EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
After a certain length of those, like fifteen years for that lease and now it is going to be a twenty four year lease, after this last renewal.
This is twenty four years of locking up the market place for such infrastructure.
You talk about wanting need to develop more infrastructures in the community and people know that a year or two ahead of time, with this process that you guys have outlined over the last week, you know far enough ahead of time whether you want to look at something or not.
Even as a preliminary thing it might be five years prior to a lease coming due, just during an RFP out there to see what you get.
You may get the same thing.
You may not choose anything.
You may choose to renew.
At least one year you are not crippling opportunity for other entrepreneurs, or people in the community to have a crack of providing or developing some infrastructure for the government.
I just know as my former colleague from Baker Lake would say, it is no secret that there is a desperate need of infrastructure throughout the territory.
If someone builds something and there is something else existing already there, I am sure that it probably wouldn’t be too hard for them to try and find another alternative use for it.
I am just wondering if that would be something that you can look at considering doing, instead of for twenty four years in this particular case, monopolizing the market with one who will handle it.
The leases that this government has entered into or as you know, a lot of them have been open for a long time, and we have looked at different factors that we feel really should be considered.
Just to highlight a couple, Mr. Chairman, we are also looking at shorter-term leases and also to allow more competitive prices in the community levels, we are looking to do as many of these as we possibly can for those leases expired or there may be more than one facility in that community.
But again, in communities that don’t have the infrastructure, as my colleague indicated, a lot of our communities do lack the infrastructure and it will be hard to get away from leases where no other facilities may exist for space needed.
So we are looking at a number of things to improve and also to listen to the concerns that have been expressed to us on these leases.
I would like to remind Members to make sure that you look around before you leave, if you are planning to leave because I know that you have a lot of work to do as well; we have a lot to finish here.
In light of the comment that I made last week on the work done ahead of time and looking at different options on contracts, I am going to go through in no particular order, I guess, on this, but there’s one, see if they were numbered, too, it would be really good and we could both say we are looking at number 27.
Anyways, on the second handout that we got with the expiry dates, there’s one there for Sand Leasing, I think it’s the third one with the 2008 expiry date; the five-year lease, $151 thousand roughly in Rankin Inlet.
I am just wondering what that one is for.
And also, you mentioned earlier, like all of these other ones, that there are a few 20-year leases with the renewal options’ clauses in there.
Does that one also have renewal clauses and what, if any, work has been done to look at different options, whether they are going to go with renewing or not or whatever in that particular case?
The lease, for Sand Leasing, that’s for the Rockland building in Rankin Inlet, which houses the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
That lease goes until January 31, 2005.
So as far as I am aware, there are no renewal clauses on that but again I would have to check that and get back to the Minister.
I look forward to the Minister providing us with that information.
I’m going to go down the line there.
The next one is again this year, 2005.
It’s expiring this year.
It was a five year lease and I’m wondering which building that is and if the decision has been made on what to do with that one.
That office was with Health and Social Services.
That is in over hold until June and that lease will be terminated at that time.
Over hold is basically a month to month, as you pay the rent term.
Once the health facility is ready and the staff can move out of that building, that lease will be terminated.
I’m just going down the line.
I’m starting off in Rankin Inlet because I was on that page and I’m familiar with what the buildings are there and I’m going to get up to the other ones as we go along.
I’m not picking on anyone individually.
The next one on there expires next year or in 2007.
I’m just wondering which building that is and what the plans are with that.
I’m just trying to get a hold of the information here.
Yes, that is the Sharp building in Rankin Inlet.
That’s used by the Department of Justice and yes, the expiry date is in 2007.
We will be looking at what we’re planning to do with that.
So, nothing has been started on that one.
Nothing has been done with that at this point.
I’m not sure how much space that is.
As you can tell by the price, it’s probably not a lot of space.
So, we will be looking at perhaps keeping that or putting out a Request for Proposal for that or possibly moving the staff from there to somewhere else.
We’re still currently looking at that one.
I’ll go down two or three more at another Sand Leasing one, five year, 2005, $102 thousand 500 a year.
I’m just wondering which building that is and if it’s expiring this year or if you could tell us what the status is.
That Sand Leasing is the Siniktarvik Building in Rankin Inlet, currently with the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
We have an request for proposal going out as soon as I can finish it but it will be the month May, so that will be this month to look for the public’s input and whether or not there is other available space of the same size.
I think this is expanding a bit, this division here, so that will be going out this spring.
Is that the building that is down by the power plant?
I don’t know if Mr. Clark is familiar with that area in Rankin Inlet or not.
