EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The Department of Community and Government Services does cooperate with the other jurisdictions in terms of lobbying Infrastructure Canada and other federal departments for funding.
Basically now, we are in discussions with the other provincial and federal territories to discuss the up-and-coming new Building Canada program.
It has been announced that we will get $256 million over the next ten years.
However, at this point in time, both provincial and territorial governments are lobbying to get an understanding from the federal government how that funding will be allocated over an annual basis.
Right now, we don’t know if it is front-end loaded or back-end loaded because we don’t have those details and we also don’t know if the federal approval process from the previous Building Canada Fund will change under this new current program.
There are still quite a bit of details that both provinces and the territories are negotiating collaboratively with the federal government.
We do know that the new program is 75 percent cost shared by the federal government and 25 percent cost shared by the territorial government.
Those are the only details that we have at this point in time.
Mr. Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for that answer.
Can you tell me, Minister Sammurtok, what kind of suggestions you made at the table to ensure that funding flows to our territory in a timely, efficient, and flexible manner to support the needs of our citizens?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Again, (interpretation) with your permission, I will defer it to (interpretation ends) my deputy minister.
CGS did participate at the federal/provincial/territorial meeting in September of 2013, where the federal minister, at that time, announced the details of the gas tax agreement, but we haven’t had any participation at the federal level for the new Building Canada program.
We suspect that the next face-to-face meeting that we will have with the federal government will probably be in July in PEI.
What we do know is that the gas tax administration has now been approved both levels of government and we’re into the process of finalizing that agreement. We should see funding from the gas tax flow into the territory early in the fiscal year 2014, but I can’t say at this time.
We will continue to lobby with the federal government to get the details on the Building Canada program.
We will try to take whatever encouragement we can to get the funds flowing in 2014, but I can’t give a definite date when we will be in a position to finalize the Building Canada agreement for the new program because there are certainly quite a few details that need to be addressed before we’re ready to bring anything forward for consideration by the cabinet.
What are some of the challenges that we faced with accessing or having the funds flow in an expedient manner, as he just said, from our federal counterparts?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I would like him to respond again.
I think that there are two major challenges right now that the Government of Nunavut is concerned about regarding the new Building Canada program.
In the previous program, the fund was cash-flowed out the front, so we basically got 50 percent of our annual funding at the beginning of the year and then we got the remaining funding when we submitted our annual capital expenditures approach.
This time around, the federal government is looking at changing it from a claims-based approach, so it means that the GN would have to fund the projects and then complete the claim submissions back to the federal government for reimbursement.
This could certainly be a very administrative approach and a very detailed review would be required.
So we’re trying to convince the government to go back to the previous format because it was very seamless and it allowed us to be able to get the funds in an efficient manner and the reporting requirements were minimal.
The other concern that we do have is the fact that we could provide an annual capital plan before, with a list of projects that we could bring forward to the Legislative Assembly to get approval, and if there were any budget shortfalls between those projects, you could realign your budget within those capital plans.
The federal government is asking now that we go forward by project base, so it means that until we have all of our analyses done, we would have to submit cost estimates.
That’s alarming for us because until we get to the final design stages and with the logistics in the north and with limited contractors, sometimes it’s challenging for us to be able to commit a firm project cost to the federal government.
Those are some of the challenges that we’re working with our provincial and federal colleagues to work with the federal government to see if they’re open to some changes to what they’re proposing in the new Building Canada program.
It sounds like the federal minister is taking a step backwards in creating a timely, efficient, and flexible manner of providing the funding.
I’ll save the rest of my questions for line by line.
Mr. Mikkungwak, general comments/questions.
The first question I would like to ask is in regard to the minister’s opening statements on page 3. (interpretation ends) At the very bottom of the paragraph on page 3, the minister stated, “To ensure projects are appropriately identified and prioritized for the capital plan, NCIAC utilizes standard ranking criteria.
The criteria used to rank high-priority short-term projects include health and safety, mandated programs and services, and economical and social benefits.”
Are these criteria considered for all capital projects?
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Sammurtok. (interpretation) Yes, he said.
