EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I noted, it’s not on J-7, J-8, but I noted in the Appendix that the new community hall in Repulse Bay, the schedule would be planned for 2009-10.
I remember that particular building burned down in December 2002, so that was before the Nunavut Municipal Insurance Program, but five to six years to replace a community hall, a vital facility like that is, in my opinion is just too long.
I remember when our high school, burned down in Cambridge Bay, it was three years: way too long and everybody suffered. So for a community hall which is so vital to the community, to the residents, I think six, seven, eight years is just too long to replace, so although this is a strictly capital question, it is related.
Are all the communities in Nunavut, do they have assets up to proper maintenance levels and are they fully insured for their value under the Nunavut Municipal Insurance Program?
That’s all the questions that I have on that page.
Thank you, Minister, and Mr. Dawe.
Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $2,000,266.
Does this Committee agree?
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I would like clarification on a point.
I would like to thank my colleague for referring to Repulse Bay where we haven’t had a community hall since it went up in fire.
We still don’t have a community hall to date.
What happens is that it goes in the capital budget, in the capital estimates, and then it disappears the following year. On page J-8, we have a four-bay parking garage for Repulse Bay, and it’s ready for 2007-08 at the amount of $150,000.
And then, in 2007-08-09, $1.4 million is slated for that garage. It looks like construction would begin at that time.
The community hall is slated to be built in 2009-10.
And on page J-8, in 2008-12, we have only $1.4 million. Could the minister tell me why the community hall is not slated to be built between 2008 and 2012?
When the committee was going to the communities, the Hamlet of Repulse Bay didn’t make any comments on having the community hall built.
So do I understand that the community of Repulse Bay did not want to get a community hall? I wrote a letter to you about the need to have a community hall built in Repulse Bay.
So, when do you anticipate Repulse Bay getting a community hall?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Even though the Community of Repulse Bay did not bring up the issue of the community hall, the department is putting the community hall in the plans.
It is still in the books.
That is not the case for our community, especially a small community like Repulse Bay.
We are absolutely getting nothing from 1999 and on. We do see projects slated to be built in the books, but they disappeared and now we are almost in the year 2008.
They keep deferring those projects on an annual basis and that happens repeatedly for Repulse Bay.
Why it is that Repulse Bay has been pinpointed?
There are other projects that have been deferred repeatedly and I’m not only talking about the community hall.
We’ve been hearing about a community hall being built in Repulse Bay and it never materializes.
It is in the capital estimates and I’m not quite sure why these projects keep getting deferred but the completion is 2009-10.
There is $1 million set aside for Gjoa Haven, and it’s for a community hall.
Where did you find the money and when was it decided that they were going to be building a community hall in Gjoa Haven?
We agreed last year to use $1,375,000; I would like that clarified.
The Gjoa Haven community hall has been in the books for quite a while now.
It has been there for a while.
I didn’t understand. I wanted to find out where the funding came from. Where did it come from?
I’ll let Mr. Dawe respond to that question.
I’ll try to be briefer this time.
The Gjoa Haven community project is again a multi-year project. It was funded last year for some construction work.
The construction work was deferred again for some of the reasons that I’ve already mentioned in other projects, so much other work going on in the community and in this particular case as well some ongoing discussion as to what type of community hall, whether it be a complex with the school, and this sort of thing.
The decision, basically, is that we didn’t construct it last year; there was just too much other work that was ongoing in the community. The funding that we received in previous capital programs, we’re now proposing to supplement it with some extra money from this year’s capital program and get enough money to proceed next year. It’s an MRIF project again; which is 50 percent federal money.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Dawe. Thank you, Mr. Barnabas.
My colleague made a good point there. Up until last year the capital main estimates that we approved there was $1.25 million that’s in there right now; that’s for a prior year’s cost.
Before that I think there was another $125,000 in last year’s mains that was approved in that column as prior year’s costs.
The supplemental remainder of the capital plan from last year would have been 2006 to 2012, or 2010, or what ever it went to. It only showed another $25,000.
So it looks like there is an extra $1.5 million for that project.
I’m just wondering where that funding came from, or what is left of that increase in the project costs.
I’ll ask Mr. Dawe to respond to that question.
As I’ve referred to a couple of times, we did find recently that our construction costs are rising considerably.
That project was initially funded a number of years ago and by the time we got to getting ready for it for a tender fairly shortly, and getting our final design in place, we find that our costs have risen more than was initially provided for, and that we need more money if we are to proceed with this hall.
