EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
When you come down to preparing the cash flow, that’s where Technical Services and CGS gets much more heavily involved in that place. It’s ultimately the client department’s decision, but that’s where we can provide some advice and we do to help them build their sheets.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Dawe.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Mr. Dawe for that response.
The department reviews the scope of work on these, instead of whatever the other sponsoring department provides to you.
Say, for example, you had a project with a number assigned to it; say a zamboni room being added on to an arena and it was project 125. The scope of work and the money everything was there, we’re saying just to add a zamboni room onto the arena, bang, bang, bang, and that was it.
For some reason, because all of their tenders came in way too high, it got postponed for a year.
The following year, that same project came in, but this year, “well, we’re extending the arena as well.” I’m just wondering if that’s something that would be looked at. Would that be considered a separate project with a different project number, or would it be allowed to be incorporated into the same project number even though it had a completely different scope of work on it as well?
I don’t know if that makes sense. I’m just trying to get some clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll have Mr. Dawe respond.
If I understand the question properly, it’s basically what happens when an estimate deviates from the budget and what we do with it, in terms of re-describing the project, I think, basically a decision like that, what a department would do about a funding problem, would be more or less within the department’s own decision making.
A number of options would be available.  You could start from scratch again - redefine the project, redefine the scope, redo the estimate, and submit it as basically a new project, or a different project, or a refinement of what you had asked for before - but it basically becomes kind of a new submission instead of the old one.
There are also a number of options such as maybe doing it in phases, in which case maybe adding the zamboni room now, and then the handicap ramp as a different phase might be doable.
You might be able to combine things.
There are a number of approaches that you can take. Basically, it’s the client department’s call as to how they want to approach it but, again, our Technical Services Division can give them advice on what may or may not work and what the ramifications might be and what the costs might be, the effects on schedule and that sort of thing.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dawe, for that response. I just want to try and make this clear.
If a project comes in with a completely different scope of work that you would look at it and say that it should be a different project and not the same project that was identified, let’s say, the previous year.
That should come in as a separate project because if you review the scope of work and you look at the scope from the year before, it’s substantially different. You would look at it and you could tell that department that this is a completely different scope of work and should be treated as a separate project. Is that correct?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Madam Minister.
Mr. Dawe will respond.
Thank you.  Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Dawe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess what we’re looking at here is basically two different scenarios.
One is that if the project scope has changed, if it’s necessary to redefine what the project is all about or how extensive the project is, the fact that it does or does not now include something else; if the project’s scope is substantially changed, then I would suggest that it is a new project and would probably have a new budget number.
Those budget numbers are basically internal control things, but yes, as an indicator, we would probably have a new budget number assigned.
If the project was re-submitted because the client department found that the estimates were too low, “we can’t do it for that price, we have to go back and start all over again,” okay. If the project is re-submitted with the same scope of work but now, with the newer prices, I would suggest that it’s not a new project as such but a re-submission of the old project, perhaps not with the commitment to the money, but saying that “okay, we still want to do the project but it’s now going to cost this amount of money.” So in that case, most client departments would probably keep the description of the substantiation sheet the same, except for the numbers and it would be the same project.
I thank Mr. Dawe for explaining that. I just want to confirm again, I heard if the scope of work comes in and you look at it and it’s totally different from the previous year’s scope of work, then you would go back to them and tell them it should be a different project and it should be assigned a different project number. Is that correct?
I didn’t understand his question, so maybe Mr. Dawe will respond. Thank you.
I think that we’re into a little bit of confusion here as to the stage of a project we’re talking about because I’ve been referring to the substantiation sheets and the input that Technical Services can provide.
At that point, there is really no project whereas the client department is applying for a project, and the member is quite right, if there’s a substantial change in the sheet from when it was submitted before, then we would recommend that it be a new project.
I think the member’s question… I hate to second guess but maybe he’s getting at a project that now may be already approved, in which case the substantiation sheet is not quite a dividing factor anymore. Maybe I can get a little bit of clarity if I didn’t quite answer that properly.
Mr. Tootoo, rephrase your question.
I think he understands that I was just trying to understand the process and how things would be looked at and dealt with through the process that it goes through when it comes in.
