EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Why can’t we find out the issues first or would that be too difficult?
Minister Ell-Kanayuk.
The Motor Vehicles Division agrees with different jurisdictions in Nunavut and also in southern Canada that deal with such things.
For example, we would have an agreement and we already work through agreements with different regions whenever anyone is trying to get a driver’s licence using a different last name. People can try that. They would have a driver’s licence in one region, for example, in Ontario, that person could have one name, and then he or she would change his or her name and try to use the new name and get another driver’s licence.
If we had not known the first name, then we may have never known if their licence had been taken away at some point in the past. We need to know about those things.
For example, if I had a driver’s licence and I had broken the law and my licence was taken away at some point and then if we don’t come up with an agreement with another region, I can move to another region where we don’t have an agreement and be able to inappropriately get a new licence.
That’s why regions agree with other regions and other jurisdictions about these matters and it’s very important that we know those things.
Perhaps if I asked it in this way, it will become more understandable. I have no clue as to whom this department wishes to report to, to which departments or regions.
I have no clue as to whom you would report this to or if you would forward that personal information about me, such as when I apply for a driver’s licence.
However, I think you are pretty well aware of which body requesting the information would be provided with it.
Based on your experiences to date, I imagine you have contemplated it and a draft set-up to use examples.
In following the procedures, I believe it would be set up so that other jurisdictions would receive this information.
In following that process, wouldn’t it be easier to discuss these matters with the Information and Privacy Commissioner before this is implemented?
If we followed this protocol, would it make it easier?
That was my only question about holding prior discussions with the Information and Privacy Commissioner so that it is easier.
I imagine the department already has plans to that effect as to which departments would receive that information.
I’ll get my deputy minister to explain what other jurisdictions we would give the information to.
If these groups were to be included in the future, they would be involved and in this case, it would be acceptable as it wouldn’t be too hard.
However, we have to remember that once approval has been received, there would be more groups included.
To use an example, which bodies require this information? The RCMP is one that needs information on occasion, especially in conducting criminal record checks or if that person should be known by the police.
I believe that process is one I understand a little more and we are now having common understanding, especially in relation to the discussions.
I think I heard you will talk to the Information and Privacy Commissioner about your draft writings to ensure that there is no breach of my privacy.
If that is how I understand it, I have no further questions.
Since we’re under Transportation, I do want to go back to her opening comments regarding airports.
On page 1, for almost $60 million, I noted in the substantiation sheet that this project is a class “C.” So why, for $60 million, would this be a class “C” and not a class “A”?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, very much. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister Ell-Kanayuk.
I would like my finance official to come to the witness table, Mr. Chairman, Tanya Winmill.
Chairman: Does the committee agree for the official to enter the witness table?
Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) For the record, can you please introduce your official? Minister Ell-Kanayuk.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tanya Winmill is our Director of Finance and Administration. Also, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think she heard the question, so can the member repeat the question?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. Ms. Angnakak, please repeat your question.
Ms. Angnakak (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I was wondering, reading on page 1 of 6 of the opening comments, it says that “A significant portion of this budget contains funding” for the amount of $59 million plus for the Iqaluit International Airport Improvement Project.
When I look at the substantiation sheet for that amount of almost $60 million, it’s a class “C” and not a class “A.” I’m wondering why it would be a class “C.” For that amount of money, you would expect to have the plan a little clearer.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. The minister has already indicated that her official will respond.
I’ll have to look into that further, but I would say that’s an error.
It’s not class “C.” They’re done.
The design and everything is done, so it should be a class “A.” I will confirm that and get back to the member.
We look forward to hearing from you on that to confirm that it’s actually a higher class than “C.”
The other thing I noted in the substantiation sheets, when we talk about the Taloyoak Air Terminal Building, this is $3 million, I believe.
Anyhow, it’s a class “X.” I know that we have talked about this before in the House, that when departments are coming to us for money for their budgets, we really don’t like to see class “X” because that tells me that you probably don’t even have a design.
I was wondering, while perhaps Tanya Winmill is there, she can talk about why that would be a class “X.” Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Minister Ell-Kanayuk.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll ask our Finance and Administration Director, Ms. Winmill, to respond to that question.
I think it’s because a detailed project design wasn’t scheduled until the end of September.
This would have been, from my understanding, what Community and Government Services or a consultant provided us.
It’s just the first estimate of the cost of the air terminal buildings.
Once the final design comes in, the class will change.
Looking at the substantiation sheet, in prior years, this project was awarded $400,000 for design.
