EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Some rooms for instance have negative and positive pressure, depending on the use of the room. So, in designing any building like that, in designing it for a northern environment, it’s not out of the ordinary at all to have 10 percent change orders required.
When they’re developing the budget for a prorogued facility or any project like that I guess, then would it be safe to say that they are basically contingency, which are what these are, things that you are going to come up, that you’re not expected to have an extra... you’re planning, you say, you can plan on 10 percent, that basically, then on all these projects there is a 10 percent contingency for things like this? Is that correct?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, my colleague is right.
That’s the case.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Minister. Mr. Tootoo.
I thank the minister and her staff for providing that information.
He’d indicated that there is a list out there. I’m just wondering if you could provide that list to us, with the cost values for each one.
Again, I don’t need it today, but it would be nice to see.
Also, this is just a comment and I look forward to asking the minister at some point during question period on getting the content of that project.
Like, how much of it was under NNI for Inuit, local, northern and other... you know, where, out of all that, where did our money go?
To see if it actually went to where it was supposed to.
I look forward to asking that question to the minister in question period.
I’d like to see the information on the change orders too.
That was more of a comment. Madame Minister.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Yes, we could provide that information that the member is asking for. We’ll have that made available.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Minister. Mr. Tootoo, are you finished? Thank you.
Mr. Curley: Yes, just for the record, Madame Minister, or deputy, I did raise a question on these with the committee members during the standing committee.
If review of the estimates, we compared the mobile equipment allowance from last year, which was only $430,000, it had increased to $1.660 million, this year.
Could you just maybe explain as to why the mobile equipment has been reinstated back in to this year, with significant increases?
May I ask Mr. Sitland to answer that please?
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Sitland.
Mobile equipment for our communities is an essential item for them to clear snow from roads to maintain access to public buildings, etcetera.
Every community requires it, every piece of equipment has a limited life, and historically, we have been far behind in replacing that equipment in accordance with its standard lifespan. So, for example, we say a typical loader lasts 12 years, so you have to replace every community’s loader every 12 years.
We haven’t been able to do that in the past and that’s why we identified a mobile equipment repair program for each regional office to put a bandage, if you will, on those pieces of equipment that are falling behind.
We also recognize that you can only defer things so long before you need to replace them. So, a lot of the heavy equipment is really just a lifecycle replacement of those pieces of equipment that are beyond their useful life.
Yes, I appreciate the response.
Just for the record, I know some of the communities appreciate it, like Rankin Inlet had desperately been calling to move the loader because the new dump site will now be significantly longer matured than the old one.
So, that’s a welcome sign and we appreciate your responding to the request of the municipality.
I do have one question, though, with respect to the purchasing of the small vehicles, particularly, the small mobile pick-up trucks and that kind of servicing truck.
Exactly how does the procurement process apply as to where and who do we send it out to; how is it done so that the contractors can respond to you?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Madame Minister.
The member points out a good point about the new dump site in Rankin Inlet and about the equipment. The question that he’s asking: it’s done through public tender.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Minister. (interpretation ends) Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: The reason I asked that question...we know that, but exactly who does it go to?
Where is it sent to? Does it go out to certified dealers or just registered with an NNI as an agent for someone because there have been some concerns with respect to honouring warranties and guarantees that they repair the requirements of those mobile equipment, particularly the trucks and smaller vehicles.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to your question, we try to use the tendering process. Also, I will have Mr. Sitland to supplement my response.
Chairman: Thank you, Madame Minister. Mr. Sitland.
It’s a public tendering process, so we post ads in papers if the government purchases these pieces of equipment. So, we do post them in all of the relevant northern papers. If it’s a large, bulk order, we may advertise in other locations.
I also do believe that we send it to those companies that typically have been awarded the purchase of vehicles in the past because we know that they would likely be interested in bidding again. We don’t limit to who we send to.
I guess that’s it.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the response.
I don’t know whether CGS have received any complaints from some municipalities, but certainly, I have heard legitimate problems that there are now too many, what I would call, middlemen acting on behalf of the dealers down South, who register with NNI, who are actually just construction companies, and they have no certified licenses for maintenance, or repair work, or carrying out warranty on behalf of a dealer.
Now is it possible to turn them down and actually abide by sound procurement practices and get actually value for our money but not to take away the legitimate northern businesses who provide maintenance and warranty services who do have warranty services agreements with the manufacturers and really do cross reference checks properly so that our municipalities are not hung out to dry and actually get their equipments working if there is a manufacturing problem.
