EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The first one was a pilot project in Kugluktuk, then they had one in Sanikiluaq, and the last one was in Arviat.
To my understanding, all the projects are working out quite well.
Just to inform the members who are here, the way this project works is it’s a cost-sharing and the hamlets have to come up with their share of the funding.
They put in a proposal through to purchase equipment and a training component of it.
It comes through that fund and just those three projects have been done so far.
I’m aware that Sanikiluaq was a part of these projects.
Sanikiluaq did about two years ago, I want to say three but at least two years ago, obtain crushing equipment. Ever since it has been in the community, it sits idle because of a couple of reasons.
I’m assuming the government or the hamlet doesn’t have the funding to provide the training for people to do the crushing.
I’m also aware of the fact that once the equipment is in place, it’s supposed to be kind of self-sustaining.
You crush the rock and you sell it.
My understanding is that my municipality is not in a position to crush because they don’t have the funding.
They’re in a deficit situation and can’t afford to crush rocks upfront and sell it later.
I’m just wondering if Sanikiluaq has used up all of their funds or are there any funds still available from these projects where Sanikiluaq can obtain training and create a stockpile so that they can go into their future self-sustained and selling the stockpile they create.
When the crushing equipment was purchased, there was a training component and staff would have been trained, but the staff that were trained could be gone now and they’re not employed anymore.
I am not familiar with the situation in Sanikiluaq, but there would have been a training component.
If the hamlet in Sanikiluaq is in a deficit, then I would imagine that they might have to wait ‘til they’re out of deficit. I realize that this is expensive equipment and it should be used; it should not be sitting idle.
We can work with the community and come up with solutions on how we may be able to resolve the issue because we do want the equipment used.
We don’t go into this funding agreement just to buy a piece of lawn ornament.
It’s something that the community needs and that’s why it was requested, so it should be used.
I can’t make a firm commitment saying that “Yeah, we are going to come in and we’re going to give you X number of dollars to make sure that thing is operational,” but we will work with the Hamlet of Sanikiluaq to come up with a solution to try to get the equipment working.
Like the minister said, we don’t like to see equipment sitting idle.
It’s proven in history that any equipment that’s left idle in our communities become vandalized and broken over time when it’s not being maintained and taken care of.
With a little help from the government where the hamlet could create a stockpile and begin selling the material to various contractors or for whatever needs in the community, I think it will go a long ways to making sure that it can sustain itself over the long term.
I will just leave that as a comment.
I have a brief question on the opening comments and it’s specifically on page 4.
Further, I wish to welcome the minister and his officials firstly.
On page 4 it lists the $100,000, which speaks to funding for ten communities.
What is the purpose of this fund of $100,000?
Will this fund be split up amongst the communities to commence this work within each fiscal year?
What exactly is the purpose of this fund?
Can the minister provide further clarification on this fund?
Hon. Joe Savikataaq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This fund of $100,000 will be used for the ten communities that require arena upgrades.
Assessment studies will be conducted on the sections that require upgrading and the approximation of the costs to do the work.
This is not funding for any construction work. It is only for preliminary studies on what work is required.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister for his clarification.
Let me move on to another matter related to this $100,000 fund of your department, which you stated will be specifically for the ten community arenas requiring upgrades.
Will this fund the preplanning studies for the ten communities in the 2017-18 fiscal year or will two communities get their arenas completed during the course of this fiscal year or will the work only commence starting in 2020?
What exactly is the work breakdown associated with this fund?
This $100,000 fund is specific for the assessment studies that will be conducted in fiscal year 2017-18.
However, with respect to the actual upgrades to the arenas, the fund comes from the (interpretation ends) New Building Canada Fund (interpretation) and this fund is scheduled to end in 2024.
To date the plan is to commence the work on the arenas up to that date totalling ten arenas.
To ensure that it is clear, the $100,000 is not for construction of any kind, but rather for studies on what work is required and to approximate the costs of such work.
With respect to (interpretation ends) preplanning, (interpretation) the minister responded to the previous questions, so my question revolves more around further clarification.
The communities in Nunavut are categorized into three regions, Kitikmeot, Kivalliq, and Baffin, and if my understanding is erroneous, the minister can correct me. The project officers work within the projects departments on the preplanning work.
The (interpretation ends) project officers (interpretation) in the regional offices such as (interpretation ends) Cambridge Bay, Rankin Inlet, or Pond Inlet (interpretation) where these project officers positions are housed, are they all filled?
Just for clarification first for the preplanning study there, we don’t divide up into the three regions of Nunavut; it’s spent on the capital planning process and projects that may go ahead.
As for Mr. Sammurtok’s question about all the project officers, are they staffed?