I am just wondering if that is it.
I am pretty sure that that has been more than a five year contract.
I used to work in that building when I worked for the Department of Economic Development and Tourism in the Northwest Territories.
So I am just wondering if that is that building or not.
The Siniktarvik building as I understand it, I have not spent a lot of time in Rankin Inlet, but the Siniktarvik building is right in the middle of town.
That is the hotel isn’t it?
I am mistaken about which building that is.
Mr. Tootoo is more familiar with Rankin Inlet than I am, obviously.
I just know it’s the Siniktarvik building.
I know that we have an RFP out for other office space there.
For the Members please use the Chairman to ask questions for the benefit of our interpreters.
I apologize to you and the interpreters for that.
For someone from Rankin Inlet I know that the Siniktarvik building and the Siniktarvik Hotel, they are not the same, but if someone is not familiar with it I can see how they get confused.
I am pretty sure that that building is the old Economic Development and Tourism building because I worked upstairs in that building when I worked there about ten years ago.
I am just wondering why someone told us that it is only a five year lease and the government has been in that building forever.
I don’t believe that it’s a five year lease, I just believe that it indicates that it’s a five year term of the lease.
It has been there that long, I am sure that is probably one of the final terms of the renewal.
Your time is up, Mr. Tootoo, and I don’t have anybody else on the list.
I want to go to page one.
I know that there are a number of leases that are expiring in 2005.
This is the same process.
We have identified a building and ask to get an update from the Minister, or Mr. Clark, as to where the government is with respect to leasing.
In Iqaluit the Midnight Sun Management, it is a two year lease, expiring in 2005.
Could the Minister or Mr. Rich, or Mr. Clark identify the building and what the current status is of the lease?
If I am on the right one, it is the warehouse space for the EMO, which is ending November 20, 2005.
Is that the right one? Mr. Chairman?
I’m not sure if the Minister is asking me a question but Midnight Sun Management, three years, 2005, $24 thousand.
It’s here in Iqaluit.
I’ll refer that to Mr. Clark.
Yes, this lease expires on November 30, 2005. we’re evaluating whether EMO needs this space.
That’s what it was for.
It is the small part of a warehouse area out on the road to the federal building on the left hand side of the road there.
I can’t remember the number off hand but it’s just a storage area for the emergency measures organization.
This lease was taken out three years ago when we were a different department.
We’re evaluating whether that is still required or not and that is where it sits today.
Continuing down the page to the next one.
It expires this year.
It’s in Iqaluit.
It’s Nunasi Corporation.
It’s a five year lease expiring this year in the amount of $466,897 dollars annually.
Can we get an idea of what that building is for and what the status of the lease of is.
That building is the court house building here in Iqaluit which houses court services and so on.
The lease expires at the end of this year.
I don’t believe there is a renewal term on that but the plans are that the new court house will take the staff that are in that building and the lease will be terminated, depending.
We’ll be looking at that.
We are looking at that but the plans are to move the staff from there to the new court house building in Iqaluit.
Further down the page in Iqaluit, Coman Arctic Limited, it’s a five year lease expiring 2005 for $121,842.
Could Mr. Clark or the Minister tell us what that building is used for and what the current status of the lease is.
This building is the public health building which has been with us for a number of years.
In actual fact, since this document was printed and we had our first from this lease, we had one final five year option on it which has been taken and that expires now in 2009.
That building looks after the needs of Health and Social Services and a number of their programs that they operate from there.
That is what is in that building.
This is good information that you guys are giving us.
That’s the kind of information that we would like in our next report.
Further down the page, Kugluktuk, Mulco Limited.
It’s a two year lease, and it expires in 2005, $26,000 annually.
Could you give us an update on that lease and what that building is?
That building is actually just an office building in Kugluktuk, that is actually owned by a company now called HTR Transport.
Again, this was taken at the request of the Department of Justice.
There is a shortage of office space in Kugluktuk.
We will be looking into whether the Department of Justice needs more space or we will continue with this.
We will be looking at that over the period of the rest of this until that term is up on the that lease, it is a very small office.
That was the end of my line of questioning on leases.
I guess my colleague and I kept going.
One thing that Mr. Clark had indicated that that one lease, and I further remember that the Siniktarvik building, I helped build that building when I was 15 years old.
So I have checked the structural work on that one, I know there were guys that were doing some of the hammering there.
I remember breaking one of those bubble windows on there, I think I was 16 or 15 at the time.
That building has been around for quite a while.
