EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Within the Nunavut Housing Corporation, at that time, how many people were responsible for doing the service of writing up the contracts and doing the procurement for the Nunavut Housing Trust?
As I believe I indicated the other day, tendering and awarding was done through a number of offices. Again it was tied to spending authority levels, but tenders for labour contracts were typically issued through the district offices of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Other tenders were issued centrally through the directorate office of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Now, with the Affordable Housing Initiative, is the same process being followed?
The intention with the affordable housing, so far, tenders have been done centrally.
With the remaining tenders to be issued, they again will be coordinated through the central office but with the closing in the different regional offices as well.
So that process is now changed and possible oversight that may have occurred in the past should not happen again because you are centralizing it. Is that what you are saying?
We want to ensure that there is consistency in our tendering processes. We also have some capacity issues in terms of staffing levels at different offices.
So, in part, it is to ensure that all of the supports are in place to ensure consistency.
One of the accounting firm’s requests in the report from Deloitte and Touche did actually talk about the decentralization and organizational structure of the Nunavut Housing Corporation and how that may have affected, in terms of geographically, how decisions were made whether they were good or bad.
The minister had alluded to the possibility of centralizing the headquarters and the directorate. Why are the headquarters in Arviat and the directorate in Iqaluit?
Mr. Chairman, to be fair to the Committee of the Whole, it’s kind of awkward and difficult to respond to that when the decision was made about eight years or so ago as to why the directorate was originally moved from headquarters to Iqaluit.
Having said that, the best that we could do now with what we have acquired and with the help of the auditor, that has been articulated quite well, that it’s really complex and difficult to really have a strong financial management system in place with the known problems of communication between the two areas.
For that reason, the decision is something that the cabinet will have to weigh all concerns and issues before the final decision is made.
With that being said, it seems like the corporation now has a decision as to the future as to what it will do. The minister has alluded to possibly moving positions from Arviat to Iqaluit to kind of remedy some of these concerns that keep coming up either in the 2007 Auditor General’s report or this one that was recently done by Deloitte and Touche.
My question is: after reading the report and seeing that, I think, under the NNI that 97 percent Inuit employment was attained historically in the community of Arviat, why not move all of the positions from Iqaluit to Arviat and that way, the office space could be more adequately used? Why are we moving everything back to Iqaluit?
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question until the cabinet has deliberated all issues that we are faced with.
Obviously we should not be compromising the best possible financial controls that are desperately needed.
Nunavutmiut cannot be held hostage while we are trying to decide what kind of arrangement we should have with the corporation.
Having said that, possibly the costs will also have to be considered.
The position that we are talking about involves seven positions and probably creating one position, which had been identified to strengthen the project management, which would be in the district office.
So I’m not sure whether or not moving the actual directorate and all of its components would be cheaper, but that will be up to the cabinet to decide. Thank you.
I’m sure the member from Arviat would love to have those seven positions in his community.
Going back to the tendering and leasing, there were some questions the other day about the SIP houses. You just sort of verified that the rules that the GN follows in terms of fair bidding and whatnot are followed. I believe Mr. Barriault mentioned that it was an RFP for the SIP units that were put out.
Could he explain that?
The RFP for the SIP units was actually for the provision of the SIP panels, not for the labour. The labour was actually tendered by public tender.
The clock wasn’t stopped.
In terms of the bid that was given, I think you had said that it wasn’t necessarily given to the lowest bidder and you mentioned some other things about performance, or quality, or something like that.
Could you explain in more detail why Kott was the successful bidder for that?
I do not have a copy of the actual RFP in the front of me to refer to, but typically, a request for proposals is issued when you are evaluating more than just price.
If you already know what product you wish to obtain, that’s usually done by a public tender.
In this case, as I believe I mentioned at our last sitting, the request for proposals included a performance specification.
The Housing Corporation had determined what kind of performance it wanted the new construction to obtain. From there, different proponents were given the opportunity to either provide a proposal with existing materials that they had, describing what their performance functions were, or to design a new product.
So the evaluation of the submissions, which were not bids but actual proposal submissions, included a description of how their proposed product would perform compared to the performance specifications, as well as determining what quality control measures they had in place, what the pricing would be, and also their ability to make delivery on time.
So there were a number of performance issues that were evaluated, not just price.
In terms of evaluating the SIP delivery and all of the things that were in the RFP, are they living up to what they said they were going to do?
