EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Before we begin reviewing and discussing the details of 2006 and 2007 main estimates, I would like to highlight some of the very positive aspects of this year’s estimates. The 2005-06 fiscal year saw considerable increased funding to communities.
In keeping with the spirit on Pinasuaqtavut and the goals of Pijarnirnirsat Kattujjiqatigiittiarnirlu, we have enhanced transparency and reduced the complexity of core municipal funding.
This enhanced funding and the increased simplicity has allowed communities to improve the quality of programs at hamlet.
This represents an unprecedented increase of 30 percent for communities over the past three years and this new level of funding is maintained in the 2006-07 budget.
I am also pleased to announce that we are exploring new and efficient ways of conducting the business of Government while advancing key initiatives that will reduce operating costs and save the Government of Nunavut money over the long term.
The increasing cost of the heating of our buildings is a concern to government.
As a department, we are working with our partners to implement significant energy conservation measures; our Namminiq Makitajunnarniq is enhanced. This is a policy which supports our commitment to improving energy efficiency of government owned and leased facilities.
The framework for energy efficiency enhancements flow from the Nunavut Energy Management Program; the program was developed in accordance with the Pinasuaqtavut objectives of this government and I am very pleased to announce that policy was approved by cabinet in November 2005.
These energy efficient measures will save money. The technologies selected and in process of being implemented in government buildings are proven to have a three-year payback. The Government of Nunavut will re-invest its savings into other existing facilities further reducing energy consumption and cost.
Mr. Chairman, Community and Government Services staff are service oriented. We are willing to try alternative program delivery methods to achieve our goals that represent increase self-reliance for Nunavummiut and increase the quality of our programs to communities and government.
We are exploring ways of reducing the costs of purchasing petroleum products for the territory and expect that this approach will see savings in future years.
A cost and benefit review of current fuel purchasing processes and alternatives is currently underway.
Other successful municipal programs reflect increased Namminiq Makitajunnarniq and creative new ways of working in partnership with our hamlets and directly supporting our communities.
The Fire Protection Strategy is now in the process of full implementation with $2 million of direct support continuing in the budget.
Using these dollars, we are able to offer many training courses for firefighters and to provide additional firefighting equipment to community fire departments.
The Fire Strategy Program directly supports communities and the NAMIX Program by reducing the instances of fire losses.
Mr. Chairman, CGS has a budget exceeding $160 million with 332 positions in six regional and decentralized offices and Iqaluit.
CGS responsibilities are broad and impact the day-to-day activities of Nunavut communities and all other departments within the GN.
We are pleased to confirm that progress was made in the very critical area of equipping and funding search and rescue organizations over the 2005-06 year.
Phase I has been completed and the increased amount of $500,000 is now part of the base program funding and will fund Phase II of this critical program. This will enhance community-based search and rescue capability and preparedness across Nunavut.
Several years ago, communities told us they wanted more training opportunities delivered locally in hamlets and we responded by totally changing the way we deliver our training.
As a department, we are committed to Ilippallianginnarniq.
Listening to our community leaders has vastly improved our training results and has resulted in significant operating improvements at the municipal level. Financial stability has increased and the quality of programs has improved.
This continues to be an area of focus for CGS.
By listening and acting upon wise suggestions from our community leaders, we are developing Inuuqatigiittiarniq one day at a time. An IQ approach to managing the affairs of this department, Inuit employment planning, and our land claim obligations to the people of Nunavut have been and continue to be priorities of CGS.
CGS sponsors internal training and development initiatives on an ongoing basis and participates in Human Resources sponsored initiatives, which enhance opportunity to Inuit beneficiaries. The department has a Training Committee comprised of senior managers dedicated to the task of honouring our obligations set out under the Article 23 of the land claim.
Mr. Chairman, as we stated in the department’s last appearance before this standing committee, CGS pursued funding for more community infrastructure and addressing related environmental issues with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities and other partners.
This year will see the rollout of major infrastructure funding initiatives in cooperation with Canada and the Nunavut Association of Municipalities. Combined, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and Gas Tax Program agreements will mean an additional $53.5 million invested into municipal infrastructure over the next five fiscal years.
That almost doubles the level of capital investment in communities. This new funding will foster more employment opportunities in Nunavut. It supports employment for our trades school graduates and it ensures communities make significant progress on their municipal infrastructure deficit.