I wondered if you had indicated that there was our last five-year option or a five-year option on that, why would that who just as a five-year lease and yet some of these other ones were showing like a 15-year lease with the carryovers and renewals and stuff like that?
I think it all boils down to this being our first presentation of this.
I think we are finding out from the questions being asked what exactly we should have on this document.
There has been confusion when you ask how many years are left to go in the lease, how many years is that for.
I think we will be a lot clearer in the future on the way we present this so you can see I think all of the issues that you have brought up here with regards to the cover sheet and the information on it would be much improved in the future.
I thank Mr. Clark.
I notice this is a learning curve for all of us, and I appreciate their efforts in providing the information.
Yes, I think that would be something worth looking at having on the format as well as length of lease, how many renewal options there are there on it, and how many have been taken already in that so I get a more accurate picture.
The other one, I think we almost met in the middle, my colleague was asking about leases on page 1, there’s one there for, just above the MOCO one, It’s a 20-year lease with Enokhok Development in Kugluktuk expiring in 2007.
I am just wondering what building that is and what are, if any, work is being done to look at evaluating and assessing that one.
Yes, we are working at this one in Kugluktuk; That is the Enokhok Centre building in Kugluktuk.
The main situation from having looked at this one now is the ownership that’s still under a legal review, so that’s where that’s sitting right now, the actual ownership of the building, the termination of the lease in accordance with the land lease; that’s an issue that’s before us right now.
I don’t want to comment too much further on it until we have a solid decision on that.
I am not a betting man, but we just went through that whole process with the other Enokhok Development Corporation lease in Cambridge Bay.
My guess is those two leases are probably pretty much the same in the outcomes, maybe, but I am just guessing if they are, so I don’t know.
But regardless of wherever the outcome of whatever is on there, we are looking at a lease that’s expiring in a year-and-a-half lets say, and we are talking about lease time for RFP or our expression of interest to be put out prior to this so that if someone did come up with a different option for you, or if I know far enough in advance so that they can plan, and they can see if you can get more of a competitive edge, pencil sharpening on behalf of the developers and the landlords, if they know ahead of time.
There is going to be another case where we are stuck with that lease again.
That they are looking at it in a year and a half so that in six months or a year, or however long it takes for this legal issue of ownership to get sorted out.
By the time leases expired no one is going to have time to have anything ready, you won’t even know if anyone is interested in having anything ready to replace that at a better rate or not.
I am just wondering if they are looking at putting out some type of expression of interest or an RFP, in this particular case, to see if there are other options that may be more favourable out there.
Maybe not, but we won’t know unless we ask.
I am just wondering if they looked at that.
This is a somewhat unique situation, this is also a shared building with the Hamlet of Kugluktuk, they take about 22 percent of the building.
We have been having for than a year now, two and three party discussions.
Discussions with ourselves and the community, and also with the landlord.
As Mr. Clark mentioned, there is a very interesting legal question about the ownership of the building.
Obviously it is to our advantage if that is settled in our favour.
As a result we have been primarily looking at that option because it is the desirable office building for the Government of Nunavut.
There is still, in fact, is time if the legal question is settled in a way that is not to our favour, there is still is time to do an RFP for other office space if that is what we wanted to do, because there is time on this one.
Certainly both of those options are open, depending on what happens with the legal question.
If there is time in 2007, like in a year and a half, one sealift probably before a developer would want to know to have stuff on the boat, in that case on the barge to get that and also the time it takes if there is a proposal put together that is of interest to the government to go back to that individual, who is probably going to have to, in most cases, have to secure financing everything like that.
I don’t know if that is a whole heck of a lot of time, or if that is an adequate amount of time to let the market to be able to respond to a potential needs like that, without like I figure I was informed by someone from Rankin Inlet on an RFP that was put out for the Liquor Warehouse, targeted specifically for the facility that its in.
Some one from Rankin Inlet told me that they never had a chance to do anything on it because they said that we need something that is there already.
How do we find a way to do it in a timely enough fashion to be able to allow what is real or perceived this notion of targeted towards somebody that is already there and other people won’t have a chance, whether it is real or perceived.
How to we try to find a way to get out of that so that people don’t look at it in that way throughout the territory.
For a more timely process and a more transparent process, we have to look at training our staff in our regional offices and also at headquarters and to make sure that the programs that we use for the planning process is also transparent region to region and also within the headquarters.
There are a number of things that we can do to improve the process and also I think an emphasis needs to be placed on more training for all parties involved whether they be at the regional headquarters or the headquarters office and that all our software programs are also the same where applicable.
I think my colleague asked about this particular one before and I think it’s here in Iqaluit.
