EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In some communities, including my constituency, the community centres are about 26 years old.
The communities are growing and there haven’t been any renovations or expansion to the buildings.
I wonder if those communities will be considered because there may be safety issues.
When they perform inspections, the inspection reports are given to the hamlet council.
When those reports come up, will they be included or considered as part of the five year capital plan.
The committee that will go to the communities will work for the department. There will also be a sub committee which will concentrate on how they can make improvements to renovation and also look at how they can be dealt with to include things that do not consume too much energy or have sufficient insulation.
Those are the things that they will look at too, so the communities will be given enough time to say what their concerns are.
If some of us are not elected again, those might not be looked at beyond 2008, so how are they going to be dealt with?
The five year capital plan that we see right now is there.
Some of them are not scheduled until 2010.
After this five year capital plan, how will they look at those?
The planning committee will be giving us a report on the plans.
I am pretty sure that I have stated this before in the House, and perhaps to the standing committee, the five year capital plan is not kept up to date annually because of the fact that some are delayed, or perhaps in one community there was a fire at the school, then what they do is they use that money to build a new school, instead of using the original plan.
If this is the case, then on the long term plans we will try to target those.
I am pretty sure that this will improve things in the future compared to what has been used in the past. This will be another tool for the committee to make improvements.
Item 7: Written Questions.
Written Question 033 – 2(2): Government of Nunavut Expenditures on Advertising
My question is to the Hon. Minister Kilabuk, Minister for Community and Government Services.
For the fiscal years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, how much did the Government of Nunavut expend on print advertising for a) tenders, b) requests for proposals, c) employment opportunities and d) general notices, public advisories or other items.
Tabled Document 145 – 2(2): Government of Nunavut Office of the Fire Marshal 2004 Annual Report
I wish to table the following document: it’s the Government of Nunavut Office of the Fire Marshal 2004 Annual Report.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters; Tabled Document 101 – 2(2), Tabled Document 102 – 2(2), Bill 16, and Bill 17, with Mr. Netser in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:27 and resumed at 15:58
Chairman (Mr. Netser) (interpretation): Thank you for coming back.
During Committee of the Whole, we will deal with Tabled Document 101 – 2(2) and 102 – 2(2), Bill 16 and 17.
We would like to continue our review of Tabled Documents 101 – 2(2) and 102 – 2(2) concurrently and ask that senior officials be prepared to appear as witnesses.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. (interpretation) Do Members agree to proceed with the items mentioned by Mr. Peterson?
Chairman: Thank you. Minister and staff, could you please go to the witness table?
For the record, could you please introduce your witnesses. Mr. Minister?
Again, with me today, to my immediate left; Mr. Tom Rich, Deputy Minister, and to my immediate right, Mr. Mike Rafter, (interpretation ends) He was also with us and they will be here with me today.
Chairman (interpretation): I would like to welcome you, Mr. Minister and your officials. (interpretation ends) In accordance with 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 that wishes to speak has spoken.
Thank you. Are there any questions?
Just a couple of questions on outlining the way that the report was, and I’ll deal with the Procurement and Contracting Report to the standing committee, fiscal year 2003/04.
It’s the one with all the listings of all the contracts in it, it goes up to page 40 of 40 of the contracts.
I noticed when I first looked at this, that there’s 03/04, all contracts details reports and it’s appendix E. There’s one section that deals with air charters and I think that’s two and a half pages and there’s one that goes into architectural engineering and one on construction over a hundred thousand, and then consulting services section.
If you go back before it has a breakdown of what the chart of contract type, whether it be air charters, any of those orders that are outlined there.
Does that total that is in that numbers come from the totals and the sections that are outlined in Appendix E? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My deputy minister will respond to that question.
The descriptive part, the first part with the charts and the diagrams includes all contracts which include the Legislative Assembly contract.
The detail listing in Appendix E is all contracts, but the Legislative Assembly contracts, which were tabled separately.
Chairman: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Tootoo.
When they determine these categories, is there a rationale behind putting them in the category that are outlined in the Appendix C and D, whatever the total one is, too many appendices, the total ones, the one that has the different categories?
Mr. Rich: I’ll ask Mr. Rafter, who is responsible for preparing the report to make that response.
Chairman: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Rafter.
Table 1 on page 20 of 27 is the total for the rows in all of Appendixes C, not including LCA’s for the Legislative Assembly and crown corporations.
When I was looking through the list, everything from the $3.00 one that Mr. Peterson mentioned yesterday to some quite substantial ones, but when I got further through Appendix E, I started noticing that there was some air charters and things that were not in the air charter section, and also some consulting services that were not in the consulting services section.
I was wondering if we have an explanation as to why that happens to be like that.
