EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I will ask that question to the Minister of Education later on.
Thank you. I’m done, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I have similar concerns too in terms of how the government prioritizes projects and new projects. Maybe I don’t understand what happened.
In terms of what we have in front of us, it says that we’re being asked to approve $33,000 and not to worry too much about it because it’s coming from another pot of money in that revolving fund of money that is always out there or money that has been approved. Is that correct?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, is that correct?
I’m going to thank Mr. Elliott again, but I would ask Deputy Minister D’Arcy to respond to that and see. He works with all these pots of money on a day-to-day basis.
The only difference between the capital carryovers that we call FAM compliant and the capital carryovers that we call non-FAM compliant is the vast majority of the ones that are FAM compliant have obligations against them. There is a contract in place.
They’re ongoing projects. The ones that we call non-compliant are not actually new projects. They would have been projects that had been previously approved, that were in the capital estimates already for 2012-13, but for whatever reason, were unable to be started or initiated.
They don’t have any contractual obligations against them.
We presume that this Assembly and the department itself want to carry on with the project.
It’s early in the year. At this time, we ask the Assembly to re-approve the funds that were approved the previous year for this project. That’s the only difference.
So my question is: as the Legislative Assembly, did we approve $33,000 last year for this project?
I don’t really specifically remember approving that small amount, but if you could clarify.
I thank Mr. Elliott for his question there.
As memory, I believe if it’s a FAM non-compliant carryover, it was previously approved. It’s just that there’s no contractual commitment and it hasn’t started, so we had to go back and check the details.
Again, $33,000 seems like an odd number to approve. In terms of initiating plans, it’s $50,000, like with the Grise Fiord college facility that they’re looking into. I just find $33,000… .
So it would be interesting to have you reply back to us as to where exactly that came from.
The other question before I could approve or give approval for the $33,000… .
It does sound like there’s no contractual obligation, so we can actually strike this from it and it’s not going to cause any grief in terms of possibly slowing down a project.
As Mr. Ningeongan pointed out, his school has been pushed back and I know my health centre has been pushed back year after year after year.
If there’s no contractual obligation, then obviously…. .
I guess it gets confusing in terms of we’re being told there is no money and then money gets found.
Maybe the first question I’ll ask the minister is when these projects are sitting in the pile and revolving around, we already understand and it has been explained by the Minister of CGS many times in terms of there’s a specific process that is followed where communities have their say. They come up with their top-ten list. There are the Nunavut community integrated sustainability plans which substantiate the need for certain things in the communities.
It goes to a committee where there are mayors on it and there’s CGS. This was decided in terms of priority and need where maybe a health centre will get funded first before a recreational facility because of the need, and then it obviously gets to cabinet.
How do you guys decide? It obviously sounds like this was a cabinet decision that you’re going to go with this project.
Was the Department of Education around the table deciding or how was it decided in terms of a priority to bring this specific project forward?
Minister Kusugak, did you want to reply?
I just don’t want to confuse the situation when I talk about it.
My colleague has explained how we do the infrastructure and he went through all the way right, everything he had said, to the point where it was correct until he said that this infrastructure advisory committee deals with which communities will get health centres, schools, and stuff.
That committee does not deal with that. It’s just a municipal infrastructure advisory committee for municipal infrastructure, not government infrastructure.
I think he understands my point. That committee doesn’t decide what community gets what school, what health centre, and so on.
They just decide what infrastructure the hamlets are going to get.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) That’s it.
Thank you for that clarification because it does help in terms of learning our roles better and making sure that we can push for what’s needed in the communities.
The question is: how was this specific decision made in terms of… ? It is a government asset.
In terms of the next stage that I missed out and for items that are not municipal, how is that decision made?
Probably Mr. Elliott doesn’t understand the whole process after four or something years of doing this.
Public sector budgeting is quite a bit different than private sector budgeting when you’re doing capital projects.
Mr. Chairman, everything comes into this House, where we all make decisions on what gets approved and what gets funded.
Otherwise, I wouldn’t be sitting here right now answering questions.
This particular project, the Arviat middle school, was approved at $28,633,000.
I apologize that I can’t explain the details of why there’s a $33,000 carryover, but it may be related to the initiation and planning of the $50,000 where, if you see in the prior years, it’s $50,000.
I don’t have the specific details, but it could be related to that.
I still am a little foggy as to, before these documents come before us, how it’s approved, as to whether it’s going to be, as Mr. Ningeongan said, a high school for the community that he represents or the health centre in the community that I represent or utilidor.
There must be a mechanism and, in terms of cabinet decisions, you would never be able to tell us how that works.
The next question I have and my understanding is that for the 2013-14 fiscal year, which is what we’re talking about, which is what we’re approving, there’s going to be $1,533,000 expended in government funds on this project.