I appreciate the response provided on this matter and it’s good to hear as well. (interpretation ends) During the previous government, MLAs asked that a report on [water] quality in Nunavut communities be prepared and tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
Have you discussed this issue with your departmental officials? If not, will you commit to ensuring a report on water quality of all Nunavut communities is prepared and tabled in the House?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mikkungwak.
Before we proceed, please be cognizant of where we are in questioning. Be careful because that’s very close to line items.
Please be reminded that we will allow you to ask general questions if you feel it is not in the books.
I will allow Minister Sammurtok to reply.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): To answer his question, yes, we are in the process of putting the information together at this time.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Sammurtok.
I also thank the minister for clarifying my question.
If I’m out of order, you will let me know.
In regard to the Hamlet of Baker Lake, they identified projects for the capital plan.
They had priorities identified and the first priority was the utilidor, but I don’t see anything on that here. (interpretation ends) Can the minister take this into consideration?
I responded to that question. My staff will be meeting with the Hamlet of Baker Lake again.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Thank you for that answer from the minister.
Will the minister commit to doing this, and how, specifically, would it be funded? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mikkungwak. Minister Sammurtok.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) With your permission, I would like to defer that to my deputy minister.
You have my permission. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m assuming that the member is referring to the old utilidor system in Baker Lake.
We are committed to doing a feasibility analysis just to see what will be involved.
If we were to convert from a trucking system into a utilidor system, we do know from previous feasibility studies that a conversion from a trucking system to a utilidor system is a very costly approach for the government.
Once we do the feasibility study, we will have some idea of what the costs would be to convert and a decision would have to be made on how this could be funded within the infrastructure program.
At this point, I don’t know how much it would cost, but based on some of the other communities that we did an analysis, we’re talking probably close to $100 million to convert from one water system to another.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Green. Mr. Savikataaq.
Mine is just a clarification on page 3 of your opening comments.
You said that “the recent launch of www.buildingnunavut.com website allows communities to provide an annual update of their integrated community sustainability plans.”
Does that mean that if a community puts their wants and needs on that website, they will get it? Obviously, they’re putting it there in order to sustain their community.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I’ll defer the response to my deputy minister.
All the community sustainability plans are logged on that website, as the member indicated, and it’s updated annually by the councils themselves.
Any of the priorities are brought forward for consideration in the GN and federal infrastructure capital planning process.
Basically, it’s the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee that takes all the priorities that have been identified by the municipalities.
They use those priority lists to rank and prioritize projects in the capital planning process.
It is all based on the standard ranking criteria, based on health and safety, programs and services, and economics. It’s a decision that is a part of the process that is NCIAC’s role.
We see NCIAC as the device for the municipalities. Through that committee, they have an active role in terms of what projects get approved in the various infrastructure plans.
Just for clarity, this is a wish list. It’s not a sustainability plan.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) This is a planning tool.
I’ll just leave it at that for the time being.
Chairman: Qujannamiiktauq, hon. minister. (interpretation) General questions.
At the top of page 4, it states, (interpretation ends) “All new priority projects before you today will undergo a pre-planning phase prior to their introduction onto the GN capital plan. This change to the capital planning process will ensure that the project scope and budget are better defined.”
I understand that this is a new process that has been implemented last fiscal year, 2013-14.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Joanasie.
Mr. Joanasie: So according to the pre-plans that are done, it says here that “This will provide better assurances that projects can be completed on time and on budget.”
Do I understand this as projects from now on… ? Is there a measuring tool of how well this pre-plan has been used at the end of each project to say, “It was on time and on budget.”?
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Joanasie, the issue you raised is a standalone item pertaining to the pre-planning studies you mentioned. It is a standalone item and once we have reach that particular section, I will allow you to ask questions on this issue.
Mr. Hickes: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
I neglected to ask one of the questions that I had thought of earlier. Mr. Rumbolt kind of reminded me.
I would just like to ask this question: is the use of the Nunavut community infrastructure advisory on the radar?
In February of 2009, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment announced that a number of jurisdictions had endorsed the Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent and were ready to begin implementation. In that strategy, one of the considerations for the Far North is that a viable means to improve human and environmental health protection needs to be carefully considered.
We have just passed this five-year limit. Can you update me on the status of any of the strategies that have come out of that study?
With your permission, I will defer the question to Mr. Bu Lam.
Chairman: Mr. Lam.