The $2 million right now, I believe, for 2016-17, it says it’s for construction, yet it’s class “X.” I really don’t understand that and I think we should get a better explanation.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the member for asking the question.
We will ask that question to finance and we will look into it.
Okay, we will have to wait for that explanation.
I know that this has been communicated to the finance minister several times that when we see projects come our way in the substantiation sheets that we have class estimates of “X,” it really makes us wonder, “What are we approving?”
I think all departments should be reminded.
About the Taloyoak air terminal, have you actually identified any other ATB projects across Nunavut? What’s next after Taloyoak?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I give this to my deputy minister, I’ll explain further on the RFP for the architectural and engineering design. For the engineering part, the RFP was sent out.
We expect that we will hear more in regard to that at the end of October.
I’ll ask my deputy minister to explain further on that. Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Suvega.
The airport buildings or (interpretation ends) air terminal buildings (interpretation) that move forward are based on a study within our departmental (interpretation ends) 20-year capital needs assessment. (interpretation) However, this is just a study we use to review each case for the capital plans and projects.
Through the review, the projects move forward to capital plans in the future as we are still trying to finalize our areas we study as to which facility requires replacement.
In looking at the situation now, it is hard to tell as there will be other projects that need to be undertaken, as the majority of the air terminal buildings are antiquated.
Have you done an analysis on ATBs throughout Nunavut?
Except perhaps Arctic Bay, I know they just got a new one, how many ATBs do you think over the next couple of years are really going to need to be looked at to be replaced?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. Minister Ell-Kanayuk.
I don’t have the information in front of me as to where we are going, so I will ask Deputy Minister Suvega to respond.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. Mr. Suvega.
Mr. Suvega (interpretation): Yes, it is almost impossible to respond to that question.
What I can state is that airport facilities, such as the airstrips and airport terminal buildings, and other resources are important to the department.
They are our only means of travelling to and from the communities.
What I can state at this time is that in analyzing the various buildings such as the age factors and which buildings need to be constructed first or alternatively, the buildings that are facing safety issues, those would be prioritized when being placed in the future plans.
That was going to be my last question, but something has come up.
Your department’s 2015-18 business plan indicates that the 20-year capital needs assessment for Nunavut airports has been completed, and it was going to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly, which we haven’t seen yet, I don’t think.
On June 1, 2015, the minister stated in the Legislative Assembly that “The 20-year capital needs assessment is complex” and that your department “will be looking at this again in the fall…”
As of today, what is the status of your department’s 20-year capital needs assessment for Nunavut airports?
I think ATBs would perhaps be included in that assessment.
I have a little bit of information in front of me here, but I have more information at my other desk.
For capital projects, I don’t have a copy of that, but I can try and respond to you from memory.
We haven’t made any plans in the 20-year capital needs assessment.
It would have to be approved by cabinet. At this time, we’re working on how we can move ahead with some of them.
This hasn’t been completed yet.
Ms. Angnakak is done.
Before we proceed to another member for questions, we will take a five-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 17:07 and resumed at 17:18
We will continue with our meeting.
I just have a supplement to make.
When Ms. Angnakak was asking a question, I heard the response, but I recall having asked in the past about which communities were being considered for air terminal buildings.
I asked the minister before and I don’t exactly recall who it was at the time, but three communities were identified when they responded to my question.
I know the Naujaat Air Terminal Building was one of them and I don’t quite recall the other two, but I think one of them was for Gjoa Haven. Are there any specific air terminal buildings that they are planning or where one is needed?
She said that there was no decision, but I recall quite clearly last year that they identified three communities. Are those communities not on the list anymore?
He asked about air terminal buildings in the communities. Is that about equipment in the building? Can you specify that more clearly?
Please clarify your question. Mr. Mapsalak.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): There is something written here about an air terminal building for Taloyoak and it has been allocated $2 million.
I asked before which communities they were looking at prioritizing for air terminal buildings.
They identified three communities to me before. I remember clearly that Naujaat was one of them.
Don’t you have that list anymore?
I seem to have heard that you still haven’t identified which community airports will get new air terminal buildings.
Maybe that’s clearer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Naujaat’s air terminal building was built in 1981.
The Chesterfield Inlet Air Terminal Building was built in 1984. Whale Cove, Taloyoak, and Kimmirut are being looked at, but to date, we have not decided how we will proceed. All of them need work.
I’ll let my deputy minister respond to that more clearly.