Yes, the successful proponent, which was Kott Lumber, has lived up to their contract responsibilities.
In the report, it talks about the amount of theft as being a factor in why the, I don’t want to say overspending, but I forget the word, over-commitment ended up being.
How did the auditing firm decide or determine theft? What were the criteria for that?
As part of the work that was undertaken by the auditors, either when they spoke by phone to interview different Housing Corporation staff members or when they travelled to Iqaluit, they were able to obtain, basically, testimonies from staff as to the fact that materials had gone missing on different work sites.
The change orders that we have issued for material in all Nunavut Housing Trust deliveries included some replacement of material that did go missing.
If these were actual thefts, how many were reported?
A number were reported.
They were typically not sizable, but as I may have mentioned before, we’re not talking about sea cans of material or entire lifts of lumber, but when material is loose, then sheets of plywood, individual ones, or pieces of dimensional lumber would go missing.
A number of worksites have contacted the RCMP and we do have records of that.
It’s something that is very hard to police, unless you have security on site 24 hours a day or you have warehousing that can contain all of the material.
Mr. Barriault mentioned that some of the theft was sort of calculated because there was replacement of missing items. Did the audit firm actually look at the idea that possibly materials were “misordered”?
I have heard and had conversations with different people who worked on the Nunavut Housing Trust and the affordable housing where they have said that materials that had been ordered in were the wrong sizes because they were improperly ordered, and stuff was actually taken to the dump.
I witnessed myself in Arctic Bay where materials were moved, set in water, insulation became wet, damaged, and then it was thrown away in the dump.
In terms of those items that would have to be replaced, was that included as theft or was that separate?
If the material was in the care of the Nunavut Housing Corporation when these damages occurred, then they would have been included as part of those costs that were noted under the change orders.
But, upon assignment of labour contracts, the control of the materials and responsibility for it is then handed over to the labour contractor.
So if those damages occurred while in the hands of the contractor, then it’s the contractor’s responsibility to replace the materials at their cost.
The training component was actually a big a part that I was quite interested in and in replies to Written Question 21 – 3(2) on June 10 that I asked, I was concerned about the number of people who were actually trained under the Nunavut Housing Trust and also the Affordable Housing Initiative. Could you tell me what the dollar value was or how much was paid in training our apprentices under that program?
The wages that were paid to the apprentices were considered to be labour or part of payroll, so they were not differentiated as such.
Again, over a number of years of payroll records through individual contractors and LHO boards, it’s quite a daunting challenge to break that down to that level.
Not that it would be impossible; it would just be very time intensive to figure out what part of payroll went to registered apprentices versus regular payroll.
So wages under labour, I know that it was reported that there was a 72 percent over-commitment of money on labour. Is that labour for everybody or is that labour for… ? There is no distinction between a trainee, an apprentice, or a qualified carpenter, or a Red Seal person.
Part of the cost drivers which we realize against the housing trust was indeed the fact that there was a training component built in and also the fact that hours of work were limited. So there were a number of initiatives as part of the Nunavut Housing Trust Implementation Plan that we feel were cost drivers but are hard to define exactly what those costs were.
Part of those included airfare to bring in journeymen and hotel costs for them as well. So there are a number of factors, definitely.
Were you able to determine how much actually went for training in terms of Nunavut Arctic College or other training centres across Canada for the apprentices?
I’m just looking to see if I have the dollar value available at this point.
That I do not have available at the moment, but that is something that is easily obtained, though.
The training costs were paid directly to Nunavut Arctic College for the provision of courses for apprenticeship programs. So, basically, the Nunavut Housing Corporation contracted Nunavut Arctic College to put off a number of courses over a few years.
With this part of the Nunavut Housing Trust, I find it very upsetting in the sense that when the program was initially advertised and promoted, it was an excellent training opportunity for Nunavummiut in the small communities to actually receive their apprenticeships. Working as an adult educator at that time, I thought, “Wow! It’s finally an opportunity for people in the community to be trained.”
The first stumbling block or hurdle is to actually pass your pre-trades entrance exam, and then there was all of this commitment of money to Nunavut Arctic College to get people trained and that was like step 1. The second step was to getting an employer to hire you, and that’s what the Housing Trust was providing: a wage and a job, and then having a qualified person to work under.
Sometimes, in the community, that’s impossible to find.
It was a tremendous training opportunity to have our local people to be trained. I think we have blundered it in the sense that we only have one person who has gone through. With all of the money and the dollars that have been spent, I believe you said that it’s only one person who has actually been successful.