It’s on page one of the second one with the dates with the expiry dates, six from the bottom.
I believe that Mr. Clark had indicated that it was the public health building.
Public health has been there, it is showing as a five year lease, expiring in 2005.
Is that correct that it’s the public health building.
Yes, that is the public health centre.
Again, it’s showing as a five year lease, expiring in 2005.
Again, I know I have been here for more than five years and public health has always been in there.
I just wanted to double check, when we look at having some consistency in the presentation of numbers.
That’s obviously longer than a five year lease.
It might have been a renewal term or something like that on there, but for future reports it would really make things a lot easier for all of us to have the information spelled out like that just to avoid confusion by anybody.
I just wanted to check that fact on that on, if that is what is was.
There was another indication of that, I look forward to that being addressed in the next report.
Yes, and like the other factors that were mentioned to us today and a couple of days before this, we will try and make improvements to our layout and presentation for the committee’s review when we appear next.
I would like to get a further clarification.
Under the lease and looking at about five years ago when Nunavut came into creation in 1999, some of the leases with ten years, the time is almost approaching in the leases for 20 years.
Sometimes, with certain leases, there’s a few ending in 2017, who originally signed those leases, was it the Government of the NWT, it seems like we’ve inherited a number of them.
I’m not too sure on these leases.
When the leases were under the Northwest Territories 14 years ago and with an expiry of 2006, for example.
Would the Minister be able to briefly explain and clarify the history of these leases?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Alagalak . Your name went to the top of the list because you were out too long.
Some of these leases were signed during the Northwest Territories day and we inherited them when we became Nunavut.
When we started operating these properties as the Government of Nunavut, there are also some regional offices that are holding some of these leased properties.
Just recently, through our department, we put these under one.
It seemed like some of the information was not complete and we had a problem with one because they were held by another government before.
As we went along we started finding out more information and we are going to be getting out truer information some time soon.
We will be able to respond to your questions with a quicker turnaround once we get all the information on the properties that were signed by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
If I use this as an example, and I am not focusing on any particular lease, for example, in Arviat there are quite a number of private properties and they are not just two companies over there.
It seems like there is going to be the end of some of these leases when we are just a new government.
Apparently those leases were signed by the Government of the Northwest Territories and we inherited them.
There were some in other communities.
It seems that they average about the same number of years.
Some are going to be expiring and some are for a number of more years.
What I am trying to say is that when these leases come to an end, and when you don’t have the information in front of you, at times when there is not enough room for negotiations or if there is not enough time before the end of a lease then the lease is extended or renewed.
If we look at public housing it seems that we can’t do any renovations but it is possible that there might be new companies that will be building houses or office buildings that can get the government to lease their buildings.
The employees can either use staff housing or public housing.
For non-government employee they cannot rent a government staff house.
The only houses they can rent is public housing.
Government of Nunavut staff have a lot more room or a lot more options in getting housing.
Could you elaborate on this further?
Just to clarify your question, are you talking about public housing or government housing or are we talking about office leases.
I apologize, I didn’t understand your question.
Please rephrase your question Mr. Alagalak.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Yes, well I guess I was talking about too many things at the same time.
If I talk about public housing, government employees have the option of either staying in Government of Nunavut staff houses or in public housing, but non-government employees cannot rent government staff housing and the only housing available to them is public housing.
If I was working for the government, I have the option of renting a public housing unit or renting a Government of Nunavut staff house.
I would just pay the local housing authority if I stayed in public housing, but I also have the option of going into Government of Nunavut staff housing.
If I was a Government of Nunavut employee, I would have these two options.
It seems like there is a problem here.
Is there a policy that states for example, that if you’re a Government of Nunavut employee that you cannot rent a public house.
I’m just using that as an example to clarify my question.
I was kind of anticipating that you were asking questions on the issue of housing but we’re currently working on the leased properties.
There are 59 of them and we’re focusing on the Government of Nunavut office leases.
That’s for the information of the Member, Mr. Chairman.
In regards to the questions, either public accessing public housing or Government of Nunavut staff housing, we’re not working on that.
I could have a personal meeting with the Member.
In regards to this issue, there are some here.
You’re just focusing on the rental of office spaces.
There are two in Arviat.
There is a 20 year lease and a 15 year lease.
Those are both office buildings.
There is nothing about staff houses for example. We haven’t included this in this listing, Mr. Chairman.
What we have in front of us are office spaces in the various communities, or facilities that are housing government services.
We don’t have any information on Government of Nunavut staff housing.
Of course there is also staff housing that is leased by the government.