In particular last year in one community I can provide that to the deputy minister but I don’t want to release it in here.
I will have my Deputy Tom Rich.
Mr. Rich: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have not heard any specific complaints about it. I have heard of it a couple of years ago.
I have heard about that. The member is quite right in what I call a delicate balance between honouring and encouraging the NNI and the development of local companies and the local expertise on a specific subject. So we don’t really want to rule out legitimate valid local dealers who are now doing that service.
In the specifications and requirements under the tender we do have an opportunity to make sure and we encourage people in their specifications to list all of those requirements that are critical requirements. And having access to warranty services is typically in our requirements for vehicles that we advertise ourselves and we require them to be a certified licensed dealer where it is licensed by a particular manufacturer to avoid that problem.
If it is something that is purchased by the Hamlets in their own tenders, for example a pick-up truck or 4X4, that is something we don’t have any control over what they purchase but we will certainly give them recommendations if they call us and we’ve had times we’ve assisted them in developing their own specifications for equipment.
I appreciate the response. I think Community and Government Services must at least provide advice to the community whether they are solicited or not because there is guarantee that might become significant to the municipality who don’t really have additional funding capacity or abilities to access any free market funding for their equipment. I want to say this because there has been tremendous misunderstanding not only by individuals in respect to NNI policy.
I think some contractors not Inuit are complaining that it is too costly to do business so they just discredited NNI policy outright whether it is any good or not. I think to try and address that by disapproving those orders where the contractors say they are mobile or transportation agents. I am not sure if this is a sound procurement management practice.
Where I am coming from in this is where Article 24 in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is I think is a very well worded policy. Policy it is, but not a detailed management document and the management side is the responsibility of your department as well as the other side the Government of Nunavut department.
I really truly believe the problem lies with the managers of the contracting agents in the government. They interpret them too loosely and some locations are rubber stamping who is saying they are agent for someone or without credentials.
That can really backfire on the government and I have personally tried to be very cautious how I respond to the complaints of the NNI.
Because in short I do support the NNI policy and I believe there are too many loopholes, too many loose provisions in there that could give the impression at the southern manufacturer that they are actual service agents for major manufacturers.
So, I just want to caution you. Would you be prepared to maybe prepared to ask your officials to maybe do a little more diligence in reviewing businesses contracting groups and so on and as well as suppliers.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Yes, what you’re saying is very true. (interpretation ends) To register under NNI, it requires consultation between Economic Development and Transportation and NNI.
Of course, our Department, Community and Government Services will bring this up with the NNI monitoring committee.
(interpretation) Yes, I will be pushing for this.
We’re on J-7. (interpretation ends) Grants and contributions.
Kivalliq Region. Total Kivalliq Region, $372,000.
Chairman (interpretation): We’ll go onto page J-8. (interpretation ends) Total Kitikmeot Region, Mr. Peterson.
Could the minister expand a little bit on what the regional block funding will be used for in the Kitikmeot Region, the $288,000?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, I could try.
Under block funding for the Kitikmeot region, they have various... the total amount is divided among the hamlets in the region. It is paid directly to them. It replaces older programs of separate projects, funding for roads, sidewalks, site development, and play spaces, guided by standards and criteria, but basically administered by the hamlets themselves.
And, Mr. Chairman, it also provides for extraordinary repair of qualifying hamlet fleet units. That’s under mobile.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Minister. Mr. Peterson.
I thank the minister for that answer. We have five communities in the Kitikmeot Region, but we also have two other communities that I represent, Umingmaktok and Bathurst Inlet.
Is there any money through Community and Government Services for those two communities?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) For Cambridge Bay, $56,000, and Kugaaruk, $33,000, Taloyoak, $46,000, Gjoa Haven, $49,000, Kugluktuk, $54,000, Grise Fjord, $19,000 Resolute Bay, $21,000. Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay have been moved from the Baffin Region block funding project.
Again, is there any funding available for the other two communities in the Kitikmeot Region? The communities are actually in the Kitikmeot Region, Umingmaktok, and Bathurst Inlet.
No. The block funding is only for the original communities.
How would those two communities access funding for their community needs? if, in fact, your department is Community and Government Services.
Could I have the deputy minister respond to that question, please?