Chairman (interpretation): Please be aware that your question is geared more towards O&M.
Yes, I know (interpretation ends) that’s on the O&M side. I just wanted to find out because that’s a lot of money that is being backlogged for all the capital projects funding.
(interpretation) I would just like to thank the minister and his department for the brand-new truck the fire department received this summer.
However, I would like clarification on which communities will be receiving new fire trucks.
The next one on the list, as I stated earlier, for 2017 would be Cape Dorset.
I have a list up to 2028 if the member wants me to name all the towns, but the next one is Cape Dorset. If he wants me to name all towns, then I will.
Mr. Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Thanks for the information.
Maybe through the Chair, you would be able to give us all the communities listing.
(interpretation) I have a question on another matter in regard to the Rankin Inlet arena. It is set for 2017-18.
When will the actual construction be done?
In 2017-18 the money that has been requested is for the design of the arena and once the design is done, it would go to tender.
Mr. Sammurtok: Are we indicating that the design of the arena is 2017-18, so construction starts at 2019?
No, we have a much better schedule than that.
It should be out to tender by March of 2017 and if all goes well, the arena should be completed by January of 2019.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Following my list of names, Mr. Mapsalak.
Are J-3 and J-4 being dealt with together?
Chairman (interpretation): Yes, we are on those pages.
It’s something that one of my colleagues mentioned. Mr. Joanasie asked a question about a part of it and there is another part of it that I would like information on. You talked about the $1 million for preplanning studies.
You also mentioned the Naujaat Air Terminal Building and I understood that the money will be used in 2017-18.
The member has understood correctly.
I have been asking this question ever since we started in 2013 because the community really needs one and it’s good to see that they are going to start looking at it.
With that being the case, can the minister explain to us how much money would be utilized on the preplanning study for the Naujaat Air Terminal Building?
I can’t tell the member how much will be spent on that project, on the preplanning study.
As I stated earlier, not all preplanning studies are approved as capital projects. We do a preplanning study and if it’s approved as a capital project, then it comes here to the House to get approval for the money.
This is just the very start of it. We are doing a preplanning study for an air terminal building in Naujaat. I can’t even tell the member how much the study itself will cost right now.
The response from the minister was quite clear and understandable.
With that being the case, once costs are known for upgrading the air terminal buildings, would the minister be able to inform the hamlets, such as the Hamlet of Naujaat, that the study will commence in their community or not?
I am asking about the (interpretation ends) preplanning studies (interpretation) and if this would be included. Would the minister be able to provide this information to the hamlet?
Hopefully I was clear and the minister understood.
I’ll do my best to see if I understood.
The preplanning study will determine whether or not it’s a feasible project and how much it would cost.
Once that is done, a proposal may be put forward by Economic Development. That’s their department.
If their proposal is accepted in the capital plan, put forward here, and the funding is approved, then it becomes a project.
The hamlet would be notified once it becomes a project because we don’t go around telling the hamlets, “You may get this. You may get that.” It’s much nicer and cleaner just to wait until it’s approved and then they know what they’re getting.
It’s just the process of how it works here. Once it’s approved here as a project, the hamlet would be notified, but I would imagine that, if you’re still a member then, you would be able to notify them right away.
Actually I am aware that this is the responsibility of the Department of ED&&T.
Nonetheless, what caught my ear was when someone stated that when the designs are being drawn up, your department conducts that work, if I am correct, for preplanning.
Now, if the work was deemed acceptable for the terminal in Naujaat, would the design emulate an existing design such as the one being constructed in Taloyoak? Would it be the same design, if the project was approved for construction?
I can’t say whether or not it would be a common design similar to Taloyoak because the preplanning study is not done. The preplanning study would determine whether it can be a common design because we’re at the very beginning.
It’s just like a thought right now and we’ve got to bring it from a thought to a project.
Part of the process is the preplanning. Once the preplanning is done, it brings it to a class “D” estimate.
I can’t assure the member what the design will look like yet.
Once the preplanning is done, I would have more information to give to him.
If it is possible, then it would probably be a common design.
As of right now I can’t tell him if it would look like the Taloyoak Air Terminal Building or not.
Let me move on to a different topic.
I asked you a number of times about sewage lagoons. You indicated to us by letter saying that the money that was slated for the Naujaat sewage lagoon project is no longer there.
The money that was supposed to be used for that purpose has been utilized somewhere else, according to your letter. Even though money has always been budgeted for the sewage lagoon project, you said it was delayed. Is there still money slated for the Naujaat sewage lagoon project?
Yes, some of that money was moved out for projects that had to be done right away.
Some of the sewage lagoon project money was taken out, but there still is money there for Naujaat.