At what point, and I’m just wondering if there is a mechanism in place and it sounds like there is through your Capital Planning and Technical Services Division, that if a department comes in with a project that has a completely different scope of work than the previous year for whatever reason it was lapsed or didn’t proceed, that there is a mechanism in place there where the department has and says, “Okay, hold it.
The sponsoring department, this is a totally different project than what was initially on the books last year,” and would send them back to submit it as a new project and not an old project.
I think that’s the process I was just trying to understand and I believe that’s what you had indicated the process that’s in place.
Mr. Dawe will respond to that question.
I guess I would like to basically confirm that the member is correct. There are basically two processes here I think that we’re talking about.
If it’s an approval of a new project, then we are discussing substantiation sheets in places where Technical Services can be of assistance and suggest that maybe “this is not the same project and you might want to redo it.”
That’s not an authoritarian; it’s an advice type of thing.
If a project is already underway and in place, you get into more of a project management type of decision and the project manager has some authority to make adjustments within certain percentages for small things that are done.  Other things might get done because of an expedience with respect to the budget.
For example, previously we’ve discussed methods of addressing budget shortfalls. One of them was to be able to issue larger or smaller contracts to attract more capable people, or to give smaller companies opportunities. This is one example where that type of thing might be done.
If there’s some change to the scope of work, it’s often expedient for price reasons to add it to an existing contract, and then maybe the scope of work does change a little bit. It may, on the other hand, be expedient to take something out of the scope of work for a project so that we can make a separate contract for it and give a smaller contractor the opportunity.
So there are certain leeways in there that are kind of within authority to make some adjustments within some guidelines.
I’m just wondering if changes in scope of work were a reason why tenders are coming higher than initially projected on a project.
If the scope of work changed and that wasn’t taken into account in the numbers that we see in here, the forecast of budgeted numbers, that that might be one reason why things are coming in higher than what’s actually budgeted for.
I would assume then if you do look at that there is a change in the scope of work that the numbers are accordingly looked at as well to ensure that they reflect the changes in the scope of work in those minor deviations or minor additions that you had indicated.
That’s exactly how it is but Mr. Dawe will make a supplementary.
Yes, basically, that’s quite correct.
By the time the budget is allocated for a particular project, the scope is well defined. We know what the scope would be. It’s in there in the substantiation sheet.
The discussions that we’ve had so far about changing scope and redefining sheets, that’s kind of prior to now.
Up to this point where we are now, the scope of a project is defined and the department is asking for the budget.
If the actual price does not match the budget, it should not be because of the scope of work, because from this point forward that project should proceed on the basis of the scope of work that was defined there, and sometimes the scope of work should be looked at because you can do some detail designs and some studies, and maybe you’ll have to tweak things a little bit. There are definite guidelines through the Financial Management Board to go through all of the policies and procedures as to how far you can go with that.
So, no, at this point in time, if we have a project, it’s a defined project and it has a set budget, and if it comes in over that, then what we’re finding usually it’s because of the escalation type of factors. It’s not because we’re giving the money, then changing the budget and trying to fund a different project. No, it’s not that way.
Going on to another part, I would assume, determining capital projects and things like that, is where, as the minister, in her opening comments, indicates that they’ve developed technical reviews, I would assume those are technical reviews of all government facilities.
I’m just wondering, do you do those, when I used to work for housing they called them ‘condition ratings’ for houses, but does the department do those for the facilities for other departments and how is that worked into determining if a sponsoring department comes to you and says, “We want this project to go ahead because of the technical review that was done on it.”
I’ll have my Deputy Minister, David Akeeagok, to respond.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) For those projects with the assistance from our Technical Services Division, we are now providing some of those substantiations in terms of providing advice on cash flows and their O&M estimates.
It is more formal and we use the Interdepartmental Committee on Capital Planning.
So there are various functions that we do for CGS Technical Services. One of the main roles is to assess the substantiation sheets and provide some advice either to our own department or to our client departments. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, David, for that response.
I’m just out of time, so I’m going to go with one other question I want to ask before I’m out of time.
When you get the substantiation sheets in from the sponsoring departments, and I know every year they have prior year’s amount and they go on from whatever year you’re looking at. This year is the 2008-09 year we’re looking at, over the next five years and then also a future cost one.
