EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
There are still two members. Mr. Oshutapik, did you want to comment?
Mr. Oshutapik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I didn’t quite understand the issue that my colleague raised, so I wanted to ask this question. You stated that the standards and criteria policy is just being drafted, but it already seems to be used. If I misunderstood, I would like to get that clarified.
My secondary question related to this matter is the engineer review. I believe the minister stated it’s just in the design and planning phase.
If the plan is approved by the community, would the community that wanted these kinds of facilities have a smoother path?
Is that what you’re planning here? When you talk about a complex with multiple facilities, you seem to be in the planning stage. Is that just the design plan?
Even if it’s not an Olympic-sized pool, a small pool in the design prior to construction would be known by the department, as you seem to be talking about this aspect, but you spoke about the standard and criteria issue. Even prior to this being completed, it already seems to be in use.
Is this part of this?
Those are the three questions I have.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Oshutapik.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you for asking that question.
I wonder how to make it understandable.
Mr. Chairman, during our past, the GNWT established standards and criteria which stated that if a community is this size, then you would qualify for a facility.
We all know that once a community hall or an arena or a gymnasium is built, it is considered too small even prior to people entering the facility.
We are working with this standard and criteria as a base. Although we don’t really follow it, it is there as a guide to our planning.
Even prior to the new policy, this is what we want to follow in this process here in Nunavut.
Even though that is the case, our officials visit communities and during those visits, they discuss projects that are going to be constructed in the next season.
As an example, in Igloolik, when the community hall was due for construction in the next year, our officials went to the community, met with the hamlet officials, and also held a public meeting.
They spoke with interested parties and they said, “This is the type of facility that you might be able to get.
So would you want to add more or is this sufficient?”
Based on the feedback from the public as to the type of facility they wanted and the changes in the design, that they want to add this part or others, if it’s possible, then we make those changes to reflect the local priorities. If it’s not going to add to the budget, then we look at the design plan and its change.
That is also how we conducted our process in Grise Fiord and we also do that in other communities.
With respect to the comment or at least the issue that we’re deliberating and where it pertains to the recreational complex in Rankin Inlet, this process was also undertaken with the meeting between the hamlet and the public.
Although I wasn’t there, they shared their vision and the types of facilities they wanted in the recreational complex.
With that process used, it led to the new design.
I think we should remember that the planning is just one step towards construction.
I would want to support them. I’m not sure when it would be finished, but they have a good vision of how they want to develop their community. So we’re in support of the hamlet and every hamlet that has a vision of how they want to develop their community, especially with respect to planning these recreational facilities, schools, hamlet offices, and the like.
Mr. Oshutapik, do you have any other comments?
Please proceed, Mr. Oshutapik.
These projects, as we have noted with facilities created in different communities, change slightly due to the distances between communities, so the way they are constructed also have to be slightly different.
When you refer to the Rankin Inlet design plan that we are discussing here, can this plan be used?
If the Hamlet of Pangnirtung wanted a similar design, because we have different terrain from Rankin Inlet, we will run into different obstacles.
They have to change the design somewhat based on where the facility is going to be located.
When some of these engineers make their plans and they go to a different type of terrain, it’s no longer appropriate.
Perhaps prior to completing this plan, if you looked at all communities as well as the different terrain, then they could conduct planning in that way. That would be better from what I see.
When some members see this plan, this project might work in Rankin Inlet as it was planned and members have had that perception as we heard more details.
If it was based on each community’s location, with that being the defining factor, then fewer members would have misunderstood the intentions, at least as it applies to me.
I will stop there. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Your comments are very understandable.
Indeed, as we all remember, when we dealt with recreational facilities in the GNWT days, whenever an official would arrive, it would be a set plan as it would include a curling rink. I believe most rinks included a curling rink, although some of the citizens weren’t even interested in curling.
A curling rink was rarely utilized because they allocated all communities a set plan using standards for each type of facility.
If they had thought about trying to consult with communities about their interests, whether they wanted a curling rink included with their arena or some other facility attached to the rink, it would have been a lot easier.
If I use Pangnirtung as an example, when we reach the day some day in the future, whether they wanted a swimming pool or an arena, it would be preferable to see a departmental official go to Pangnirtung to discuss the facility. If you state that your community wishes to add an addition in the future during the review of the proposed facility and whether that facility could be included in the design drawing due to the size of the lot and the room for expansion, it is only a future option.