Another question that I have is: now that both the Nunavut Housing Trust and the Affordable Housing Initiative are coming to a close, what type of a training plan or opportunity will you be providing to these 50 plus apprentices who are scattered across the territory to continue with their training?
Hon. Tagak Curley: Thank you. I appreciate the member’s frustration.
I think that, in a sense, requires a response from myself because once again we’re dealing with individuals who have committed themselves for training.
I don’t think we should apologize for young for trying, for entering into a possibility to earn some hours, and also have to go to the actual class, which may not be available, but perhaps have to come down to Iqaluit.
By and large, many young people who have come out of high school or at the high school entrance level do normally struggle not only to acquire the credentials needed to continue beyond entrance exams but because they are also entering into family environments, where they have family struggles.
Sometimes, when I was with NCC, it was a real challenge.
Unless you actually have a person, for instance, a labour coordinator for trainees, it’s a job in itself to try and have that many apprentices and ensure that that team really doesn’t buckle out and quit, for all that matter.
So I give that initial number of trainees at least all of the credit that they need and I don’t want to undermine them whatsoever, but it’s a challenge when you’re dealing with the smaller communities where there may be only one contractor or so that would eventually be willing to give you enough hours to continue your first year, second year, and so on.
To date, a number of apprentices do continue. In terms of the actual number, that’s the responsibility of the Department of Education.
All I can tell the member is that I suspect there would have been difficulties with the trainees when I was sitting on his chair because it was a challenge with NCC.
But we had an individual with NCC, who was a previous coordinator in the government, who was actually literally committed 100 percent and more in keeping these units of trainees occupied. It was his full-time job, to be honest with you.
So, yes, it could be better organized. If we ever enter into a large commitment again, it will be a better program and more organized.
In terms of details, do we have that? Not quite.
Does that mean that the Nunavut Housing Corporation has no plan for the apprentices once the money has been spent on the program?
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wrong for the government to cancel such a program.
However, the contracting arrangement or labour contracts are tendered or contracted out, the role of the corporation and the government as a whole is to ensure that these contractors do buy into apprenticeship individuals who are capable, who are not just carpenters but electrical, as well as the plumbing, or any other trade.
It’s an opportunity and opportunity will remain as long as the contracts are entered. Not only that, I’m sure my colleagues at CGS, with all of the construction that goes on, they buy into those types of arrangements.
The Nunavut Housing Trust tries to do it in a large scale, but it was predictable that without a dedicated individual full-time with that many, it was eventually going to weaken at some point and I think we have seen that.
But those individuals, if they are still around, have earned certain aspects, their hours required, as well as the in-room class training. Sure, we will encourage them to make arrangements with the current contractors.
Mr. Elliott, your time is up here. I will be moving on to Mr. Okalik.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I have just a couple of follow-up questions in reference to my colleague for Quttiktuq. There is reference in the so-called audits that there were thefts. Does the corporation have any idea how much these thefts resulted in adding to the cost overruns of the corporation?
On page 13 of the audit review, it references the fact that for the Baffin district, the total of all change orders, which includes all of missing materials, whether it’s from theft or errors in ordering, as well as the labour downtime, so there can be additional labour costs related to the materials, the total was 10 percent of the labour contracts. In the Kivalliq district, it was around 12 percent. So it’s a fairly small percentage of the overall.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I was hoping for a dollar figure, if you don’t mind, because we know how much the overall of the program was.
So I was just asking for a figure, if possible. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is hard to determine exactly what amount disappeared or was missing as a result of theft as opposed to materials that were damaged or “misordering.” There might be problems with material take-offs.
There could be problems with how different contractors utilized material more or less efficiently than others. So it is very hard to determine which percentage of the total material change order cost resulted from theft.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I guess we won’t get a figure.
Anyways, from what I understand, the contractor is responsible for a project, whether it is materials lost or damaged, during the construction phase and that the contractor is required to pay for insurance for these types of activities taking place during construction.
Was this the case for these projects?
Let’s put it into proper perspective in some way.
In terms of the project management, it’s probably a lot more of a tendering phase. It’s quite clearer that the bonding is required for certain large amounts of contracts in order to protect the public and the contracting agency.
So the contractor is bound and must honour that particular provision, but up until the project is delivered to sites, if the contract says that the government is responsible for logistics, the contractor won’t touch it or transfer the ownership of the materials until that work has been completed.