Yes, as the Member suggested, there were a few errors and with almost 11 thousand contracts, we tried to pick up all the errors in coding that we could.
As the Member did, we discovered after this was printed and distributed, a few errors, we obviously regret that.
This is the first time that we’ve run this sort of report off it.
We caught an enormous amount of coding errors going through.
It also gives us an incentive and reinforces the importance of proper coding when these are first entered into the data base and we are sure that we will pick up all or virtually all of the errors in future years.
Do you have any further questions Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Rich indicated that this was the first time they had printed off a report like this.
As you will recall, there was a document that I had tabled in the house that the Speaker later withdrew because it didn’t have any indication of where it had come from.
Since that time, it was discovered that it was in fact a Community and Government Services document.
I’m just wondering why you didn’t use the information and layout that was in that document because it listed which ones were Inuit, which ones were local, which ones were northern and which ones were outside of the territory.
It had much more detailed information on it as to the nature of the contracts and who the hires were.
Why did they choose not to use that type of a format with this report.
The reports are for two different purposes.
There is, at the request of the NNI Review Committee, various selected reports that are done and obviously critical to that are the issues of Nunavut based companies, Inuit based companies, etcetera.
So, we do custom reports from time to time based on that.
On this one, as I said, this is the first time a judgment had to be made of what fields to include.
We looked at the request from the standing committee and tried to reflect as best we could the requests from the standing committee on the report and we’ll certainly look at what details are included in the report and discuss it with the Minister in future years.
So, I’ll say again, this is the first one.
I’m certain that all of us now see things that we want to change that will make readability easier etcetera.
There was an enormous amount of work for which I want to thank the staff in Community and Government Services in doing this first report of almost 11 thousand contracts.
I can appreciate the amount of work that would have gone into pulling something like this together.
In terms of the fields Mr. Rich made reference to, and how they decided which ones to include, is there other information or other items that were not included in this report and if so, what information is missing that Members might feel would be pertinent or that they might like to see included.
I would just like to find out what’s not there to determine what we might like to see included.
The data that is gathered generates the two reports that we have.
Most of the data is provided or summarized in these reports; the first report being the Procurement and Contracting Report to standing committee and the second report being the Annual Contract Data Report.
I think what I was looking for was, and I’ll just clarify, in this report it has description, location, department, vender, method and award value.
The other report that I talked about had a column for Inuit, northern, local, outside or whatever.
I would take that to be in a field I guess.
I’m just wondering what other fields or other types of information is collected in those reports that isn’t included this report.
Mr. Rafter: Thank you.
The Inuit, northern and local field information could be included in future reports Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
What other fields or what other information is collected in those reports that isn’t included in these ones.
I can bring a sample of the data collection form tomorrow if that would be suitable.
I would just like a listing of the things that they have information on and then we can look at to see if it is information that should be included in their reports.
After we review it, we could make a request to the Minister to have that information included in future reports.
One of the other things that I wondered about when looking through this report is, well I’ll go right to a specific one that I know that the Minister and Members will recall and that is found on page 5 of 40.
It’s on construction over $100 thousand, it’s the second last one there, the Kivalliq Health Center construction to Sanajiit Clark Joint Venture.
PT, is that public tender, is that correct.
Mr. Minister, can you confirm that.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
I wonder why that one is put down as a public tender when we know that it really was a negotiated contract after the public tender process had been put out.
I would assume, and I’ve been watching for this one, that it would have been considered a negotiated contract.
I’ll have to, in all honesty, confess that we don’t know the answer to that.
We can check into the data for that.
That predates, obviously the three of us at this table.
The information that was received was the information that was entered into the contract database, so we would have to go out and pull those specific documents and look at them.
At the time, I think it was just after our sitting in Baker Lake, the Minister went in and negotiated the deal with the Sanajiit Clark Joint Venture.
It wasn’t the lowest bidder on that contract as it turned out to be.
We found after the fact.
They went in and negotiated the price down.
It was still higher than the existing, then, lowest bidder.
One of the rationales behind giving it to this vender was higher Inuit employment intent on the contract.
I’m just wondering if the department that evaluates and monitors these contracts has the Inuit employment report and statistics from that project.
That is something that we’ll have to look into.
We don’t have that information readily available and we’ll have to look into that.
I think one of the excuses that the government of the day gave for moving away from the regular process on a public tender and switching to a negotiated contract after the whole process had been put out publicly was higher Inuit employment that I think they had negotiated I think it was instead of 25 to 35 or 32 percent Inuit employment.
So I would be very interested in seeing exactly whether this experiment worked or not and we actually did see the Inuit employment levels that were achieved on this report.
So would the Minister be willing to provide copies or tabled those Inuit employment statistics and stuff that were kept on that contract?