If a community required a new swimming pool in the future when the design drawing is being done, they may request to include a bowling alley in the drawing so that it will be another capital project down the road for the community as one huge drawing. I doubt that whole plan with its additions would be constructed as a single facility.
Perhaps it would be built in the future when the community finds more funding to build the future bowling alley or other facility. At least in that way, the blueprints for the facility would already be included. It would also identify to your community, “This is a future addition we want down the road, so this is what this huge complex blueprint is in this case.”
It doesn’t state anywhere in this plan that the hockey arena, a swimming pool, a gymnasium, and all of their dreams for the future additions will all be built in Rankin Inlet, causing envy amongst other communities.
We shouldn’t even be thinking that because it doesn’t say that anywhere here.
It just speaks to the blueprints that will be drafted, along with the possible future additions that they want. None of the additions would be funded by this government without the approval of each capital project by this Assembly.
This is just a long-term capital plan submitted by the community that identifies future additions down the road, pending their eventual inclusion and submission.
I totally support all hamlets to have long-term blueprints so that their capital project planning is done for many years, if we ever reach that stage and day.
I just want to remind members that we’re dealing with capital projects.
Oh, it’s Minister Kusugak.
I apologize. I am sincerely sorry.
I saw Tagak’s name earlier and continued.
I want to remind you that we are dealing with capital projects.
I just want to hear the banter back and forth with the debate, but we have to come to a consensus on whether this will be approved or whether they will deduct some funding or some other decision you arrive at.
I still have three names on my list of people who want to comment.
So if you have any questions that can help to resolve this issue with relation to capital projects, then I will proceed with the three names.
I believe you’re done, Mr. Oshutapik.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to provide some information because we dealt with this in the past.
I, too, have some deep concerns about the capital planning process and whether the communities are treated equitably.
Some of our communities don’t even have any facilities.
We don’t have a swimming pool nor do we have a baseball field while other communities are making long-term capital plans towards large projects, such as an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
It is disconcerting to me because the government should be looking at communities as being all equal or that communities could at least have the same number of facilities.
The previous comment made by my colleague that some communities want a huge recreation complex. It would good for them to proceed if they are able and they have funding.
For our smaller communities especially, it seems like such an impossible dream to think about these facilities since some municipalities are facing financial dire straits.
This is my biggest concern in this case. I know for a fact that if communities all had recreational facilities or other facilities, the lifestyle becomes healthier.
The youth would lead happier lives as it is easier to live life when there are various recreational activities in their local towns and I’m not just talking about swimming pools, hockey arenas, or baseball fields. We need other facilities as well because when our youth can keep boredom at bay, they have less time to direct towards crime.
If our youth are happy, then they will not commit more crimes. When you are able to keep your body in shape, you can become a happier person.
Some communities don’t even have facilities, yet we want to expend huge amounts of funds without a proper foundation, as we have just heard.
As the minister stated, we are using the policies we inherited from the GNWT as a foundation.
Personally, my expectations are to see a very clear outline in Nunavut that can be a proper foundation so that each community can know exactly what to do and what base they have to apply for these recreational facilities if they want to plan for them.
I am very proud of the communities that have undertaken their own initiatives to use their own funding to create these projects. I am very proud of them.
However, for those communities that have fewer capabilities or smaller communities, this is just a pipe dream to them because they don’t have the capacity. I believe the government has to treat every community equitably and that’s what I wanted heard because I am really concerned about this.
Even though we have no foundation, here we already want a large amount just for the planning and design process.
Perhaps we ought to prepare a proper foundation first. Wouldn’t that be better? That way, we could have a proper foundation that every community understands and so that each community can start to prepare long-term capital plans.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Enook.
You may want to respond, although I didn’t hear a question.
I give you the floor, Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Indeed, as communities look at the long-term vision, they have to identify the funding for the design. It would be good to see these blueprints completed, especially in light of all the planning done to date.
If that process just stopped in mid-process, the work would be for nothing.
We have to remember that there was also funding identified to renovate the Rankin Inlet arena.
What happened instead was the hamlet returned the funding to the federal government, saying that perhaps it would be better not to renovate the arena since it wouldn’t meet their needs and to return the funding and use it towards longer term planning for a new arena. This is the way that the hamlet went ahead. They could have used that money which was already approved, but they returned that funding because the community didn’t want to see this project just stop halfway.
I agree with my fellow members that we have to plan properly so that communities get the kind of facilities they need and we have to ensure that it proceeds. We have to have proper capital planning for each community, whether they are small or large communities.