Mr. Chairman, CGS also continues to invest significant effort and resources to ensure that we continue to improve services to all government departments. Over the past year, we focused on improving informatics.
That will continue in the coming year along with a particular emphasis on improving capital project management services, and addressing Petroleum Products Division issues in response to the report regarding gasoline quality.
The Department of Community and Government Services is faced with many challenges in the accomplishment of its mandate to serve departments and support social and economic opportunities in communities.
Some of the challenges are financial while other challenges are not. Good leadership, positive direction, and a service orientation are all priorities of CGS and we continue to strive to improve.
Our focus on Public Service means we are here to assist our clients and partners in Communities and Government resolve issues and problems.
This concludes my opening remarks and I am now ready to respond to the committee’s questions on the 2006-07 Main Estimates.
Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table? Minister Brown.
Chairman: Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses in please?
On my immediate left is the Deputy Minister, Mr. Tom Rich. On my immediate right is Mr. Michael Rafter.
I could almost swear that I’ve seen them before somewhere, but I’m not sure where.
Does the co-chair of the standing committee have any comments?
I am pleased to provide you with the comments as the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing, and Economic Development. The Committee has reviewed the 2006-07 Main Estimates and Business Plan for Department of Community and Government Services and had the opportunity to meet with the minister in January.
The standing committee recently received information from the department that was requested during its review of the Capital Estimates. Committee members specifically requested information detailing actual capital expenditures broken down by project. Members remain concerned that projects that are approved by this Assembly through the capital appropriation process are sometimes deferred and that the funding may be transferred to the projects that were not originally approved by the Legislative Assembly.
Members recognize that the department must have some flexibility to ensure that projects are completed in a timely manner and within budget. However, members would ask the department to increase its transparency with respect to final project expenditures.
Individual Members of the Legislative Assembly have raised concerns with the standing committee with respect to the issue of the inter and intradepartmental budget transfers and reallocation that occur from time to time during the course of a given fiscal year.
In cases where capital projects in specific communities are impacted, the appropriate Members of the Legislative Assembly are advised by way of correspondence. In some cases, there is a perception that there has been an excessive and unbalanced reduction in funding for projects in non-decentralized communities.
The committee would wish the government to approach this issue in a fair and balanced manner.
All Members of this House recognize that the recent change in government at the federal level has caused uncertainty with respect to a number of initiatives that had begun under the previous administration.
The committee urges the minister to meet with her new counterparts at an early opportunity. There are encouraging signals that the new federal government does recognize the unique challenges and opportunities facing Nunavut and the north. It is incumbent upon the ministers to make well-substantiated cases to Ottawa when it comes to such areas as federal investment in infrastructure.
Members are pleased in the increase in core funding for municipalities. Committee members have consistently advocated for adequate funding for municipalities to enable them to provide an appropriate level of service to Nunavummiut.
This increase, in addition to the work of the recently formed Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee, is an important step towards empowering communities to increase the standard of living for our constituents.
Committee members were pleased to note that the number of municipalities carrying a deficit continues to decrease. Members also noted that one of the department’s priorities for 2006-07 is to initiate formal discussions with municipalities for movement to a tax-based structure.
In the past, members have noted that an extended transition time will be necessary and that municipalities should not be rushed into assuming town status.
Committee members remained convinced that there must be grass-roots support for these initiatives and a clear understanding of the ramifications prior to taking the transition to becoming a taxing authority.
It’s the committee’s understanding that the department’s review of the Water and Sewage Services Subsidy Program is in its final stages with pilot projects to begin in three communities in the 2006-07 fiscal year.
The standing committee has continually stressed the importance of transparency with respect to reports that initiate significant changes to Government of Nunavut policies, especially where those changes will increase the budget that Members of this House will be asked to approve.
Committee members look forward to reviewing recommendations that are made based on the department’s review of the Water and Sewage Services Subsidy Program.
Members were pleased to note that the $500,000 contribution to local search and rescue organizations that was recommended by Members of the Legislative Assembly during last year’s budget deliberations is now an annual contribution.
In our harsh and unforgiving climate, successful searches are often conducted by those people who are the first responders.
It is essential that we support them to the best of our ability.