So we have a combination of monies provided from previous years, but it will have to be supplemented with some extra money for this year.
The figures might not have been the same, but it was a multiyear project anyway. It’s probably a little more expensive because of the increase in costs that we’ve been finding over the past year or so.
What’s that Ed?
Some people are just better hockey players than others I guess eh?
Chairman: Mr. Tootoo, can you deal with your question please?
Mr. Tootoo: Yes, no problem, Mr. Chairman.
He said he’s seen a little bit of an increase in costs.
It looks like it’s doubled in cost here, so I’m just wondering if the cost has gone up 100 percent. Is that why there’s that much more money in there? Or, has there been any change in the scope of work on the project that would contribute to those cost increases?
I’ll let Mr. Dawe respond to that.
The cost increase is largely a result of, as I mentioned, the construction cost increases. There have also been some changes in the scope of work because the initial concept for building this building was to complex it with a gymnasium of the new school.
Through the community consultation process that was not deemed acceptable and feasible and we’re now looking at an individual standalone figure. So, we had the carry over of $1.25 million from previous years.
There was, I believe, in the previous capital program some smaller amount coming for this year.
That amount coming for this year is what has increased, primarily for those two reasons; partly costs increases in construction, and partly design changes in the scope of work.
I’m not sure if we approve a project based on initial design, or anything, and doubling in cost, I think it’s a substantial change in the scope of a project.
It doesn’t matter what project, or where it is.
One would think that you would have to come back to the Assembly and let the members know that there has been a substantial change in the project, that it’s not the same project that we approved last year.
For whatever reason, fine.
But it’s coming out only by happening to ask some questions about it, we find out that it is a totally different project, the scope of the project has changed, where in fact you are doubling the costs of the project as a result of that change in scope.
I think that that is something that should come back and be clearly spelled out for the Members of this Assembly to realize and understand that.
Saying it’s because of cost increases and things like that, if you say that this is a MRIF project when it’s 50 percent of the cost then it’s like, you’re looking at a $4 million, $5 million project now instead of what we thought was a $2 million project.
So I don’t know if there’s something that can be done just to ensure when that happens that, when there is a substantial change in a project that the members are, at least the standing committee, notified that there is a change in a project because, again, that’s regardless of what it is, or where it is, I mean, we voted on and approved a project and then it seems like there’s something else that’s being done now that we didn’t.
And that’s just a concern that I have, and I think it would go, not only with this, but with any of the capital projects that are out there.
Would you like to reply to that please? Madame Minister.
Those are very good points and I think, you know, I agree with the member because I will instruct the staff to make sure that the information is available to the standing committee and then, as the member wishes, to the members as well to this House.
If he’s agreeable in what I plan to do, is direct the staff then I will do so.
It has just dawned on me, nothing in particular, with something on this, because when you mention the MRIF funding that’s new in there, are there any projects that were not previously on the capital plan that have been put into the capital plan because of that MRIF funding?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Madame Minister.
I would like to ask Mr. Dawe to respond to that please?
In answer to that question, yes there are quite a number of projects new to the capital plan that were not on there previously. A large part of that is due to the new money that we have coming in from MRIF, and that’s what enables us to build a lot of these projects that have not been on there before. So yes, there are quite a number of projects on the capital plan for the first time, first showing up.
If they are able to put in new projects to start off right away in the capital plan because of this extra money like we heard earlier in Repulse Bay and Resolute Bay with the arena and community hall in Repulse, where they didn’t have the money to do those projects that were already on the capital plan.
May I get a rationale as to how come those ones couldn’t have been moved up and done with this new money and not further delayed by having other ones put on?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Advisory Committee on Infrastructure is new and they worked very hard.
It’s very encouraging to see that the communities are involved, and they go through this committee.
Maybe those things are coming about because it is a brand new committee, the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee and the mayors.
It’s the mayors who talk with the members and try to visit all the communities in Nunavut during the planning stages.
They just started on September 25, and we will probably see some more of their work but at this time, it’s very hard to predict how well they will proceed because the committee is fairly new.
But looking at work they have done, they have done very well where they are trying to accommodate most of the communities whether they are small projects or capital projects.
I was extremely proud of them and that I was able to talk to those communities when they do the consultations.
I’ll let Mr. Dawe speak further on that.
One small additional point here is some of the new projects that have shown up have shown up basically because they qualify under certain criteria for the new programs.