There’s the $33,000 that you want us to capital carryover today, and then it’s my understanding that if there’s $1.5 million that’s going to be expended in this fiscal year, have we approved that already or is that going to come forward as another capital carryover?
My understanding is that we have already approved capital back last November, but according to the records we have, there’s going to be $1,533,000 coming forward and that’s the part I don’t understand, Mr. Chairman.
If the minister could explain it, then I’ll be good to go.
I’ll try to explain it.
If you look at Schedule 3 of the capital plan substantiation sheet, we’re seeking a carryover of $33,000 from prior years, prior years being 2012-13, and then the design of $1.5 million for 2013-14 would have been approved last October during the capital estimates process.
Mr. Elliott, do you understand now? Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Elliott: I think I do.
Just for clarification, we won’t be asked to approve $1.5 million because it has already been approved.
That’s what the minister is saying. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliot. (interpretation ends) Is that what you are saying, Minister Peterson?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Yes, we’re now asking for the approval of the $33,000 and hopefully the $1.5 million will be spent in 2013-14. Otherwise, there may be a carryover next year for 2014-15.
We are on page 7. Education. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Corporate Services. Total Corporate Services. $15,573,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $15,573,000.
Turn the page. Page 8. Health.
I’m sorry. I’ll start over again.
Health. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Directorate. Total Directorate. $30,139,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $30,139,000.
Page 9. Environment. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Program Management. Total Program Management. $3,090.000.
Here it indicates the Pangnirtung Wildlife Office. I just want to find out about the $149,000. We haven’t had a wildlife officer for quite some time.
What is that amount for?
The information we have, and I can read it, from the Department of Environment says, to ensure continuity of the project, CGS was unable to tender in 2012-13. CGS has assured Environment of a goal to tender in 2013-14 that funds will be utilized to secure a contract with a consulting firm to initiate the planning stage of a new wildlife office in Pangnirtung. When the funds are carried over, CGS will hire a consultant and then the initial design will be drafted.
We are on page 9. Environment. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Program Management. Total Program Management. $3,090,000.
Not Previously Authorized. $3,090,000.
You can ask questions on pages 10, 11, 12, and 13 together.
You can ask your questions up to page 12.
Before we continue on, Mr. Ningeongan.
Today, we heard that the three communities will receive funds to renovate their hockey arenas. I am very pleased about that.
I wish to ensure that the ministers of Finance and CGS be aware that the cement flooring of the arena in Coral Harbour has been renovated.
From wall to wall, there is cement, but we noticed this winter that there is a crack in the cement.
We have heard that there are other community arenas that have had cracks in their cement floors.
When I spoke with the mayor of Coral Harbour this spring, I also heard that the cracked floors will be repaired by the people who performed the contract.
I would like to find out whether this should be a concern by the departments because we don’t want to have cracks in the cement floors.
I wanted to bring this to your attention so that the communities that had this work done, whether these jobs can be done properly. For instance, in Arviat last year, apparently the work was not done properly and there was no hockey game in Arviat during the time they put down cement flooring.
I just want the department to consider that these kinds of jobs should be done properly by the contractors because they probably have different contractors doing the work.
For the future arenas that are going to get cement flooring, they might get the same problems that we are facing.
I just want that to be considered by the department or the Minister of CGS. This is not really a question but more of a comment just so you can be aware.
Minister Kusugak, if you wish to respond to that.
Thank you for allowing me to respond to that. I am happy that Mr. Ningeongan has brought that up and it is all true and now we are working on it.
The problem that was in Arviat was to do with the contractors who installed cement flooring.
However, we just heard from the communities about the ones that are cracked right now.
We were looking into the cement floors that have been cracked.
We know that they could not use the arena here in Iqaluit, even after it was redone again. We are aware of this now because of the cost and we will work on it before any other problems occur. We don’t want the problem going on and on into the future, and we will bring workers to the communities to fix the problem as soon as possible.
We will learn from these communities that had cracks on their floors.
We hear Mr. Ningeongan, and we will work on those problems that have occurred as soon as we can.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me a chance to respond to that question or comment.
Thank you for providing that information.
Just before we begin the other pages, I would like to remind the members that we just finished pages 10 to 12, and we can only ask questions to item 5 on page 12. Once that’s over, you can ask other questions past item 5.
Moving on. Mr. Aupaluktuq.
It’s under CGS Maintenance Shop.
Maybe the Minister of CGS can respond to the question.
I want to know when you are going to be working on the maintenance shop in Baker Lake. It is $322,000 for the maintenance shop in Baker Lake. I just want to see what stage it is at now so that the people of Baker Lake can know what is happening.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Aupaluktuq. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, I’ll start with you.