Mr. Chairman, members are pleased that the minister remains committed to increasing training opportunities for municipal employees.
Members appreciate efforts made by the Municipal Training Organization to account for its activities. The committee encourages the minister to continue working with her colleagues to ensure that municipal employees continue to receive training.
Members are concerned that information appearing in the department’s business plan is not always consistent from section to section. The committee urges the minister to ensure that her department’s business plan is not unintentionally misleading.
Members are concerned that the Government of Nunavut intends to fund the Nunavut Association of Municipalities Insurance Exchange beyond the original three year commitment due to large scale infrastructure losses that put a large strain on the fund.
Members recognize that the members of NAMIX have worked very hard to get the exchange up and running but are concerned that it will never be self-sustaining.
Members noted with interest that the department’s proposed budget for 2006-07 includes $45,000 for grants to university and college students under the new Technical Professional Studies Program.
The committee understands that the purpose of this fund is to encourage students to get the training that will qualify them for technical positions with Community and Government Services.
I urge the minister to track the success of this program to determine if these grants are the most effective means to that very desirable end.
Members noted that the request for proposal for dry cargo re-supply was issued in January. Members understand that this is a time-sensitive issue but remain concerned that the request for proposal has been issued prior to the completion of Mariport Group Ltd.’s report on re-supply in Nunavut. The standing committee looks forward to reviewing this report and urges the minister to table it in this House.
Members would like the minister to move towards a free market approach that will bolster competition and decrease costs rather than entering into multi-year contracts with one service provider.
Members are concerned at the projected costs of petroleum products for the 2006 re-supply.
It appears obvious that the maximum limit of the Government of Nunavut’s Petroleum Products Revolving Fund will need to be increased in order to meet the rising cost of these goods.
Committee members are concerned that the minister has not been forthcoming with them with respect to the department’s intentions to bring forward legislation to amend the Revolving Funds Act.
The standing committee urges the minister to bring forward any legislation in a timely manner.
Committee members are pleased that the minister has continued to table detailed annual reporting documents with respect to government contracting, procurement, and leasing activities. Members urge the minister to continue tabling these documents in the House in a timely manner.
Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following because we have six pages to approve on this department. According to Rule 77(1), you have 10-minutes to speak and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion, but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
I suggest to members that, wherever possible, you ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates.
Any comments on this side?
We will start on J-5.
Community and Government Services. Branch Summary.
Under Directorate.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $7,899,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
J-6, which also includes J-7, J-8, and J-9.
Community Support.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $51,505,000.
I also would like to welcome Minister Brown and her officials, and I’m glad that she’s down there at the witness table.
My first question is; this 2005-06 under Community Support, it’s reduced by approximately $1 million. What’s the reduction for?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Alagalak. (interpretation ends) Minister Brown.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask the member to clarify the question please?
Mr. Alagalak, clarify your question please.
In 2005-06, you had, under Grants and Contributions, $45,026,000 and in 2006-07, you had $44,669,000.
So the difference here is that this year, there were some decreases in this funding.
So I’m asking for what purpose this grant was decreased.
A sharp eye.
That’s a combination of different programs under the difference that the member is asking. There were additions to community fuel and utilities built into that budget.
Could I ask Mr. Rich to give an addition to that please?
As the minister said, there are a number of things that make up that particular item.
There are about eight different items and what you are looking at is actually an increase on the revised estimate. A year ago, the main estimates were $42,000. So in terms of the increase, it’s actually increased by about $2 million for this year over the main estimates.
During the course of the year, there were some individual expenditures and there were some that went up and some that went down. So in terms of what we actually spent, yes, you are correct, it was $45 million and it’s reduced, now, slightly. Some of that reduction in grants and contributions is a normal progression of the NAMIX grant, which was $1 million and down to $500,000, which was part of the agreement.
There have been some changes in CTI agreements, etcetera.
Overall, we’re actually up over the budgeted amount that was in; it’s just the actual expenditures. It also reflects some internal changes that were made in the department.
I think it was last year or the year before that they were going to do another planning on (interpretation ends) Crown lands, and hinterlands, industrial lot development, and commercial lot development, residential lot development, and so on.