No; I will commit to looking into providing that to the House once we have it available.
Mr. Tootoo, your time is up at the moment, but there are no names on the list, so maybe I can give you a couple more questions before we move on.
I am just wondering on something like this, and I know it was quite controversial at the time on the method, has that happened on any other cases or in light of the controversy that was raised at that time?
Has any kind of policy or directive or something been drawn up if this is an avenue that the Cabinet is going to go in where it overturns the recommendation of the department and awards it to who they see fit?
Has there been anything drawn up to deal with that in light of what happened in that last contract?
I would like to remind the (interpretation ends) committee that we are dealing with Tabled Documents 101 – 2(2) and 102 – 2(2).
You can ask questions on either one and please refer to the ones that you are asking of.
Well, I could respond in two ways.
There’s the Cabinet decisions where they make the decisions and it’s up to their discretion.
The Cabinet, at this time, have not made any directives or policies on this issue.
I thank the Minister and his officials for coming again today.
I have a question; I will just pick some contracts out at random throughout the report and I am at page 36 of 40 on Tabled Document 101 – 2(2).
There are two contracts here that I am looking at; External Review for Public Works and Services, External Review for Sustainable Development awarded to a company called the Radyls Equities Limited in the amount of $7 thousand, 800 hundred each.
I am wondering if the Minister and his officials can explain what the nature of those two documents were that are titled ‘External Review’?
My understanding is that both of those results from a sequence of all departmental reviews that were done approximately two to three years ago and this was a component of those external reviews at the time.
Every department had engaged in an external review process at that particular point in time.
I thank Mr. Rich.
Are these documents available to Standing Committees or Members of the House?
In regards to the Member’s question, this was the responsibility of the Department of Executive and Inter-Governmental Affairs, we could refer your question to that department.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Peterson, anything else?
I thank the Minister for the answer.
On page 37 of 40 of the same document, about three-fifths of the way down, there’s a contract called ‘Financial Expertise Iqaluit Max Pierce’ for $14 thousand.
Could the Minister or his officials explain what that is for?
I think we have staff here that provide financial experience in the Department of Finance.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This was the responsibility of the Department of Finance.
I will go over to page 40 of 40.
There’s one there: ‘Airlift the P-50 Gas in Kugaaruk and Igloolik’, it says: ‘Location Various, Petroleum Products Division’.
That’s the Minister’s department, so he is here.
I am sure we will get an answer.
The amount of the awarded value is $250 thousand.
I asked a question last year to the Minister about communities that run out of fuel and how much it costs extra for the government to fly fuel in.
I am wondering if the Minister could comment on this particular contract and tell us if the government is still flying in emergency fuel supplies to the communities.
In regards to this issue, we occasionally had to airlift fuel, especially to Kugaaruk, I don’t know if that’s going to be on an annual basis, but we were pleased that Kugaaruk had their sealift delivered first last year.
Mr. Rich could make a supplementary comment.
In the previous, Kugaaruk was only serviceable by a Coast Guard cutter which could not carry in the entire year’s fuel supply.
We did an upgrade of the tank farm in Kugaaruk so it was big enough to contain it, but because we had to transfer the fuel to the Coast Guard, we could not, in one sealift and in one time that they got in through that very limited window for that community, do the entire quantity.
So Petroleum Products Division and the Coast Guard worked closely with Woodward’s to try an experimental run this past summer, which is what the Minister said.
We were delighted that it was successful and for the first time, the fuel ship itself got directly in it, it followed the Coast Guard cutter in.
So we were able, this year, to do a full fuel to Kugaaruk, so we have eliminated the need for the air supply this year, which I understand is the first time there has not had to be an air re-supply to Kugaaruk.
I thank the Minister and Mr. Rich.
Airlifts are issues we will have to contend with as we try to upgrade all of the tank farms across Nunavut.
These are the kinds of costs we can anticipate year after year until our tank farms upgraded.
Kugaaruk was not the only one that had to have airlifted gasoline.
The communities in Baffin Island receive fuel through sealift, but on occasion, there is a necessity to airlift fuel.
Communities are increasingly able to maintain their fuel supplies.
Arctic Bay is the only one now that hasn’t been able to keep up.
We are hoping to see fewer and fewer airlifts going to the communities.
Thank the Minister.
It’s been a concern for many years, communities running out of fuel.
I know the tank farms are undersized.
In many communities, their population are growing, there’s a larger demand.
I recognize that there’ll be some costs until we fully upgrade to the tank farms.
I was trying to get a sense, at what point will all the tank farms and fuel farms in Nunavut be complete and we don’t have any situation where we have to airlift in emergency fuel supplies.
Once we get Arctic Bay on line, we should have all our communities with the capacity to take on the necessary annual fuel re-supply load for all of the Nunavut communities.
