grant.
I guess I should have mentioned this earlier, but the municipalities are expected to help cover some of these costs and this is money that we use to assist them.
So, it’s been a cost sharing effort all this time and I have been led to believe that the $100,000 in the budget today is still adequate as assistance to the municipalities.
Final question, Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Chairman, I’m watching the clock.
My last one on this is the community development fund. Again, there’s roughly a $600,000 decrease. I noticed that there was a decrease in the budgeted amount last year, about $50,000, and then roughly another $500,000 this year.
A direct result of fiscal restraints on the department or as a result of not needed funding?
Not to be amusing, we’re sending money up and down the ladder here, because this is a result of some other very positive trends over the life of this program.
I guess the biggest factor which contributes to reduced requirements for this program is result of the Municipal Training Organization and their enhancement of our programs and attracting the partners it’s been able to.
This has required less use of the initial budget, because of the positive impacts the other side has been having.
If you have any more questions, Mr. Tootoo, I will get back to you later.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Chairman. I think I’m going to have quite a few questions and I have go to the airport at 2pm.
According to rule 6(2)(a), I would like to not discuss the department past two o’clock.
Chairman (interpretation): There’s a motion on the floor.
All in favour of the motion, please raise your hand.
Abstain?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Chairman.
Under G-9, I have a question on water and sewer services block funding. It’s over $5 million.
Is Iqaluit included in here?
It cost over $7 million for the sewage treatment centre in Iqaluit.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): I’m sorry, I didn’t really hear the question, can he elaborate on it please?
Chairman(interpretation): Mr. Curley, would you like to elaborate on your question?
The water and sewage service block funding is $5 million.
The Iqaluit sewage treatment centre cost over $7 million at that time, or was it done before the Nunavut government became a reality?
I think the $5 million is included in here for the treatment centre.
No, it is for the operation for municipal services.
The one that you are talking about comes from the capital funding.
This one, on this page, is for the operations and maintenance.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, this block funding, when it is allocated….
I will need some clarification on terms and conditions on the allocations of the block funding contribution.
Everything is all written down, or do they inspect this during the process of this work?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I will have my deputy minister elaborate to the question.
Chairman: Mr. Rich.
The block funding is a grant to assist on water and sewage and it assists the communities above and beyond what they gather from the water and sewage taxes that they have.
They have, under the accounting guidelines that we use, specific expenses that can be allocated to water and sewage funding.
Part of the review that we do every year, actually on a quarterly basis, is the review of the expenditures to make sure everything is appropriated to the right categories of expenses.
So, the only thing that they can use the water and sewer block funding for is for operations specifically related to water and sewage funding as shown on their audited financial statement.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rich.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I thank the official for his remark. I think the question I was going to pose has passed and I think the contribution, or the $4 million was…. I do not see it.
My question would be, since DPW, previous Department of Public Works and Community Government Services, would the programs and service expect to see the terms and conditions, because at times when the contractors do not complete the work they are supposed to do, that seems to get all lost.
Well, that would be the two full departments that are now under one new department.
It really does bring the team players much closer together and that has allowed us to work much closer, the fact that it is now under the direction of one deputy minister and one minister.
So, I can report to the House that as a result of the change and the two departments, the former departments’ requirements at the time are now much more closely monitored. Therefore, I should really see some improvements in that field.
I have no more names on my list for general comments or questions.
Moving on to page G-6, -7, -8, -9 and -10.
I am sorry about that, I was being lobbied by the Minister of Education on something; I could not be in my desk, and I hope he is listening.
On the community development funds, just a couple of quick questions.
It says to provide reasonable amounts of funding to communities…. How is that negotiated? Who determines what is reasonable and if this is what you are getting coming from the department, or is it something that is negotiated and comes to a consensus on with the municipalities?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: Yes, the, sorry, Mr. Chairman.
(Interpretation.) I lost my English.
Perhaps, if I could respond by saying that when the $10,000 is allocated to the communities….
I was just wondering if this is what you’re getting, despite what you asked for as a type of approach on it.
It was on the news the other day that, I think it was Cambridge Bay was asking for $160,000 and the department was only going to give them 80.
So, if it was more on that type of a thing, or was it a negotiated amount? But, the minister had indicated that it’s a straight figure for each community.
So, I would like to thank him for that.
What types of projects qualify under that program?
It talks about administrative projects.
Could we just get an idea of what types of projects are covered under that program?
Mr. Kilabuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mainly for the programs of training, the SAOs.
Usually, this is mainly used for the training of the SAOs.
I have no more names on my list for questions.
We’re on community and government services.
(Interpretation ends.) Community support.
Total, Operations and maintenance: $43,907,000.
Chairman: Go to page G-11.
I don’t think we have seen the revolving funds being tabled, so therefore I would like to ask about last year’s expenditures for fuel.
I don’t think the reports have been tabled by March 31.
Perhaps, we will expect to see around June 30 the last year’s report.
And, perhaps if you can estimate the…. Do you expect to see the sales go over $75 million, and what do you expect the sales to be?
I know that you’ll table that some time in the future.
Can you give me some kind of estimation on that figure?
The expenditures are now being prepared and finalized.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague, if I’m correct…. I would ask him to turn to page 16.
We will do the revolving fund on that page.
In regards to his question, we’re now on the final pages.
Once I know when I could table them, I will let you know.
I know the price is increasing.
If you expect it to be $75 million…. I know that at that page I’ll be asking that question.
But, one issue that I’m concerned about which you are aware of — it’s not just for the sake of having a concern.
Ikuma I and II reports…. Once they were tabled, there were many recommendations by the consultants, and some of the recommendations were followed by the Petroleum Products Division.
One thing that I would like to say or ask, since they made a recommendation to move the petroleum products responsibilities to the department in the Ikuma II report: have you agreed to all the recommendations in Ikuma II which were made by the consultants?
I apologize, according to my knowledge, I don’t think that all recommendations were acted upon and as we speak, some of the recommendations are under discussion.
So, therefore I don’t have any other explanations at this time.
I don’t want to give him a guess as an answer.
I want everyone to be aware we’re on page G-11 and G-12.
Since they are connected together, that’s why they don’t have the Ikuma II report in front of them. But, when we look at the business plans on G-28, and there is petroleum product in there, on the same page there is revolving funds. They can’t be totally split up; they’re connected, so my question will be connected to G-17.
Looking at this business plan, under page G-29 under your priority plans, in the second bullet of the priority list, the department and the government organizations will be amalgamated, and following the recommendation, Ikuma II reports that the PPD will be moved there. That’s what I’m interested in, and that’s within the Ikuma II report.
But at times the wording is not clear.
I can’t really understand clearly the Ikuma I, Ikuma II. The consultants worked very hard, and it seems like even if this a Crown corporation, it is still going to be very expensive.
Where would the money come from, this $500,000 under contributions?
Would that be used for the overhead of staff during the transition, during April 1, 2005?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, yes, the $500,000 is a contribution, and the objective is to provide funding for the transitions of the Petroleum Products Division to QEC.
More importantly, the environmental site assessment….
For example, if there was a spill, we need to spend money. Also for information technology, and that money is used for legal fees or lawyers’ fees.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, it doesn’t seem to say that on page G-12.