(interpretation) For that reason, quite a few communities have asked me many times that they want to purchase or get a lot for their commercial or industrial area because industrial area lots…(interpretation ends)…because one can pile up a whole bunch of garbage, and then he would still have a right to do so.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as a contingent in a community in a point where to understand before frustration starts over applications regarding the type of land or the type of business or the types of things that they’re thinking doing to do in the community and there seems to be a problem of funding arrangements from the government to the hamlets for providing sufficient funds for surveying and so forth.
In the last talk I had with the constituents that they had to wait a year, at least, for the surveyors to come in to identify a certain area for their purpose.
In my own opinion with this $44 million to granting the communities to pursue a betterment for their communities in identifying land surveys and other developments to get them ready for use by the community residents.
I want to ask the minister if it had improved over the last couple of years to try and develop lands and the type of lands in the community.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, land issues usually come up.
And the federal government is responsible and also municipalities are responsible for lands.
In our department, we now have land officers in all the communities though the funding we get from the federal government is still being negotiated. He asked me if this has improved. It seems like it has improved.
And also the community land officers are now being trained through the Municipal Training Organization. This has improved quite a bit since Nunavut was created on April 1, 1999.
We know that we need to develop this further and make progress on the issue of dealing with lands. We’ve been negotiating with the federal government on this issue. We are continually working on it.
I have no more names on my list. I’m sorry.
We need more space on these tables here to spread stuff out.
I would like to ask the minister on page J-7, there is $135,000 budgeted for the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, it’s been at that level for a few years.
I’m wondering; do you think the Nunavut Association of Municipalities has expanded to the level where they may require additional funds to support their operations?
The Nunavut Association of Municipalities has been provided funds by the Government of Nunavut and also through meetings we provide them with funding.
But I can only say that the Nunavut Association of Municipalities has never requested additional funds, so that’s why there has been no change on this line item and as the Government of Nunavut we try to provide them any way we can.
Can the minister tell us how their relationship is with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, how it’s been in the last year?
I would also like to thank my colleague for asking this question.
We’ve had very a close working relationship with Nunavut Association of Municipalities and we provide assistance to them in any way we can when they make requests on special projects.
Also, in regard to your earlier question, the funds were $100,000, but now it is $135,000.
There was an increase in 2003 to $135,000.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for answering that question.
Mr. Chairman, in the past, I have advocated that the Government of Nunavut consult with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities on a number of issues related to municipalities.
I’d be very happy to see that at least one department is doing that with you as minister of the department.
I’ve heard a lot of good comments from mayors and municipal staff across Nunavut. There are a couple of areas where the Nunavut Association of Municipalities has asked to be involved, or have consultations in the last six months.
They didn’t seem to get a proper response or due respect from the government, and that’s with respect to wanting to be consulted.
The Nunavut Association of Municipalities represents 25 or 26 communities in Nunavut, all the mayors, and everybody in those communities, not just one group of people. It’s everybody.
They wanted to be consulted on the Northern Strategy funding. They requested participation and were denied. They’ve recently requested to be involved in negotiations on devolution.
Again, they’ve been rejected.
I’m wondering if the minister can comment on what the Government of Nunavut’s view is with respect to Nunavut Association of Municipalities, and the group of mayors that the Nunavut Association of Municipalities represents, in terms of participating or being consulted on important initiatives like the Northern Strategy funding and devolution negotiations.
Community and Government Services works closely with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities on many issues.
We value our relationship with that organization highly, and we have a copy of the responses to the Nunavut Association of Municipalities on their 2005 resolutions that were directed to Community and Government Services.
We had advised them that we would provide information on the process as it unfolded.
To respond to the number of requests I’ve been getting in the last minute or so for a short break, we’ll break for ten minutes and get back to Mr. Peterson’s questions.
>>Committee recessed at 18:10 and resumed at 18:23
Chairman: We’re on J-6, which includes J-7, J-8, and J-9.
Chairman: Sorry.
Mr. Peterson, I must apologize, did you have more questions on J-6?
Mr. Peterson: Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Okay, in respect of your agreement before the break, I will allow you to go back to J-6 to finish up your questions under Community Support.
Please proceed, Mr. Peterson.
Just before I begin, I would like to clarify for the record that the Mariport Study was tabled two days ago. Just for the record.
On page J-7, that Technical Professionals Studies Program, there’s an amount budgeted for $45,000. Can the minister explain what that program is for?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, the member, for asking that.