Mr. Lam: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank the member for the question.
The member is correct in saying that the five-year window for research has recently come up.
In discussion with Environment Canada as well as other jurisdictions around the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment table, it was agreed that Nunavut is currently doing a very good job of collecting that information. Nunavut isn’t quite done collecting the information to put together a very good recommendation for wastewater regulations at this point.
The CCME jurisdictions and the group, as well as Environment Canada, has agreed to extend the research window until Nunavut is able to complete our research, at which time Nunavut will be recommending northern proponent standards for incorporation into the CCME strategy.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lam. (interpretation) At this time, I have no more names on my list.
We will go to page D-3.
I will go through these pages and, if you have any question on this line item, raise your hands.
Branch Summary. Capital Planning. Total Capital Expenditures. $20,588,000.
>>Laughter  Mr. Hickes: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In the grants and contributions, there is $3.4 million allocated to the City of Iqaluit under a contribution agreement.
Are there any conditions or parameters of that spending?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. With your permission, I would like my deputy minister to respond, please.
Community and Government Services and the City of Iqaluit entered into a contribution agreement for the annual block funding for the funding for the city their municipal infrastructure and their terms and conditions and reporting conditions in that contribution agreement that the city must meet before we would allocate the funding to the city. We do get the annual audited reports and updates on how those funds are distributed to the terms and conditions of that contribution agreement.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Green. (interpretation) Who was asking the question?
Mr. Hickes: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to switch gears and just ask a question on the pre-planning study.
There are approximately 20 projects that are being allocated to some of the pre-planning potential projects for ongoing funding.
I would like to discuss the pre-planning study on the Ècole des Trois Soleil, the French school here in Iqaluit.
A number of facility needs that are lacking have been listed and I recognize all of them.
One of the concerns that I have is with the national focus on child obesity. I’m a little concerned that there’s no recreational space or gymnasium included in that study.
Is there a specific reason why?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hickes. Minister Sammurtok.
I will defer this question (interpretation ends) to my deputy minister. (interpretation) Thank you.
This request has been brought forward as part of the projects for the Department of Education.
I think the list that was distributed at the meeting yesterday was incorrect, so I do have a revised list that I will circulate.
This project has definitely been included as part of the allocation for the planning initiative, as part of the $2 million planning allocation funding.
Thank you.  Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Green.
Mr. Hickes.  Mr. Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Has the recreation component of that study been included in the scope?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Again, if I may, I would like to pass it on to Mr. Green.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Green.
The project is included in the $2 million allocation for a planning study so that we could use these funds to start the initial planning phase, which would involve working with client departments to get an understanding of their program requirements.
We will also take a look at the most cost-effective approach to addressing this project.
So we’re only in the initial planning phase where we would require a detailed gathering of information to determine the estimated cost and exactly how this would fit in with their programs and services.
Mr. Hickes: Thanks for that answer, Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I fully appreciate the concept of doing the pre-planning studies for ongoing capital projects, and I’m very optimistic that it’s going to be successful. The more information that is gathered at the initial stages of any project the better.
Would I best direct my question on the recreation component of that study to the Minister of Education?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I mentioned in my opening comments, in May of last year, the Legislative Assembly approved $130.8 million in capital carryovers for approximately 145 projects from the previous fiscal year.
This is yet another increase in the number of capital carryovers.
I am just wondering what progress has been made by your department in completing the backlog of capital projects.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Angnakak.
With your permission, (interpretation ends) I would like to defer the question to my deputy minister. (interpretation) Thank you.
That’s a really good question. The government has been dealing with a large number of carryovers for the past number of years.
To some respect, the increase over the last four or five years has been partly due to the Building Canada Fund, where the projects were front-end loaded. We would get the 75 percent of the total costs of the projects from the federal government up front.
Basically, it takes about five years to deliver most of our major capital projects. So that was one of the contributing factors.
The other contributing factor was also because of the scope of work. The projects that were introduced within the capital planning processes were not well-defined, which meant that after they were introduced in the capital plan, there was a fair amount of work.
The scope increased because the proper analysis weren’t done. All those attributed to delays in delivering capital projects on time and on budget.
We’re confident with the new planning initiative. Before we introduce it, we’re gathering the appropriate information. We would better able to define the scope of work and the critical cost estimates before they’re introduced in the GN five-year capital plan.