We may have to still have to defer certain types of the work like parking garages or sewage lagoons or water systems because we don’t have the money for it, but we can afford to put a community hall ahead of a sewage lagoon, for example, because we can use the community hall under certain federal programs which might not be applicable to other types of work.
So it is sometimes not a straightforward matter of priority but it is a matter of juggling what we can do with what funds.
I think I can see a juggling act if you can leverage third-party funding. It is probably better to use other people’s money than our own.
And I know there was quite a bit of discussion yesterday on the infrastructure and the Nunavut Infrastructure Advisory Committee.
Were they given copies of the government’s capital plan to use - this is what we’ve set for what consultations with the communities over the next five years of so - when they were sat down to take a look at what they were going to be prioritizing.
The Infrastructure Advisory Committee, when they sat down to do work, did indeed have access to previous capital plans. They did not review the current capital plan - they created the current capital plan.
And this is where the committee started at community consultation level; developed and gathered the information for all the projects; prepared all the estimates; tried to fit things into slots and not just where we could manipulate and leverage the best usage of the federal money and, in effect, the NCIAC recommendation was forwarded to Community and Government Services. Community and Government Services adopted that recommendation as its own capital program and forwarded it on up through the Financial Management Board process and the Standing Committee to Committee of the Whole as we have it here today.
So they basically created the program rather than consulting on it with Community and Government Services involvement of course.
Page J-8.
Total Kivalliq Region. $2,540,000.
J-9.
Total Kitikmeot Region. $3,324,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Total Tangible Assets. $12,026,000.
Chairman: Thank you kindly.
J-11.
Total Kivalliq Region. $550,000.
Total Tangible Assets. $550,000.
Back to J-4. Community and Government Services.
On J-4; it is a general question that the minister made a statement that the hunters may be given rebates of the taxation year. Is that how I understood her statement?
I don’t have it with me right now.
If that’s the case, would they be open to review of that present direction right now because there are other ways of doing this.
If you’re going to be waiting for your rebate as a hunter for your usage of gasoline, that’s a very long time if you’re not working.
I was wondering if there could be other ways of arranging that by way of, for example, if there are so many months, or every month that the lower income people get a GST rebate from the federal government. Can a similar type of arrangement be made for the hunters who will be rebated for the gasoline that they use?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and also the member. (interpretation) I want to say yes but there’s nothing that I can do.
I think that this is the responsibility of another minister; I think it’s the Minister of Finance that should be asked that question.
I thank you for the question that you have directed to me.
I want to say yes, but I can’t.
Minister Simailak would you like to answer that question?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we said that there will be a Fuel Tax Rebate Program.
It’s a rebate given to the hunters and the others can apply to get that the tax that they paid paid back to them.
Every six months they can request a rebate from our department for gasoline.
That’s the way it is right now.
I thank the minister for responding, but what I asked was that is there any way that the hunters can receive their rebate sooner than they are right now. The hunters are not working and it’s a little bit too long for them to wait for their cheque.
Like a tax rebate.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): We have not considered the question that the member is asking but it’s done so they can ask for their rebate every six months.
Back to J-4.
Departmental Summary. Detail of Expenditure.
Total Capital Expenditure. $16,576,000.
Are we in agreement that the Department of Community and Government Services is completed?
Chairman: Thank you, Members.
I would like to thank the minister for appearing to the Committee of the Whole and your staff.
Can we have a five-minute break?
>>Committee recessed at 17:10 and resumed at 17:20
Chairman (Mr. Arreak) (interpretation): Thank you for returning.
I would like to ask the Minister for Culture, Language, Elders and Youth for his opening remarks.
Bill 26 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2007-08 – Review in Committee – Culture, Language, Elders and Youth
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank the members.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth’s 2007-08 Capital Budget of $8,295,000.
As part of my department’s continued commitment to community capacity building:
$987,000 of the capital contribution funding will be provided to community-based individuals and organizations for renovations and minor capital equipment related to Heritage, Elders, and Youth centres; and
$668,000 of capital contribution funding will be provided to community organizations for renovations and minor capital equipment related to recreation facilities.
The department’s capital estimates have identified funds to make Piqqusilirivvik a reality in the 2007-08 fiscal year and beyond, $5 million in 2007-08 and $5 million in 2008-09.
I have instructed the steering committee composed of senior officials from my Department, the Department of Education, and NTI to develop an implementation plan for this Government’s review and approval by January 2007.
The Nunavut Heritage Centre continues to be a challenge in terms of seeking additional funds that will be required to build the current design which has been estimated at a total construction cost of $55 million.