The residents of Rankin Inlet have only stated what they hope to see in the long-term future, especially where it applies to their community’s facilities plans for many years.
If this process keeps going, then the project costs would start increasing and more money would be spent conducting a new planning process for their facilities.
I am just in support of the community and I would like to see this proceed to complete the planning because they are trying to develop their community.
When a plan is made for the future of a community, even if it’s a small or large community, I believe we have to support each other.
We all talk about the need for supporting our communities in Nunavut, so I support this plan, Mr. Chairman.
I’m kind of overwhelmed. When we first started, I had asked for general comments, but no one responded. That is why I tried to go to the page-by-page review.
We seem to be returning to the question period when I asked for general comments.
I have caused myself to become confused and I apologize for not chairing the meeting properly.
I would like to go ahead with acknowledging the three names so we can actually return to the page-by-page review. After Ron Elliott makes his comments, it will be Mr. Rumbolt, and then Mr. Ningeongan.
I want to go to the page-by-page review, but we’re still lingering on the general comments. That’s why I was confused because nobody spoke up when I asked for general comments.
That’s okay because every member has to be able to understand what we’re talking about.
I just wanted to identify that it was my fault for causing confusion and I apologize for that.
I had asked for general comments, but since no one spoke up, I assumed there were none while it turned out there were lots of comments.
I don’t want to add to the confusion because I don’t actually have general comments.
Mine are specific questions on page H-4 and H-5, so I will hold off until then.
Mr. Rumbolt, do you have specific questions to the page that we are reviewing or do you have general comments?
(interpretation ends) Go ahead, Mr. Elliott.
We are now (interpretation) reviewing page by page. Mr. Elliott.
Clear as mud, eh?
On H-4, specifically dealing with the new Rankin Inlet recreational complex/arena, we originally allocated $200,000, which was supposed to be a study for the arena to see what was needed to be done.
I seem to remember the discussions. It was mainly around repairs to the facility and whatnot. Now you’re coming back and your department is asking for $500,000 this year.
In some of the substantiation forms, it talks about yes, an arena, but it’s sort of grown to a weight room, a swimming pool, a 1,000-seat facility, and not just a regular sized swimming pool but an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
I think one of the things that all members are worried about, and it’s obviously coming out with what some of the members are saying with their general comments, is where is this going in terms of $500,000 starting with the planning and the process. That could lead into, in terms of class “X” estimates and whatnot, an estimate of maybe $100 million for a facility which the community is proposing.
I’m just curious if you could give us an update as to where your department sees this project going.
I think our department sees this as going through the planning and design stage and where it goes from there, I don’t know, but there would definitely be planning and design funding for this amount.
I think it would be better if I had Mr. Green respond further to your inquiry.
Chairman (interpretation): Go ahead, Mr. Green.
The project with regard to the Rankin Inlet arena came about, I think, four or five years ago.
It was originally under the MRIF project and when the community looked at the cost to repair the arena alone, I think we were looking at something like a cost in excess of $10 million just to do the upgrades to an arena that no longer met the needs of the community.
So it was decided to come back to the Legislative Assembly and look for funding, and that was the direction from the community, to look at replacing the existing arena with a new arena.
During the feasibility study, the consultation looked at not only the short-term needs, but it also looked at the long-term needs of the community and this is where the idea of the complex had come up.
But at this point in time, we’re still finalizing the feasibility study and looking at the planning.
So there’s no decision at this point in time to say that we’re going to move towards a complex and that might be something that would be phased in over time, but if you’re looking at the long term, you certainly need to identify site development so that you can have the available land if you look at expanding that facility over the long term.
At this point in time, we’re really just finalizing the feasibility study and looking at the plan and design.
If there’s a significant change in terms of the scope of work going forward, then the Legislative Assembly will have an opportunity to sit down and review the revised design and the funding.
The community is not only looking for contributions from the government, but they are also looking for contributions from the private sector.
So, really, we’re looking at a lot of other funding options at this point in time, so I think it’s too early to say how this is going to unfold.
For my next question with the feasibility study that’s completed and the plan and design that Mr. Green was talking about, are we approving $500,000 for a plan and design for an arena specifically or are we approving $500,000 for a plan and design for a recreational complex?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: If you could have Mr. Green respond, please, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Mr. Green, you’re up.