On the same page, 40 of 40, at the bottom, the very last contract for the 2003/04 Arctic Winter Games, it was again the Minister’s department, it was First Air in the amount of $949,059.
Is this an annual cost that we anticipate every time the Arctic Winter Games are hosted, whether it’s in Nunavut or elsewhere in Canada?
The information that I have on this, this was for cost of transporting your athletes to and between Nunavut and Fort McMurray, for regionals too, as my deputy reminds me, so it was leading up to and for the games in Fort McMurray.
I thank the Minister. I understand that it was for that, but is this the cost that the Government of Nunavut will pay every time there is an Arctic Winter Games.
Will we be looking at close to a $1 million dollars to transport our athletes to and from the various venues, where ever there held, say in Canada or Greenland?
Obviously, the cost will depend on where it is, the next game, if memory serves me right, are, I’m not sure if it’s the next game or the game coming up, between the next one and the other one after that is in Alaska, and we don’t know what the cost are going to be on that until we do tenders from it.
Obviously three years ago, when the games were in Nunavut, the cost were much less.
There were costs because there were the regionals and territorials to prepare the teams to come to the games.
I might also mention that there is some cost sharing that we do on this, from Sports Canada which does assist on it.
But there’s no question that the air transportation cost, when the games are not in the territory, can be quite substantial.
Thank Mr. Rich.
I forgot about the United States when I was asking this, Canada and Greenland, I forgot about the good northern folks in Alaska.
On Page 33 or 40, there are two contracts. One is a pickup truck 4X4, in Iqaluit from Kingland Ford for $61,831, and then a 2003 Expedition from Kingland Ford.
It must be for more then one Expedition because the amount is $165,900.
I want to ask the Minister’s officials, does the Government of Nunavut have a leasing policy with respect to leasing vehicles, rather then purchasing them?
Hopefully, there’s a formal policy.
Our general procedure is to, for a longer-term duration, if a vehicle is needed for the full service life of a vehicle to in fact purchase the vehicle, in most cases, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to lease the vehicle because the cost of leasing are increased over the cost of purchasing.
If there’s an emergency or a short-term use for a vehicle, which there can be from time to time in a community or a changing needs of a department or we have to wait, we then might entertain leasing, but generally, we don’t lease, we purchase the vehicles.
And then on page 34 of 40 of that document, there’s a contract described as healthcare system; it was awarded by your department to Tanburg Canada Inc. for $503,022.59.
Could the Minister or his officials tell us what we bought for that amount of money?
Yes; that was for the Department of Health and Social Services, Telehealth, I am told.
I thank the Minister for that answer.
On page 26 of 40, near the bottom, Sony Digital Camera through Arctic Ventures 2000 Ltd. for $6,900.
What kind of Sony Digital Camera would you be buying for $6,900?
Mr. Rafter: I am sorry, I am not sure which line item the Member is referring to. Could he repeat his question please?
Chairman: Repeat your question Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, it’s the Sony Digital Camera from the bottom.
We don’t find that item on our list.
Sorry, 26 of 40 is the same one.
Just give us one second, please, Mr. Chairman.
I was told that was a purchase for the Department of Health and Social Services, again.
I just want to get a sense of the different contracts and what they were for.
There’s not an awful lot of description to them.
We might have to make some recommendations for the department to be more descriptive when they prepare their report and how they number the contracts so we could refer to it a little bit quicker.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I also mentioned that maybe we should establish a threshold that the department should not have to report on with so much detail.
Anything under and I am just throwing out numbers, $5,000 might be a number we don’t need.
The Minister is saying $10,000 because it’s a very long report.
I don’t think we need all of that kind of detail on every contract that the Government of Nunavut enters into.
How many did you say yesterday, Mr. Rich, eleven thousand contracts?
That’s a lot of contracts.
Chairman: The next person on the list is Mr. Tootoo.
Now just to follow-up on his.
If he thought $6 thousand, 900 hundred was an expensive digital camera, if we go to page 28 of 40, there’s one digital camera that’s about a third of the way down that’s $8 thousand,500.
How many cameras do you buy for $8 thousand, 500.
Are you guys in competition or what.
I just want you to keep in mind that the digital cameras are for other departments.
What he is referring to is for the Department of Education.
I think the reason that Mr. Peterson and I asked that is again because it goes back to the description.
If it is an $8 thousand, 500 dollar camera then something is wrong here.
If it is for a whole bunch of cameras then that’s different.
But again, in the description, it says it’s for a digital camera.
Those are the kinds of things that we need to look at.
I’ve got no problem if it’s a bunch of cameras but if it’s an $8 thousand, 500 dollar cameras, he may want to look twice at it.
It’s the same as with the one for $6 thousand.