We believe that over time, this would be instrumental in reducing the capital carryovers going forward.
From discussions with the GNWT, they have implemented this similar concept and they have also indicated to us that there was a significant reduction in capital carryovers under their new capital planning process.
Before we continue, may I remind all members that if you’re working with any electronic devices, so if you have any electronics with you, cellphones or otherwise, turn them off.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you for your answer.
My next question is: what cost-cutting efforts has CGS done to make sure that projects are done in the most efficient way?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I prefer to defer that question to my deputy minister. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman: Deputy Minister Green.
In an effort to come up with options to find ways that we can reduce the cost of construction of some of our major capital projects, one of new concepts that we’re looking at introducing this new fiscal year is a concept called value management.
Basically what this concept allows us to do is sit down with client departments to look at ways that we can reduce the square-metre costs for some of our buildings and, basically, might look at the footprint of the building so that we can find other options to change the footprint without having an impact on the programs and services that are delivered under those new buildings.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, deputy minister.
Just as a follow-up to that question, sometimes I wonder why CGS doesn’t use the same architectural plans for similar projects, such as health centres or schools, as an example.
It seems to me that there’s always a new tender going out every time you do a health centre for plans, and I’m just wondering why that is.
I’ll defer that question to my official with your permission, (interpretation ends) to my deputy minister.
We are looking at the repeat design option to see if this would help reduce the cost of new buildings and infrastructure.
We have actually taken a couple of examples now where we use the repeat design for a couple of fire halls. We’re also looking at some opportunities. We’re certainly looking at some of the education and some of the health facilities to see if there’s an opportunity to use repeat designs to cut down on the architectural and engineering costs in the development of designs.
In addition to your earlier question, we’re also looking at trying to get our tender documents out to tender earlier in the calendar year to allow general contractors more time to prepare their tender bids for new construction contracts.
The later we push them to the sealift, the higher the risk that we place on the contractors when they’re trying to put all of their materials together for sealift.
That’s another initiative that we’re looking at as well, if we can get the tender documents out earlier in the year like January or February as opposed to March or April.
Ms. Angnakak: Just to go onto something else, the department’s proposed 2014-15 capital estimates include a budget of $2,867,000 for funding for building and equipment upgrades and replacement, and that’s under the small capital projects budget. However, the substantiation sheet does not indicate which projects would be allocated under this funding.
Can you provide a detailed breakdown of how this funding will be spent?
With your permission, Bu Lam can respond to the question.
Mr. Lam.
Mr. Lam: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank the member for her question.
Yes, the member is correct that we have allocated approximately $2,867,000 in our small capital budget for building and equipment upgrades and replacement.
These projects would include things such as facility renovations and upgrades.
There are oftentimes during the year where facility components could potentially break down, for instance, if a generator for a water station were to blow.
It’s very difficult to predict these specific instances, which is why we leave it fairly general for our small capital, but we do try our best to address any emergent issues in all 24 municipalities, which is why the allocation is set the way it is.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Lam.
It kind of leads me into the next one when we’re talking about water.
Over the last few years, a lot of communities have had trouble in regard to being not compliant with their water use licences, including Iqaluit.
What measures is CGS [taking] to work with hamlets and our city to address this problem?
I will refer this to my deputy minister.
At this point in time, we are working on developing work plans and compliance plans for five municipalities that are not in compliance with their water licence.
We have hired a consultant to help us to work with the municipalities to help them to address the non-compliance issues with their water licences. Once we develop a proper work plan and training support to the municipalities, we will roll that out to all municipalities across the territory.
At this point in time, with regard to the City of Iqaluit, we work with compliance plans with the city through their block funding agreement with Community and Government Services.
Ms. Angnakak: Just in line with talking about water and waste and all that, what is CGS doing to assist hamlets and our City of Iqaluit in addressing the growing amounts of plastics, batteries, and other toxic waste in our communities?
I will defer this question to my deputy minister.
Chairman: Deputy Minister, Mr. Green.
I didn’t get the question because I got it in Inuktitut through the translation.
Chairman: Mr. Green, are you requesting that the question be repeated? Is that your request?
That is my request.  Chairman: Your request is just about to be granted.