I am confident that the three organizations which form the tri-lateral working group will assist the government in developing a plan to secure additional funding.
The Government of Nunavut has committed $10 million towards the Nunavut Heritage Centre over the time span of this capital plan.
It is our goal to find the remainder of the funds required through discussions and fundraising liaison with various stakeholders including the private sector.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on other significant capital activities in the current fiscal year.
Under Community Heritage, Elders, and Youth Centres my department has awarded $456,000 in support of 15 projects in 11 Nunavut communities.
Support has been provided to seven youth, two elder, and six heritage projects.
My department continues to invite applications for contribution funding from community based individuals and organizations for the remainder of the 2006-07 fiscal year.
Under Recreation Facilities Projects capital contributions, funding has been provided to communities Nunavut-wide for community recreational facilities. To date, 17 recreation projects have been funded across Nunavut to improve their facilities within their communities.
Lastly, minor capital funding in the amount of $60,000 will allow my department to purchase new office equipment and computers for departmental operations in the decentralized communities of Baker Lake, Igloolik, Kugluktuk, as well as the office in Iqaluit.
In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on Culture, Language, Elders and Youth’s 2007-08 Capital Estimates. I would be pleased to answer any questions from the committee.
Before we continue, does the chair of the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit have any comments? Mr. Mapsalak.
The Standing Committee Ajauqtiit has reviewed the proposed capital estimates of the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth for the 2007-08 fiscal year and I am pleased to provide you with the committee’s comments.
The committee notes that the department’s proposed 2007-08 capital budget of $8,295,000 is approximately 160 percent higher than its 2006-07 budget, primarily as a result of the department’s plan to allocate $5.08 million in the upcoming year towards the new Piqqusilirivik Cultural School.
Mr. Chairman, on September 25, 2006, the minister announced the location of the Piqqusilirivik would be in Clyde River, with satellite campuses in Igloolik and Baker Lake. It is anticipated that the construction of the Piqqusilirivik facility will begin in 2007.
Mr. Chairman, members look forward to reviewing the design of the facility and its governance structure.
Members also look forward to learning what the two satellite campuses will offer in terms of programming, as well as the operations and maintenance requirements for the campuses, in light of their addition to scope of the project.
Mr. Chairman, the department plans to spend $1.5 million each year for the Nunavut heritage centre up to 2011-12.
The information provided to the members of the heritage centre project indicates that the total costs of a new heritage centre is projected at $60.0 million.
According to the project’s substantiation sheet, the construction of the facility is expected to begin in 2008-09, with completion in 2009-10 fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, a total of $50 million is still anticipated to be recovered through third party funding.
The minister did indicate to the committee that the department has been aggressively seeking outside funds for the heritage centre and he is optimistic that the necessary funds will be secured.
Since 1999, the Government of Nunavut has paid the Government of the Northwest Territories approximately $150,000 annually to care for our museum and archival collection.
Members recognize that this situation cannot continue indefinitely.
Members understand that the new heritage centre will be located in the territorial capital in order to be able to access potential federal funding for the project.
Mr. Chairman, the committee notes that the department has produced more detailed projections for the future operations and maintenance costs, for the new centre than were contained in last year’s capital estimates.
Mr. Chairman, the department needs to define its long term capital funding plans with respect to its responsibilities for the territorial archives given the potential for the facilities to be combined.
The committee looks forward to the minister’s providing regular updates to the Legislative Assembly and the public on the progress of this important initiative.
Greater clarity from the department on its long-term plans for public library facilities in the territory would also be welcome, given the recent transfer of responsibility to Culture, Language, Elders and Youth for this area.
Mr. Chairman, the committee applauds the minister for his annual tabling of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth’s Report on Grants and Contributions, including its capital contributions for community facilities.
The department’s annual reporting should also include information on the extent to which it is able to measure the effectiveness of its grants and contributions expenditures, in addition to information on the number of submissions that did not receive funding approval.
It is important to clarify the extent to which the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth consults with the Department of Community and Government Services and the Nunavut Association of Municipalities in the administration of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth’s program to provide capital contributions for recreational facilities.
The committee notes that a revised department capital contributions policy has recently been approved by Cabinet and encourages the department to actively communicate the contents of the new policy to communities and other stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, members look forward to scrutinizing the upcoming amendments to the Historical Resources Act.
The passage of this bill may help the department to revitalize the Historical Advisory Board.
This would be timely, in light of the department’s ongoing efforts to develop the new Nunavut Heritage Centre.