I really can’t add much more information to him other than what’s in the substantiation sheet.
They’re only requesting $322,000 out of $2,733,000.
They say here that an unusual amount of snow and cold weather delayed completion to 2012, and then a carryover will deal with the warranty issues. They expect the completion date to be issued in December 2012; construction warranty.
I have very little information other than what’s there, Mr. Aupaluktuq.
I want to ask how the funds will be used.
Asking for some additional funds, how will that $322,000 be used?
Let me apologize to you, Minister Kusugak. After Minister Peterson responds, Minister Kusugak will have an opportunity.
Just again to remind Mr. Aupaluktuq, we’re not seeking new funds. We’re carrying over funds.
From just reading between the lines, and Minister Kusugak can clarify for you, I suspect that they may be waiting for the spring and summer so they can do some inspections and warranty work outside, when they can see the facility better.
Mr. Aupaluktuq, please be advised if I were to add to what’s written here, I would say that the funds are being used for minor improvements.
It’s now being utilized.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak, for the clarification once again.
On page 11 in regard to the sewage lagoon in Cape Dorset, $88,000, I would like an explanation on what this is for.
Considering that lagoon has been completed five years ago, what is this money being spent for?
I realize there are issues with it. If you could explain what this is going to be used for.
I thank Mr. Schell for his question.
The capital substantiation sheet indicates that it will be used for warranty work.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation ends) Moving right along.
On page 11, it says, “Repairs to Truck Fill Station - Sanikiluaq,” $25,000. I’m just wondering what these funds are going to be used for considering that this building has been in existence now for the past four years.
I’m just wondering what kind of issues they’re having with the water fill station.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you and sorry, Mr. Chairman.
The information we have is what’s available on the substantiation sheet, to complete the consulting contract in 2013-14.
That’s all the information we have.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation ends) Mr. Rumbolt, you look puzzled.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am.
Why would there be a consulting contract if the building is already in place for the last four years?
I’m wondering if the Minister of CGS has any other information that he’s willing to share.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) Minister Kusugak, do you have anything to share?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’m glad to share everything you want to be shared with.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleague might know, there were some deficiencies with the pump fill station.
The ongoing issues that were there will be dealt with through this so that it will be seamless then. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that helps.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Kusugak. (interpretation ends) Moving right along.
For the Kitikmeot Granular - Gjoa Haven, on the substantiation sheet, it says that it’s for the granular survey in Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak, and Kugluktuk and the current reason for delay on capital projects.
I’m just wondering: what year will this granular project be in Taloyoak?
I don’t have an immediate answer for that for Taloyoak, but that’s the question you’re asking, when it will occur in Taloyoak.
If you can clarify, Mr. Chairman.
Please clarify your question, Ms. Ugyuk.
Based on my understanding, the $2,540,000 is going to be used and it’s a pilot project in Kugluktuk and also used in the other communities.
Right now, this is on hold for many years.
When will it be undertaken in Taloyoak?
I thank Ms. Ugyuk for her question and I appreciate her clarifying.
I don’t see where it says the year that it will be in Taloyoak and Gjoa Haven. All it says is class “A” estimates for surveying Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak, and Kugluktuk.
No other communities have been consulted. It doesn’t actually say which years it will be in each communities, which I am aware of, it appears.
It would be for the Kitikmeot, but it doesn’t really specify when work would be undertaken in the Kitikmeot.
Minister Kusugak, do you want to comment?
I say “Mr. Speaker,” but I will call you Mr. Chairman.
Based on our understanding, you were talking about Gjoa Haven. They were working on gravel somewhere in summer 2012 and also they produced 30,000 cubic metres of granular stock.
Hopefully they will be receiving a screener in Gjoa Haven during the summer sealift.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that helps.
Does that help, Ms. Ugyuk?
Yes, I’m glad that he explained that in Gjoa Haven, they will be getting a screener.
When are they going to be getting one in Taloyoak?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): I don’t have the exact date, but once I have it, I’ll let Ms. Ugyuk know.
In regard to the Gjoa Haven Hamlet Office, it’s my understanding that it was already approved and they’re going to work on the new hamlet office in Gjoa Haven.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister… . Thank you, Ms. Ugyuk.
In this current fiscal year, 2013-14, they will be using the funds for design and construction, and then the main construction will be 2014-15. We will award a tender, of course, but that’s the schedule.
My other question is in regard to the community centre in Taloyoak. This project keeps being deferred.
I wonder at which stage it is in now. They always say cost is an issue. It has been in the planning stages for many years.
We’re looking for that in our tremendous binder of substantiation sheets, if you could bear with us, our apologies.