We have tried to identify which buildings will be replaced, but before they’re studied or identified, we cannot respond to that definitively.
With respect to the communities identified in our future plans to determine which terminal buildings need replacement or new facilities, we base our decisions on the review of terminal buildings or other airport-related matters.
We’re reviewing these issues as part of the capital estimates approvals. When projects aren’t approved, it can lead to safety issues. We try to identify which facilities are the priority, but it is mainly just a review of the plans.
I have stated before that there are just over 1,000 people living in Naujaat now and the terminal building is extremely small.
I have stated that some people have to wait outside if they’re leaving the community because the terminal building is too full. I have stated in the past that even the residents of the community ask, “When do we get a new terminal building?” They have to wait outside even in the wintertime.
I would like them to be aware of that.
Moving along, I have also asked this question before. We have to approve the money set aside for Iqaluit on an annual basis. I recall very clearly that I asked about the funding that is allocated for the terminal building that is being built in Iqaluit.
I asked if they would not be spending more than $30 million and they said yes, but I know that they have added some more funding to that. Right now, they have requested almost $60 million.
How long will funding be provided? Is it until the day it’s finished or is more funding going to be made available even after it is finished?
Will they be providing this much funding or is there a limit to how many millions have to be allocated?
First of all, I will answer that many of the terminal buildings in Nunavut are old, more than 25 years, and we’re aware that they need improvements or replacement. Right now, they’re being reviewed by our staff as to which terminal buildings can go ahead so we can move forward.
There are many buildings and we would have to request funding; some of it from the federal government.
Once we start planning for these projects, we want to start working on many projects with the Canadian government.
I would like to say that the Iqaluit airport project does not affect any other projects that need to be done.
For the amount of funding that he asked about, I’ll have the finance person, Ms. Winmill, respond to that question.
Before I pass it along, our first priority is the safety of people.
That is the first thing that should be looked at as to whether there are safety concerns.
I’ll pass it over to Ms. Winmill to answer part of the question.
The allocation for the airport project we’re requesting is almost $60 million this year and then next year, it’s $48 million. That’s for the construction of the air terminal building, the combined services building, the updated lighting, and the runaway repairs.
Going forward after that, as part of the contract over the 34 plus years that AILP has the contract to operate and maintain the airport, is the scheduled rehab to be done throughout it because when they turn back the airport after 34 years, everything needs to be in a certain condition.
We have guaranteed that condition through this project throughout the 34 plus years or 35 years.
There is rehab to be done on it, but the bulk of the money is finished with the appropriation in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
I hope that answers what you’re asking.
In the response the minister gave about the terminal building in Iqaluit, before I talked about that, she stated that safety concerns are addressed first for terminal buildings in the communities.
In my view, there are safety concerns when people have to wait outside in the winter.
Exactly how much is the government going to spend for the project in Iqaluit?
I asked that question too.
What is the limit of the funding that will be allocated for the construction? What is the limit of the funding that will be made available for this project?
This is a financial matter, so I would like Ms. Winmill to respond to that.
The cost of the project, if I remember correctly, is $285 million and then we get funding from P3 Canada. I can’t remember what the final number was. The financial quote was somewhere around $70 million and that is then it for the construction for this part of the project.
Going forward, it is a 30-year contract and there are costs after the initial one going forward.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. Mr. Mapsalak.
I understand it is just under $300 million and they will not spend more than that and not exceed that number.
We have stated over and over again that the project is going ahead properly, it is within budget, and it is on schedule.
Today, that is the same situation; they’re caught up on the project.
I cannot see into the future and I cannot state that we will spend more than that.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, I suppose that it is limited.
Any capital project has a set budget and funds specific to the construction costs.
However, I just heard earlier that the government will provide further funding over 34 years.
We have no idea how much it would accrue over that period.
For this capital funding over the 34-year time period, will this be funded entirely from the capital funding?
I refer to the 34-year lifespan that was alluded to as having to be from the capital funds.
Yes, it is through an agreement and the agreement indicates exactly how much is going to be set aside every year for 35 years.
I will have Ms. Winmill respond to that question.
There are many components and this agreement is very complex.
There will be a repay back because the private partner is financing part of this project on our behalf, so we’re paying that back over 30 years. That’s a component on top of it.
The price for the construction comes in at $285 million and we pay back a portion of that over 30 years because they financed it for us, as well as we’re paying them a stream of funding monthly to operate and maintain the airport, and then there are components also to do work and to rehabilitate mostly runway work throughout the 30 years.
There are different components in the contract.