In some cases, it is slightly different.
If they are responsible for shipping, for instance, for design, shipping, and erect, then they are 100 percent responsible for the insurance, but there is a slight variance in those areas. I will let Mr. Barriault explain, in some cases, what happens. We dealt with them, I think, through an earlier question.
Effectively, as Minister Curley has noted, there are different processes in which risk is assumed.
When we separate material and labour, then the risk on the material side belongs with the Housing Corporation until such time as the material is turned over to the contractors.
The lowest risk approach is definitely to do a supply, ship, and erect contract whereby the contractor supplies the materials and has responsibility for ordering, shipping, and care of the material until such time as the house is delivered.
All of the corporation contracts do include contract securities and requirements for contractors from the time that they are awarded the contracts to take responsibility of materials.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) What I understand is that these thefts would have been the responsibility of the contractor.
So why is the Housing Corporation paying for these thefts if they were the responsibility of the contractor?
That is where I would like to get an explanation. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Regardless of how the materials were either weather damaged or not, I think the president explained quite well earlier that what is required is the change order to complete the project.
If it is a weather-related damage, it is still reflected at the costs, eventually, that are billed back to the Housing Corporation.
Whichever way, it is billed back to the government.
Exactly how it works, I will have Mr. Barriault explain the details.
The material that had theft occur to it prior to it being turned over to a contractor would have been at the cost of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
If theft occurred while the material was in the hands of a contractor, then it is their responsibility and their cost to replace it.
In the case of LHO builds, where construction took place in part through our local housing organizations, then we also have some costs to bear in that.
So there are a number of different contracting methods where we have different risks and exposure.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The next question I have is in regard to the farming equipment. I just want to find out which fund was used to acquire the farming equipment. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Maybe the member could clarify the question as I’m not certain which farming equipment he’s referring to.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) We were shown documents that were tabled by our Chair from a farming equipment company that was used to acquire telehandlers, from what I understand.
There was even a GST rebate for the government because it was going to be used for farming purposes.
So that’s why I’m referring to the farming equipment, and I just want to find out which fund was used to acquire this farming equipment. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barriault: Thank you for the clarification.
The telehandlers, which are common construction equipment, were purchased using the Affordable Housing Initiative funding.
Mr. Okalik: Okay.
I’m sorry; I thought it was used under other funds.
Do we have any idea how much money was lost through the attempted purchase of farming equipment that had to be replaced with real telehandlers?
I believe that all funds are accounted for; I’m not aware of any actual loss of funds. I believe the member is referring to the trade-in value on some of the smaller telehandlers when the specification was revised.
We do have those specific figures available, which I’m just obtaining at this moment.
So the total cost involved as a result of that transaction was $479,040.
Any other general questions?
Just following along the lines of Mr. Okalik’s questions, I’m just a little confused because I remember hearing dollar figures of $600,000 and whatnot.
How many telehandlers did we actually get?
There were a total of 17 telehandlers purchased and delivered to Nunavut communities.
What’s the total dollar figure for those 17 telehandlers, including the purchase of the New Holland ones, return, repurchase of CAT, and then shipping to the communities, and delivery in the community?
The grand total cost on the 17 telehandlers, including the trade-in transactions, etcetera, came to $3.3 million and that is not including the freight charge to each community.
Before I left to come down here for session, which I guess was probably two and a half weeks ago now, I met with some of the Kott people who were actually up in Arctic Bay. They said that they were being delayed by some real problems they were having with the CAT telehandler they had. It was spewing, I think, hydraulic fluid.
I’m not a mechanic, but that’s what they were saying. For items such as that, are they under warranty and will they be fixed since they are brand new, without any cost to the Nunavut Housing Corporation?
Any repairs required that fall under warranty will be pursued for reimbursement through the suppliers.
I’m not aware of any particular delay at this point in Arctic Bay, so let’s assume at this point that the problem has been resolved.
However, I will follow up on that.
Initially when this whole debate started about the telehandlers and the fun we had in the House discussing it, the intent was that this would become a piece of equipment that would belong to the local housing authority.
I know once the telehandler arrived in Arctic Bay, it was parked and no one was allowed to touch it, I think they were saying, for fear that it might get broken and they wouldn’t be able to use it for the construction of the SIP houses, which I understand.
What is the intent of these 17 telehandlers that will be sitting in our communities once Kott is finished with them?