Does your department have a role in looking at, and say it’s something… In some of these cases that we’ve had, some projects have been on the books for a number of years and different parts of it have been completed at different times, like the design work being done, or supplementary appropriations; adding money to a project part way through and not after.
Does your department or the Technical Services Division and Capital Planning have a role in ensuring that those numbers are accurate, say if something has been on for the last five years and it says there’s only $400,000 on there, but there was a couple of… it might not have been the initial year for the design or something but over the next few years, for whatever reason, the rest of it didn’t go ahead but there was some additional monies put in there.
Do you have a role in ensuring the accuracy of those numbers?
Yes we do have a role in that area.
We are on page J-6. (interpretation ends) We will now proceed with the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with J-6.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the minister and her technical people.
It has to do with the public water supply regulations I alluded to earlier in my capacity as the chair of the standing committee.
In your view or your director there, how well are we doing? Even before this study began, how far apart are we complying with public water supply regulations?
Are we meeting the standards, or do you feel there is a substantial shortfall, or not meeting the water standards of our own regulations in Nunavut, which includes NWT as well?
I know the NWT has done their work already, but how seriously does the minister or his official treat the water supply regulations being complied with or not?
We do have good water in Nunavut in the communities and we are complying with those regulations.
There is daily testing on waters in the communities, whether it’s a water truck or through utilidor, and those tests come back and the results are reviewed.
The water is very safe, so I can honestly say that the compliance is up to date.
That’s good to hear, Mr. Chairman, but I think it would be much more transparent if the minister were to table that report if any.
Is there such a report that says that we’re meeting all of the technical standards required by the public water supply regulations?
After all, the GNWT has stated that a number of NWT communities failed to meet minimum requirements with the testing of drinking water in their territory.
Just because regular testing is carried out, it doesn’t mean that we are meeting the standards.
The work may be carried out, but have you actually got the facts that you could table in the House, and if so, will you table them, please?
We received copies at the regional office, and once we compile the information, we can make it into a report and table it.
We also thank you for bringing that up when we were having a meeting. We look forward to tabling that report in the House.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Akeeagok. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As recently as last winter, Rankin Inlet had to go through advisory notes. This is quite a large community, it’s the second largest community, it has reasonably good access to water supplies but yet, because it hasn’t gone to the best location yet for the water supply, it had a negative impact.
The department’s own substantiation sheet, with respect to the water treatment plant, indicates that the guidelines for the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Standards, for instance, could not be met by this government but it does say that our own standards, public water supply regulations, are manageable because they’re probably a lower quality.  So what I’m asking the minister is: because the public health and public safety particularly related to water quality is so fundamentally important, could you make this Water Bill your priority to actually table the report and initiate the re-study, and the report be tabled as soon as possible?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. Madam Minister.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we can attempt to do that and to gather that data from the communities and present it to this House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that not only should that be carried out now, but it should be a regularly provided and submitted to the Assembly, at least on an annual basis.
We need the public to understand whether or not we are drinking water that is safe not only for the elders but for the youngsters as well.  I have another question with respect to the technical requirements of the GN. There was a news story that came out this summer, I believe the Nunavut Water Board had the intent to at least pick it up asking the Department of Indian Affairs to prosecute the Nunavut Government for not meeting technical requirements, for instance, not having a license to build water supply requirements and water treatment facilities.
The minister and her officials did make a statement that indicated that they have come to some agreement and some arrangement. Could the minister or your officials, again, formalize that view of whether or not you are complying with the Nunavut Water Board technical requirements?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry about that, could you answer that please, Mr. Dawe? (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dawe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The member’s question is primarily directed at the Cape Dorset Sewage Lagoon situation. I can advise that the lagoon is built but we are not using it until such time as we get the water license which will allow us to use it.
We are, as we speak, our staff are actively working on compiling the last bit of information that the Water Board have asked for and there are public hearings scheduled for early January, at which time we should be in a position to obtain the formal water license and that would bring us fully into compliance.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the standing committee’s review of the department’s plan in September, the issue as to when the permit should be granted or pursued became sort of a discussion amongst our committee members.