It’s not just to do the initial build of the ATB, the CSB, and the runway and lighting. There’s also an operations and maintenance component to it, as well as the payback of the debt.
I didn’t hear a response to the question.
This money will be coming from the Nunavut government to be used for the airport improvements.
Will the money that is coming from the Nunavut government be coming out of the capital budget and will this money always come from the capital estimates for 35 years?
Are these monies always going to be from here or not?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Yes, it will come from the capital estimates, but there are also the O&M costs that are not coming from this line item.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): I wanted that response and thank you.
We have these monies that will be used for the international airport improvements. Is there going to be a pot of money set aside for the Iqaluit airport every year for 35 years and is it going to be around $59 million to $60 million?
I’m sure that will go up to $1 billion some time along the way.
That’s the understanding I got.
I know that we do need an air terminal in Iqaluit, but we have to pay for it for 35 years or so.
Do I understand that before the improvement is completed, we might not see another air terminal being built in the other Nunavut communities?
I have been saying repeatedly that the air terminal in Iqaluit is not going to have an effect on the building of infrastructure or air terminals in the other Nunavut communities.
If that was the case, we wouldn’t even be considering Taloyoak.
Taloyoak is also included here and we will be looking at having it approved by the Legislative Assembly.
We wouldn’t even be seeing Taloyoak if the building of the Iqaluit air terminal had an effect.
Mr. Chairman, it’s going to be constructed in three years.
We are at the second year and the third year is going to be the final year.
At the completion, we will see a gradual decrease in the amount of funding in the later years.
Yes, we will see an eventual decrease over the years.
Following the list of names, we are on (interpretation ends) Economic Development and Transportation.
Branch Summary. Transportation. K-3.
I just want to go back a bit again to Ms. Angnakak’s question about the 20-year capital needs assessment for Nunavut airports.
In the 2015-18 business plan, you stated that it was complete, but you haven’t tabled it.
Mr. Suvega also said that they’ve got to talk with other departments and Finance before it’s tabled.
I don’t understand why it’s so hard to table and publish it because there is no funding attached to this airport needs assessment.
I don’t see it any different than if the housing corporation does a housing needs assessment. They just tell you what you need. They’re not asking for any money.
They’re just telling you, “Okay, these are the priorities of houses.
This is the needs of Nunavut for housing,” if housing did one.
This is the Nunavut airport needs study. It’s just telling you that these communities need airports.
This is the need. There is no money involved. It’s just a needs assessment study.
I’m having a hard time [understanding] why it’s so hard to table it if it’s finished.
It was finished back in June, I believe.
I will just ask the minister: what is the problem to table a document that has no financial strings attached to it?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back then, that’s how I thought too before I started reading the capital needs assessment.
Unfortunately, it came to us with dollars attached to it. That seems to have become a problem.
We do not want to break any capital process.
We are still internally working with other departments to address how it fits in the GN capital process or how it does not fit into the GN capital process.
I have asked my department to look at the document again and whether or not we should just completely take out the dollars from the document because I am committed to tabling it and we need to find a solution on how I can get it to the members.
I think that what she suggests about taking the dollar figures out and tabling it will be just fine because it would have to go through the capital process anyway, and then we could look at the dollar figures.
I think most members just want to know what the needs are with Nunavut airport buildings and runways or whatever all this assessment study does.
I would encourage the minister to do that.
At the current time, we would just like to see what is needed, not on how much it would cost to fix to the problem.
We can deal with the financial part of it when it goes through the five-year capital plan.
We don’t want to see the Government of Nunavut’s overall capital plan being hijacked by one study.
We just want to know what’s needed. Does Gjoa Haven need it really badly? Does Repulse Bay?
Does Arviat? We would like to know what is needed. That’s just a comment on that.
To go on a different matter now, my counterpart, Mr. Enook, talked about MVIS a little bit too and I would just like to go back to talking about that. You have asked for $500,000 to complete it.
In your opening comments, you also stated that after the RFP, you realized that it is going to cost more than what you budgeted.
If the $500,000 is not enough for the project, what is a figure that will be enough?
I don’t think I can exactly say how much it will cost in the end.
We have an idea, but until we go though this budgeting process that we’re currently under, and we also have to go back to the preferred proponent to see if we cannot communicate with them on how we can reduce our costs, we don’t exactly know what the actual end amount will be at this time.
Back in 2014-15, $2.8 million was allocated for MVIS and then in 2015-16, there is $1.2 million allocated, which comes out to $4 million.