They don’t have a sewage lagoon in terms of they put a whole bunch of gravel around, we dump sewage in there, and then it filters out. They have what are called the wetlands where the sewage is naturally decontaminated or leached out.
I’m not sure what the proper word is, but it’s treated by nature. From the studies that Dalhousie has been doing in some of the communities, the water is coming out pretty clean, just as clean as if they spent a small fortune on building a gravel or man-made sewage lagoon.
The study is done for Naujaat now, but we haven’t decided exactly what is going to be done there yet. There still is money there.
Even if we don’t make a sewage lagoon, we will do some enhanced work on the wetlands to make sure that it’s going to be doing what it’s supposed to do, not just for now but for many years in the future.
The project is not cancelled. It’s on hold because we’re not sure what we need to build there to meet wastewater requirements for Naujaat.
I would like to ask a variety of questions. I believe we’re on J-3 and J-4.
Mr. Chairman, my first question will be regarding communications. It’s always changing and evolving.
For 2017-18, you indicated that there is going to be $2 million set aside for the proposal to upgrade the communication technology infrastructure.
I believe you did that in 2015-16.
Have the upgrades been done? Since communication technology is always evolving, are we going to see this as a line item on an annual basis?
Before I answer the first question, I’ll just make it clear that the IT services that CGS provides are for all of government and all the departments. When we see funding requests for IT, it’s not just for CG&S. We are a service department and we service all the government departments.
As for the question that there was $2 million now and are we going to ask for the big amount of $2 million again next year, yes.
We are probably going to ask for $2 million every single year and that’s probably not going to be enough.
The amount of data that the government uses is just increasing all the time and we have to be able to manage it. There are more and more issues with security issues and we have to tackle that. The short answer is yes, we will be asking for minimum the same amount next year.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Using the minister’s own words, “we have to manage it.”
Are you contemplating coming back next year looking for another $2 million because you are not managing it?
We are managing it. I anticipate coming back for the same amount because the amount of data and the amount that IT services are being used are growing every year and we have to be able to deal with it. We’re a service department.
Health is using it more for telehealth. Education is using it more. Every department is using more and more of IT services.
We are managing it well; it’s just growing.
Maybe this question was brought up earlier, but in the proposed capital estimates for 2017-18 you included $1 million to be used for preplanning studies.
I do apologize if it was brought up earlier, but can you indicate how many preplanning studies you will be doing this year and approximately how much it will cost?
I did answer it, but I will answer it again.
The total project that we are requesting for is for $1 million and the client departments will be: Health will have two projects, Rankin Inlet’s mental health transitional facility and Igloolik continuing care centre extension; Education, school addition in Taloyoak; Department of Justice, Kugluktuk Ilavut Centre renovations; Community and Government Services, Rankin Inlet water infrastructure, utilidor expansion and upgrades, Arviat Tank Farm fuel capacity increase and code compliance work; Economic Development and Transportation, Naujaat Air Terminal Building and Chesterfield Inlet Air Terminal Building.
We don’t know how much each project will be using, but the budget we are requesting is for $1 million to do all of those projects.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Did I hear the minister indicate that there’s also something in there for the Pond Inlet airport hub?
Maybe the member had a malfunctioning earpiece.
No, I did not say that.
Again in the five-year capital plan for 2018-2022, it includes Nunavut Administration. I apologize if I didn’t say it properly in Inuktitut.
It indicates that they’re going to be using the Building Canada Fund and in our government’s five-year capital plan there’s $754,000 that will be set aside for that purpose.
What exactly is Nunavut Administration?
I’m aware that my Inuktitut is not clear on this.
That’s for administering all of the projects that are going to be part of the New Building Canada Fund’s Small Communities Fund.
It’s just to administer the work.
Going right along, I think it was last year or the year before in November 2014 when we approved funding for minor capital in the 2015-16 fiscal year. We approved $5 million at that time and it was going to expire this spring in March.
Did we use all the funds or was there any left over?
Can the member just rephrase his question? I didn’t quite understand it.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Please rephrase your question, Mr. Enook.
I’ll try to rephrase it, even though my question was well phrased.
Can the minister indicate if his department spend all of its capital funds for that year or did they have some left over?
It was going to lapse at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year on March 31.
Hon. Joe Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the member for clarifying his question.
My understanding is that it was pretty well almost all spent. The majority of that money was spent.
Do you know exactly how much was left over?
I don’t have exactly how much was left in front of us here right now, but I will definitely get that information back to the member through the Chairman.
Again I think it was two years ago we approved $2,867,000 for the project for 2015-16 and it was for building and equipment upgrades.
Can you provide a breakdown of how this funding was spent?