Can I ask the minister exactly when, in your view, should the permit be requested and obtained?
It’s like a chicken or egg situation - should you have the permit, or after all of the technical standards have been met, or when it’s ‘turn the key on and it’s ready go.’
So, in your view, how are you going to resolve this situation with the Nunavut Water Board?
Mr. Dawe will proceed.
Mr. Dawe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In answer to the member’s question, it’s quite clear that the timing of these regulatory approvals is that we should have them in place before the work starts.
That did not happen in this case. There were a number of factors as to why this situation occurred.
To get at the crux of the matter is that we are working actively to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
As I said before, we’re working on the water license for this particular installation.  We’re also meeting regularly the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
We’re meeting with the Water Board. We have meetings scheduled even cross-departmentally with Environment and EIA to work out a process with the Water Board so that, hopefully, the approval process can go hand in hand and by the time we’re ready to start construction, we have our permits in place. That would be the ideal situation and that’s what we’re working for.
I think it’s getting a bit clearer exactly how in one’s interpretation.
I suppose the regulations are there to protect the public from safe water supplies, as well as the government at least complies with all of the standards that are required.
Why, in the minister’s view, in your view, should the department begin to build water facilities without having a permit?
I will have Mr. Dawe respond to the question.
That situation arose because of an unfortunate collection of incidents. It turned out in this particular case that there were technical challenges to the particular installation. The Water Board was changing the way it was looking at some of its applications and some of its processes.
The thing is that we put in our tender at what we thought was a reasonable time. By the time the tender was closed and we were ready to start construction, in a normal course of events, the permit would have been in place. It just didn’t happen that way and we got caught, and that’s one of the things that we’re trying to work so hard around.
The reason that we went ahead with the construction was that we were under some financial obligations with our contractor. It would have cost us considerably more in time and money had we delayed it.
We were under DFO regulations to actually get this done. We are still under regulations to get this project done, and rather than waste another couple of years, we maintain that we were not actually breaching the requirement unless we started using it.
So we’re not using it yet and we will have the permit before we start using it.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
I think it’s deadly important that we comply with the provisions of any laws permitting requirements because anywhere, I suppose, where the inspectors are involved, particularly in the private sector, when constructions of major projects are underway, there’s normally a stop work order issued for companies or agencies and not doing work.
It’s a little embarrassing for our own government to be building, proceeding along, and urging the contractor. Eventually, someone is going to be hit with a liability, or a charge for that matter.
So I would urge the minister that there’ll be no confusion in the interpretation of the regulations and when it should begin, because that should be something that, as a matter of fact, is fundamentally important to the success of the project or whatnot.  Could the minister reassure us that we will comply with these regulations and that there’ll be no confusion with the interpretation of these regulations?
Yes, that will be done.
We have ongoing dialogue with the regulatory boards and we’ll make sure that there’s closer communication so that that doesn’t happen anymore. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have another issue that I raised earlier in my opening remarks as a chairman.
I said earlier we were pleased to hear that the minister indicated that the Municipal Training Organization is carrying out a course for, I assume, for municipal operators for water quality. If that’s the case, exactly where are these guidelines or standards coming from?
Are these qualified water quality surveyors or whatnot?  Can the minister indicate to us if they are in compliance with the national standards or GN standards?
How is it actually being developed so that they will eventually be qualified to do water quality sampling in our communities?
The question is a very valid one. We do get feedback from the nationally recognized certification program and that’s where it’s coming from. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Yes, we had a very general sort of a presentation from the minister and her officials on that.
Could the minister provide a more detailed, specific course outline so that the public, at least this Assembly, will have a full understanding of exactly what kind of course is being developed and whether or not this is just not an ad hoc kind of short term thing but one that we can see clearly that it’s a proper course or whatnot.
So it would be helpful if you would table that outline of the standards being offered to the individuals being trained.
We can do that as requested. We will table a detailed course outline.
I would like to advise the members (interpretation ends) of a caution. Be careful when you’re using the term “in your view.”
That can be meant as asking for an opinion, instead use words such as why, or, and how does this happen.
Mr. Curley: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, I have an absolute reason for using it because it’s like a preamble.