Our capital funding approval out of the total umbrella is, by and large, restricted to incorporated communities and the two communities that you are referring to are not incorporated communities.
They fall under an outpost, or might fall under an outpost camp designation, which the Department of Environment looks after, as opposed to us.
There might be from time to time special funding approved by FMB for those communities, but they don’t fall under the regular Community and Government services funding formula.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rich, and Ms. Minister.
That always confuses me because the two communities have fairly sizable populations. Umingmaktok has a school; they have a Hunters’ and Trappers’ organization building; they have a store; they have kind of a health centre; they have an airstrip; they have maybe ten houses that are occupied, another eight that are unoccupied; they basically have everything that community has, and yet some people call it an outpost camp. They are not an incorporated community, but I think they have community-type needs.
I know that the Housing Corporation provides services in terms of repairing their houses. Your department provides fuel services. You also have a tank farm down there, and barge delivery every year.
I am wondering how we could help those communities with their community needs.
I appreciate what you said about the Department of Environment. Their budget for outpost camps in the Kitikmeot is $50,000 per year and to me these are a little bit bigger than, probably, a typical outpost camp. They are more like small communities and they have year round populations.
I am wondering if the minister can comment on how the Community and Government Services, or the government, overall, can help the folks down there with their community requirements.
Thank you, for that member.
They have a seasonal population for many people in their community.
Environment is how we fund seasonal funding requests. (interpretation) I can ask my deputy to supplement my response.
I respectfully disagree on that.
They don’t have a seasonal population; they have a full time, year round population; there are elders; families; youths; and infants living in these communities. They live and work there. Particularly, in Umingmaktok, I think there are close to 20 people there and over in Bathurst Inlet there are ten.
I know that Bathurst Inlet is always confused with the Bathurst Inlet Lodge. The Lodge is operational three weeks in the year but the population lives there year round. Your department re-supplies it with fuel on an annual basis, so it is not a seasonal population; they live there year round.
To complicate things, if they were forced to move from those two communities to Cambridge Bay, that will put a very serious dent in our available housing. We have already had 50 people on the housing list. So, all those people live there that require houses, we would need another 15 to 20 houses.
They would like to continue to live in their communities and they need some community support on this.
I know the definition of outpost camp, but that doesn’t really describe what’s down there. I know you say that it helps incorporated communities, but I think these are communities that also need help and I don’t think they are quite outpost camps and they are not incorporated communities.
So, I am wondering, again, Mr. Chairman, how could the Department of Community and Government Services help the two communities down there?
I have never been there, so I’m just going by the stats that are provided to us and if I ever stayed there, I think I would agree with the member that it’s not a seasonal population, however, I take that back if I’m mistaken.
We have worked with the Environment Department; I guess as it stands now, I think the Department of Environment will be looking after that area until they become incorporated.
I just want to clarify that we don’t have a quorum at this time.
We will wait a few moments.
Thank you, Mr. Mapsalak.
I thank the minister for her comment. I don’t think they are going to ever become incorporated communities because they are just not large enough, but they are communities in the minds of the folks down there in the Kitikmeot.
So, I don’t know how to get around that mindset, but the Kitikmeot Inuit Association even has a board member from down there; every community has a board member. Because of that, KIA considers them as communities as well. I hope your staff will take a serious look at it.
I have no more questions on that page. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. That was not a question. We are on J-8. (interpretation ends) Grants and Contribution.
Kitikmeot Region. Total Kitikmeot Region. $398,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Grants and Contribution. $5,273,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Turn to page J-9.
Capital. Planning and Technical Services.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could the minister describe what the geomatics is for? I think there’s $175,000.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) It’s for aerial photography; it’s critical to undertaking community planning and zoning. Primarily, it’s for investigation and providing visual references in the event of emergencies.
Capital standards and criteria call for the updating of community photographs every five years.
But, to date, only one community, which is Iqaluit, has been updated. This program is to establish baseline data and infrastructure to begin implementation of a satellite program for the future.
As I understand it then, this $175,000 is to upgrade geomatics for the other communities in Nunavut?
Is that funding adequate for the work, or is that just some communities this year, and then they’ll do some more next year and so on and so forth?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, that’s correct, it’s ongoing.
Could the minister tell us which communities are scheduled to have their geomatics updated in the next fiscal year?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the Kitikmeot area, they would be dealt with in 2006-07, and the $700,000 would be used for the Kitikmeot area.