For 2015-16 we spent just about $3 million, $2,997,000.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) That’s way over budget and you didn’t get approval for that. (interpretation) I’m just kidding.
I didn’t ask about that. I asked if you can give us a breakdown of how this money was spent.
I’m not too worried about how much was spent.
What did you purchase with that amount or what was upgraded?
There are about 15 projects here.
I would just like to get clarification if the member either wants me to give him a list or I read them off right now.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) If I could ask, Mr. Chairman, maybe it’s best if the minister would be willing to give us a list through your chairmanship. (interpretation) It will be easier that way and it’s okay if I don’t see it right now.
I’ll move on to another subject.
In 2014 the Legislative Assembly approved $1 million for small capital projects for the 2015-16 fiscal year.
Can you also provide a breakdown of how this funding was spent? If there were many projects, then we can get that information by way of our Chairman.
I will provide the first list there through you to the members, and I will also provide the list for the other projects through you again.
It is quite a long list and it would take a while to name them all.
Yes, we will provide that information to the Chair and the Chair will give it to the members.
I also have a question on the 2017-18 capital estimates.
Your department includes $250,000 in small capital funding to replace a number of vehicles throughout the territory.
Can you provide details on the number and types of vehicles that each community will receive during the 2017-18 fiscal year?
These vehicles are for CGS work for our staff and we don’t know what vehicles we’re going to get yet because they haven’t gone out to tender yet because this budget is not approved.
Once it is approved, we can provide that list to the members, but as of right now we don’t know what we’re going to get.
I have seen a letter, but I can’t seem to find it at this time.
Perhaps let me ask a question in regard to vehicles.
Each department has to purchase a vehicle. I believe that your department purchased vehicles for other departments. If I’m not mistaken, your department is a service provider to purchase vehicles for other departments and if they want to get a vehicle, they go to your department.
Do you go straight to the supplier or do you go to a middleman? If so, why do you use the middleman?
The middleman increases the price.
It would be cheaper to go directly to the supplier rather than using a middleman.
I would like to get a response on that.
I’ll try to answer the member’s question as best as I can.
We will start off in the beginning by this money that we’re requesting here is for CGS, but I understand his comment about all the departments. The departments put in what the vehicle will be used for and what specs they need.
Each department does that for their own vehicle purchases, and then the tendering process goes out through CG&S.
We have different methods or systems of getting the best price we can. Sometimes we go for just a general tender and sometimes there is a standing offer agreement.
We just try to get price possible for what equipment to meet the needs of the department for the equipment that they are requesting.
That’s why I’m asking this question. We all want to use our funding adequately and I’m sure your department wants to utilize the funds to the best of its ability.
Isn’t it cheaper to go straight to the vehicle dealer without using a middleman? (interpretation ends) Would it be cheaper to go directly to a dealer than go through a middleman or contractor?
I saw the list the other day and it has a whole bunch of companies that were used as a middleman to buy a vehicle.
Why can’t you go directly to the dealer down south?
It’s not a straightforward issue, but I’ll try to explain or justify what we do.
We can’t go directly to one dealer because that would be sole sourcing and the people would be in an uproar, “Why are you supporting this one dealer over that dealer?”
Sometimes we can’t go directly to the dealer either because there is NNI.
There might be someone within Nunavut that says, “Look, you’re cutting me out. I’m trying to keep my employees working and you’re bypassing me and going straight to dealers down south.”
It’s not a simple issue as it seems to be. Mostly because of NNI and because sole sourcing, we generally have to go either to a tender or if we have a standing offer agreement with certain companies, then that’s the process too.
Mr. Enook, 10 seconds.
I don’t quite understand your explanation, so I’ll try to get further information outside of this meeting.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Following my list of names, Mr. Qirngnuq.
I must be very hard to notice and I’m just happy about that.
I would like to ask a question on his opening comments on top of page 2, the third paragraph.
I know it’s very difficult for the government to address capital issues as they constitute a major expenditure.
The Government of Nunavut has to participate in difficult discussions with the federal government in order to arrive at some agreement.
I would like to ask this question, Mr. Chairman. Do the Nunavut government and the federal government have problems understanding each other?
Do I understand it correctly? I apologize if I misunderstood it.
I’ll just try to explain to the member a bit what I mean by that.
We work with the federal government and we appreciate the funding that they give us, but we have to educate them on our situation up north where we have a very short construction season and we have a short shipping season. We have to work around the funding requirements and we have to work with them to try to ease the funding restrictions and requirements so that they can fit our needs.
For example, if we miss a sealift, the project is gone for the year because we only get sealift in the summer.
We have to make the federal government aware of our needs.
It’s a new government and they seem to be receptive that we are unique up here and we should be treated... .