Just based on the feasibility study, we’re probably likely looking at this as a phase 1 project. It’s just looking at probably the arena replacement at this point in time.
Basically the feasibility study indicates to us what type of facility that we would need to be sustainable over the long term.
If a multiplex is not sustainable, then we won’t be moving in that direction, but at this point in time, the critical need is the existing arena is too small to meet the requirements of the community.
So the first priority in the planning phase would probably look at designing an arena that meets the needs of the community and we need to look at not only short term, but when you’re looking at an arena, you’re looking at a facility that’s probably got a 25- or 35-year life cycle. So you’ve really got to make sure that when you’re building, you’ve got a plan not for today but for tomorrow as well.
My next question is on H-5 in regard to Iqaluit with the RECAPP and the request for $600,000.
We have approved roughly $1.8 million in previous budgets, which, I think, in last year’s capital budget, it was $1.4 million and there was probably supplementary appropriation for another $400,000.
Again, with the $600,000, what’s specifically going to be completed with the funding? I think, in questions that I have asked before, the RECAPP is a property management program that the department uses to manage its assets, but if you could sort of break down where that $600,000 will be spent.
Perhaps it would be better if my deputy minister responds.
Chairman: Ms. Lausman.
RECAPP is actually a life cycle planning software system. It’s going to allow our department to actually get condition assessments on every asset in the community that the community owns and that the government owns. So we’re doing a full data capture.
We’re going to every community was consultants to actually undertake doing engineering condition and assessments. That information is going to be used to plan out life cycle replacement of roofs and boilers, doors and windows, and other things like that.
So part of the funding will actually be used to pay consultants to go the communities to do the assessment and for airfare and hotel accommodations. Is that correct?
It’s actually quite an undertaking to do condition assessments for every facility and every asset out there.
Some of these funds are also going to be used for training because, once we capture this data, we want to make sure we’re actually using it, so that we’ve got staff able to understand how to use the database and update it on an annual basis.
So it is spread over a period of time.
We have just awarded the contract to do the condition assessments and it’s going to depend on how many folks will go to each community, at what point in time, and depending on weather, and so on, how many assets they can actually gather information on. So it is a multi-year effort and that’s why the money is spread over a number of phases.
One of the questions that I had asked many times about the integrated community sustainability plans… .
When it was explained to me with the consultants who did that work, I thought there was property assessment and assessment of what assets were in all of the communities.
Did that not happen with the integrated community sustainability plans?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Perhaps it would be better if Ms. Lausman responds to that.
There was actually a general inventory of assets undertaken for the ICSPs and it was at a fairly high level. So it just captured basic information on square footage and size, storeys, and that kind of thing. In order to actually plan for life cycle reinvestment, we need a much more engineering approach and a lot more detail.
So we are building on that basic inventory to continue with this process.
With the Government of Nunavut’s implementation, they’re working towards the language plan that it’s been doing across the territory.
Will it be assessing possibly while these people are… ? Again, I’m thinking of cost-saving measures. Rather than getting another consultant to go around looking at buildings to see what signs are needed, are they going to assess what type of signage each of the buildings need, whether they meet the standards set by the Language Acts?
We have actually been working with the hamlets and hamlet staff. We want to capture signage requirements, not so much interior buildings.
We can have more information on that from this exercise, but it’s really street signs and those sorts of things that we want to capture with the hamlets.
I’m assuming we will be having the Department of Education before us tomorrow. In terms of some of the funding that we allocate to them for capital, it also requires them going around to different communities and checking what assets they have within the education structure.
Are you working with them and will everything that they capture be implemented and put into this RECAPP program as well?
We are actually working with Education and it’s our desire that this exercise captures condition assessments on all buildings. So that would include schools, health care facilities, wildlife offices, and municipal hamlet community halls, etcetera, including lagoons, and so on.
It doesn’t make practical sense to have more than one exercise around this, so we’re blitzing the communities and capturing information on all the assets in the communities.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again on page H-5, for the Tangible Assets under Rankin Inlet, there is a mobile sewer thaw truck, $400,000 wanting to be approved for that.
Again I’ll just go back to different things that have happened over the past couple of years.
We, at one point, had in the capital estimates for Grise Fiord a $321,000 bulldozer that kind of fell off that for capital assets.
When I asked what happened with it, the minister assured me that it would be something that could be purchased under the Mobile Equipment Fund.
I’m just wondering: for something like this, is that not something the hamlet could purchase through the Mobile Equipment Fund?