The documents are not where they are supposed to be, it appears. As we’re all aware, we’re still looking here.
Perhaps we can move on and we will come back to this one when we find that document, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Yes, that can be accommodated, Minister Peterson.
Ms. Ugyuk, do you wish to proceed with another matter?
We will get back to that issue when they can find the document.
On page 10, (interpretation ends) Regional Granular Program - Repulse Bay, (interpretation) it was in the hamlet’s capital plan.
Also, (interpretation ends) Snow Fencing -Repulse Bay (interpretation) was included in the hamlet’s capital plan. I hope they proceed.
My question through you, Mr. Chairman, is regarding those communities that receive gravel under the granular program. I have heard that if it is within the municipal boundary, it belongs to the hamlet.
Sometimes it appears that once the gravel has been crushed, it belongs to the contractors and sometimes they can be within the municipal boundary.
If the gravel can be obtained from the gravel pit and it can be obtained outside the municipal boundary, who does it belong to?
Does it belong to the hamlet or the contractor?
Minister Peterson, if you can now respond to that and I know you might not have an answer. So if you prefer, someone else can respond to it. I’ll begin with you, Minister Peterson.
I don’t have an answer, but I believe the Minister of CGS might be able to assist Mr. Ningark with his question.
If the government screens the gravel, we basically follow the contractor’s procedure.
For example, if the arctic airports were to need some gravel, they would be the contractors.
Maybe they can hand it over to the hamlet or municipalities.
When gravel is being made, they usually mention who the gravel belongs to.
It’s based on the procedures.
I hope that makes sense.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): That’s it for now.
I want clarification also on page 10, (interpretation ends) Secondary Water Source Study - Nunavut. (interpretation) Will all of the communities in Nunavut be looked after under this category?
It is a study. The information indicates that the study will locate and identify an alternate drinking source for each of the 24 non-tax based communities within Nunavut.
I have no more names on my list. Mr. Ningeongan.
I apologize. Even though you mentioned that you have no more names on your list, I know the role of the Chairman.
I want to ask a question on page 10 as well. The third one under item 1, (interpretation ends) Sewage and Solid Waste - Sewage Lagoon, (interpretation) which communities is it for?
Maybe you can explain to us.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, if you can, please.
I believe that if the $238,000 is the correct amount, it is for a sewage and solid waste project in one community, in Kugluktuk.
We are under numerous pages.
Moving on to page 12.
I apologize. I just wanted to get back to Ms. Ugyuk’s question on her recreation complex retrofit in Taloyoak.
We were able to find that information.
As you appreciate, the government has lots of paper and sometimes it’s hard to find it, but we did.
The information we have is the funds would be carried over to 2013-14, it would be utilized, and they’re hoping the project will be completed by 2014-15.
Thank you for getting back to that question.
Ms. Ugyuk, do you have any more questions?
Yes, and I thank the minister for the response.
Is it due to the high cost that it is being deferred constantly?
Does she understand that correctly?
It appears to be a combination of things. Change orders, requesting additional work from the original class “A,” they were talking about transfer of possibly storage tanks, replacing the Zamboni room, repairing exterior metal siding: of course, these kinds of things will add to the delay.
The bids coming in were more than they estimated, so they have to now delay the project, but they do state that it appears they’re ready to proceed to complete the project this year, if I am interpreting this correctly.
It has been more than one year that this matter has been deferred.
This building has been in existence for over 25 years. It is also a building that contains an arena. It is also a community hall.
It’s a multi-complex.
The hamlet council does not really believe that the work will be completed because they say that it will be deemed too costly to finish.
If the hamlet has concerns, they could deal with the regional office in Cambridge Bay of Community and Government Services.
I’m sure they’re more than willing to come out and meet with the hamlet council to explain the different phases of the project and hear from the hamlet what their concerns are.
Total Capital Panning. $45,730,000.
Total Petroleum Products Division. $10,910,000.
Not Previously Authorized. $56,640,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Moving on to page 14.
Looking at the substantiation sheet, there is $1,228,000 for (interpretation ends) small craft harbours. (interpretation) Funding has been set aside and it says in the substantiation sheet on page 3… .
I want to ask some questions because I often express some concern about it.
Whether there is going to be a fish plant, would the federal government be providing some funding?
Here it says “private property,” so it can be reviewed again for the equipment that are owned by the hunters.
Workers’ compensation was already being mentioned and whether they can review that.
If the minister can’t respond, maybe the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation can answer that question.
I want to understand how the funding will be used.
We know that $500,000 is set aside for Nunavut under this program.
It says here that a study was undertaken. Can I get clarification on this?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson has indicated to me that Minister Taptuna would be the perfect minister to answer this question.