On the same page, the Quarry Management Program, $467,000, could the minister tell the House what that is for?
Yes, I’ll attempt do that.
It’s for granular materials vital to many hamlet operations, including land development, capital construction, road maintenance, and solid waste management.
Many hamlets have inadequate sources and equipment and resources to meet this need. The revolving granular fund, which addresses needs by costly blasting and crushing, has ended.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Mr. Peterson.
Could the minister tell me which communities in the Kitikmeot Region are going to participate in the Quarry Management Program?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll let Mr. Sitland respond to your question at this time.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Sitland.
At this point in time, we haven’t addressed community specific needs.
This is an initial program to look at a new way of managing granular resources in a fair and equitable manner across the territory.
In the Kitikmeot region, in particular, we are aware of at least three problem communities being; Taloyoak, Kugaaruk and Kugluktuk.
Those are three problem communities, but there are many others across the territory.
What we want to do is have a common approach to managing granular resources in all communities.
It is a multifaceted approach and this money is really to get us going on that approach and find a way to do it.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Sitland.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Sitland and Minister.
Could Mr. Sitland perhaps expand on what he means when he refers to them as problem communities?
Just give me a sense; I guess your granular resources are running out. Does that impact community development or what is the lifespan of the reserves?
Could he give us that kind of information?
On the previous page we just actually just approved something that is called granular studies. What that is, is small planning studies in individual communities and in the Kitikmeot there are small studies.
In the case of Kugluktuk in the Kitikmeot region, gravel is obtained in a place called Seven Mile Island and they have to actually do a winter haul of gravel in the winter which is more expensive. There is an adequate supply there but of course you can only do it in the winter time so it is difficult to get.
In the communities of Taloyoak and Kugaaruk there are very limited supplies. As the Minister has indicated that the granular material or the lack of supply have a negative impact in land development and infrastructure development, management of solid waste disposal facilities and all of these things.
So the lack of granular resources is impeding those and that is why it is a priority for the department to begin work on it.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Sitland.
Are there other Nunavut communities whose immediate granular supplies run out where it affects their community development.
I will get Mr. Sitland to answer that question.
In Nunavut there are a few communities in which there are very critical needs for infrastructure in granular. It is always possible to generate granular materials through a drill blast for operations. You drill into rock and you explode it and you create gravel but it is a very expensive process and so it means it is more difficult to get granular products.
But the communities that I characterize as critical need and this is not in order of need but geographically; Kugaaruk and Taloyoak in the Kitikmeot region, Repulse Bay in Kivalliq region and in the Baffin region Kimmirut and Clyde River.
I have a question under J-9 in regards to the $167,000 set aside for the quarry management program. The airstrip in Chesterfield Inlet, well it used to be gravel but they are putting the size of small rocks there now.
It is no longer gravel. Does it qualify to access money from this?
Dealing with Chesterfield Inlet there is a problem with gravel or granular material. We recently I believe started construction of an access road to Checkers Lake and we believe there is a site for granular out there which will address the on-going need for the community.
In the case of airports they have a specific requirement for high quality gravel so they usually have to do something to the gravel to improve it. So they have over and above need for gravel sources.
As part of our overall work for gravel we are going to work with the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to ensure that we have a common approach on granular requirements for departments and with communities.
And I would like to thank Mr. Sitland.
As I stated earlier, the airstrip’s condition in Chesterfield Inlet is eroding. We have to work on it as soon as we can.
I would like you to take that into consideration and consider Chesterfield Inlet as one of the priorities. Could we do that?
I would like to thank the member representing Chesterfield Inlet, where I used to live.
I believe that is under the responsibility of Economic Development and Transportation when it refers to the airstrip.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Mr. Sitland stated that he will work closely with the Department of Economic Development and Transportation in regards to granular requirements.
Are you going to be doing that as soon as you can in order to rectify the problem of the Chesterfield Inlet runway?
We will then look forward to something happening on the airstrip in Chesterfield Inlet.
We are on page J-9. (interpretation ends) Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $342,000. Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Moving onto J-10 and J-11.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page J-11, I would like to make reference to an issue on page J-11.
I would first of all like to welcome the minister and her officials. We all know that our Speaker cannot participate when we are in Committee of the Whole, which is a parliamentary procedure and he cannot take part in the debate.